User reviews

When I started watching this I thought it was going to be really boring and didn't pay much attention to what was going on. However, it seems that The Runestone is one of those films that improves as it goes on, because things seemed to pick up in the second half. The mystery surrounding the monster slowly sucks you in. The best scene is in the art museum, where a girl is doing some ironing (in a display box thingy) and people are watching her. Suddenly the monster bursts in and attacks her, and blood sprays across the windows. One of the people watching then says: "What's the artist trying to say?" to which another replies "Housework kills". The monster then bursts through the glass and attacks them too. This scene is priceless and definitely worth seeing the film for! There are a few other cool scenes after this which keep you watching. The acting is quite decent and better than most horror flicks.

Overall, The Runestone is worth a watch for horror fans who can tolerate a bit of cheese.

The miners discover strange runestone in the mine.The runestone is transported to New York.Not long after that an archaeologist Martin Almquist,while studying a discovery,cuts his finger and becomes a blood-thirsty monster.This creature-on-the-loose flick isn't very good,but isn't completely bad either.The film tries to be scary and exciting at the same time,some lines are also pretty funny.No gore at all-for me the lack of blood is disappointing.The acting is acceptable,the monster is creepy looking and kills so many cops that it has to be seen to be believed.Good for the rainy day,just don't expect anything special.My rating:5/10.

Just another monster on the loose feature, no surprises abound and routine as ever but remains entertaining for while it lasted. Never have I heard of it, until just recently. You could possibly see why. Far from memorable, but it's well made and its stark-like b-grade material (adapted off a novel) is quite polished. Fans of "The Relic" or even "Rawhead Rex" might get something out of it. Where I give it props is the origin of the mythological beast, Norse (Viking) folklore and the creation was something like a werewolf crossed ape design. Formidable in appearance, while it goes about tearing flesh, taking bites and for most part staying in the shadows. Even with this ancient prophecy background, some things felt a little unclear (like that of Alexander Godunov's mysterious stranger clockmaker character) if too black and white. The plot follows that of an archaeologist who uncovers an ancient Norse artifact; a power stone and returns to New York with it. However this stone possesses an evil which projects itself into the archaeologist, transforming him into a vicious beast that goes about terrorising the people of New York. Now it's up to an archaeologist and his artist wife to begin to investigate the threat and figure a way to stop it. It's as simple as that, but director / writer Willard Carroll's methodical handling is stylishly glassy and well-paced in its clichéd structure. Creating some moments of suspense, with grisly jolts and dark atmospheric encounters consisting of brooding lighting amongst its urban framework. The performances are strongly delivered with the likes of Peter Riegert (providing touches of humour) and Joan Severance standing out. You also have character actor William Hickey and the always hard-boiled Lawrence Tierney in small, but important parts.

"I'm sure there's a logical explanation to all of this"

I must comment on this film. It's one of my favorites. It superbly blends Norse mythology and imaginative writing to deliver a gripping, suspenseful tale. The script is witty and fast-paced. The Runestone is actually somewhat of an intelligent film. Sure, this is a lower budget project; but the director spent his money well. He put considerable effort into developing the characters. The monster is truly frightening. The production values are excellent. Some of the scenes possess a surreal quality that I really enjoy. The cast is certainly up to the task. Joan Severence gives an compelling, vivacious performance. In fact, everyone in the film is entertaining. The melding of the New York avant garde art world with Norse archaeology in various scenes is one of the elements that let this film enthrall the viewer. Its a fun ride to just sit back and enjoy the ambience and imagination of it all.

I consider "The Runestone" one of the top films in the monster genre. I think that once you see it you will too.

The Runestone is one of those early 90's efforts that relied on lighting effects to disguise the dreadful creature. It's a really messy feature that gets by barely on its decent cast.

Telling the story of a man who makes a deal with a Runestone and becomes the Norse creature known as Fenrir which lore has it is a fierce wolf yet in this appears more yeti-like.

William Hickey and Peter Riegert put on their usual excellent performances and the latter some much needed comic relief. Remember that long blonde haired head henchman from the original Die-hard film? Well he hams it up here as well and is almost as bad as the creature itself.

Generally features of this type from this period I found entertaining but this is an absolute mess from start to the extremely poor finale.

The Good:

William Hickey

Peter Riegert

The Bad:

Poor plot

Fenrir looks pretty damn terrible

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Modern art is not subjective it's stupid and pretentious

Giant monsters can easily sneak into the backseat of your car while you're in it without you noticing

You know those movies with a cool idea and set up that should have been a lot better? This movie is one of them.

A mysterious runestone is discovered in Pennsylvania and taken to the city, where it turns out to have housed the Norse wolf Fenrir. Fenrir escapes and goes on a killing spree. It turns out that the ancient Viking explorers who arrived to America left Fenrir off inside the runestone (thanks, Nords!) and now that he's been unleashed, he's set to begin Ragnarok (aka, Nordic doomsday).

Again, it's a cool premise, and with an awesome soundtrack, decent acting, and capable directing, this film has promise. Unfortunately, the movie gets dumb, and it gets dumb quick. For one, I'd like to know how Fenrir intends to destroy the world when he seems to mostly just do random killing on the street (I've read a little on Ragnarok, and Fenrir's role is a LITTLE MORE involved than just going around killing thugs and homeless guys. Furthermore, it is established early that guns don't work on Fenrir. One character, a police detective, even figures this out from firsthand experience. Despite this, people seem to continually think that a bunch of guys armed with guns are able to fight Fenrir off. Nobody seems to stop and think, "Hey! Wait a minute! Guns don't work! Maybe we should look for SOMETHING ELSE to fight this beast with!" As a result, a lot of policemen needlessly die (and of course, nobody in the city or press ask why half the police force just went bye bye). It's a personal pet peeve of mine when characters don't seem to adjust accordingly, like any sane rational person would. Remember the "Prince of Space" episode of MST3K where Crow shouts to the characters, "YOUR WEAPONS HAVE NO AFFECT ON HIM!" That's how I felt near the end of this movie. I have to also admit that the monster design is a bit disappointing. No, I'm not bummed it wasn't CG. The monster suit itself is actually pretty impressive...however, I just feel like a powerful Nordic spirit would look a little different than a glorified werewolf.

There are also some unintentionally funny moments. For example, when the character of Martin attacks a girl, another character says, "Martin! What the h--- are you doing?!" to which Martin replies, "Martin is doing THIS!" and punches him. Then there's another scene where Fenrir puts on a police cap and kills a policeman while wearing it. Really?! The film lost all seriousness for me at that point. I seriously expected Abbot and Costello to appear on the scene after that.

Like I said before, the film had amazing potential. It started out really well for the first forty-five minutes or so, but then it starts to go downhill quick. There is plenty to commend this film for, but in the end it just doesn't work out.

When will you Americans learn about the rest of the world ? What exactly is the "Norse" mythology ? You probably mean Norwegian mythology ? But that's not correct either ! What you really should talk about in this matter is Scandinavian mythology, and if you don't know what countries that Scandinavia consist of that's really a shame. But since I, am a nice guy I will tell you. Scandinavia consists of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Finland. And they all where (except Finland) what you in the rest of the world call "vikings" ! The fact that the "vikings" really didn't exist at all, at least not in the way that you probably think they did is another story all together

//Karl (from Sweden)

Forgive me if I am wrong but there was something just plain missing from THE RUNESTONE, one of about three Viking Horror idiom films where ancient Viking curses lead to modern day havoc and mayhem. I was able to track down this one and a movie called THE BERSERKER, which won the contest easily by being a silly, sleazy, lurid backwoods hacker. This movie thinks it is HIGHLANDER material, and for the second time in a week I get to fault a horror movie from the late 80s/early 90s for not being sleazy enough. I am not sure when the era of "respectable" medium budget horror started (right after CREEPSHOW 2, maybe) but it resulted in a decades worth of uninteresting no-scares and no-offense meant horror efforts. The whole point of making a horror film is to give a young filmmaker the freedom to be as offensive as they see fit. Real talent doesn't come from disciplining yourself at first, it comes from letting it all hang out and RUNESTONE seemed to have a preoccupation with being respectable.

The monster was cool though: At some point the film switches gears, transforming itself from a DA VINCI CODE-esquire thriller about ancient artifacts, manuscripts, talismans and glowering white haired Swedes into a busy, loud and amusingly obnoxious monster movie. Here we get to see Norse god of war Odin personified by a big rubber costumed goon with glowing eyes, cloven hoofs and a head peaked by a tangle of horns. If only the film hadn't exhausted my ability to understand what the point of it was by then. The gore is ultra low-key, the nudity and sexual content more suggested and non male gaze oriented than usual, and the hero was difficult to care about. The only real sparks in the film that registered in my brain were scenes where "Resevoir Dogs'" Lawrence Tierney gets to chew the scenery as a loud mouth clam-headed police captain between various killings, none of which inspired much dread, alarm or interest to be memorable.

The HIGHLANDER comparisons come because the bulk of the film is set in New York City and involves large, open-spaced townhouses that are so expensive to rent that the only people who can afford to make use of them are set designers for movies. And the use of medieval weapons like broadswords, battle axes and a good icy glare from beneath hooded eyebrows. Seeing Alexander Gudanov dressed up like a Nordic Thomas Dolby to battle this costume designer's vision of Odin didn't provide much of a payoff, and the tail end of the film is filled with so many collapsing townhouse floors that the movie became a sort of ironic commentary on, yes, the 9/11 WTC tower collapse, caused by the weakening of the support girders and the pankcaking floors falling one on top of the other. I didn't see any puffs of dust but am pretty sure that these floors collapsed due to a controlled demolition so 9/11 Truth conspiracy buffs might want to check this film out to help your "research" into proving that Bush blew up the towers. And if all else fails you can post screengrabs of Odin with his eyes all glowing real demonic like and claim that they are non-doctored pictures of Condoleeza Rice.

I think the bottom line here is that horror movies in general took a nose dive during the 1990s due to this frenzied rush to not offend anyone, which may explain why the sleazy Euro Horror years of the 1970s have proved to be so popular now on retrospect. RUNESTONE created nothing new, accomplished nothing notable and is probably only remembered by the scattershot few who bothered renting it as a home video release and perhaps yearn for the good old days when you could go out & rent three movies for $5.00 on a weeknight, watch them safe and secure knowing that your life with not be changed by any of them, there will be three more just like it to check out the following night, there will be no reason to ever watch any of them ever again, and your girlfriend won't be put off by gratuitous exploitational nudity or gross icky gore. Heaven forbid!!

3/10

At its core, The Runestone is a fairly routine '90s straight-to-DVD monster movie: an archaeologist examining an ancient Norse runestone releases Fenrir, the evil wolf-demon trapped within, and is transformed into the savage hairy creature for his trouble. However, the film has a distinctly askew vibe about about it that sets it apart from other creature features of the day, with awkward exchanges of dialogue, incongruous comedic moments, a few strange shots (the monster's claw moving past a full moon during a sex scene with no nudity), a notable lack of gore despite numerous deaths at the jaws and claws of the monster, and a thundering score more suited to a Bruce Willis action movie. Whether this off kilter approach was intentional, or simply the result of inexperience on the part of first time director Willard Carroll, I cannot say, but it makes the film a little more unusual and consequently more engaging.

The film reaches its crazy best during an exhibition at a fancy gallery, Fenrir invading a piece of performance art and tearing the participant to pieces, only for the violence to be admired by pretentious art lovers, although another scene in which the monster sneaks into the back of a police car and wears the cop's hat is almost as bizarre.

Joan Severance and Tim Ryan star as married experts Marla and Sam, and Die Hard heavy Alexander Godunov plays a mystical clockmaker, Sigvaldson, but Peter Riegert and Lawrence Tierney steal the show, Riegart as gum-chewing, Uzi-toting Italian police captain Fanducci, and Tierney as his gruff, ass-chewin' chief.

This was never going to have been a masterpiece but it need never have been as bad as it is. The combination of sloppy direction, amateur editing, and some unbelievably bad actors leave the film floundering. There are exceptions, Joan Severance and Peter Riegert are professsional and competent, but the chaos around them is overwhelming and they would probably rather that this monstrosity was removed from there filmographies! The plot though preposterous could have formed the basis of decent movie but one gets the impression that not enough time was put into tightening up the script so that the dialogue regularly lurches into the farcical. If you are fans of either Joan Severance or Peter Riegert, both fine film actors, then perhaps you should pass this one by and look to their other work!

A modest monster movie made with a very limited budget on a not so bad idea (that unfortunately gets confused in the course of the movie): the Vikings came to America about 900 years before Columbus to leave a runestone that imprison Fenris, a wolf-god of the ancient time that is revived and let loose in an American modern town, creating havoc and massacre. Well, before the end the menace will be overcome, of course, but I don't tell you how. The only good reason to watch this movie was the presence of the gorgeous Joan Severance, but, alas, this is one of the movies in which she keeps her clothes on (really a bad idea). FX are really bad, but if you like a bad modern B-movie you may still enjoy it

Wow- what a waste of $1.99! I like cheese, but this is 'stinky cheese' of the smelliest kind!! Save your leisure time & money & rent a Sybil Danning werewolf movie instead!!! Bad pacing, confusing direction, pedestrian acting, cheap visual effects, hokey creature effects (John Carl Buechler- where were you?) and a performance by Alexander Godunov that doesn't seem connected to the same movie adds up to a mishmash the likes I've not seen since my Community College film class days. In defense of the one actor who was completely believable, the raccoon in the woods witnessing the carnage should probably have gotten an honorary Oscar for his convincing reaction shots. Don't get me wrong- I love low budget monster movies and B grade actors, but this one left me feeling, well, stone cold.

This one is a perfect example of 80's cinema squirming its way into 90's cinema. The story involves an architect whose unrequited love signs him a pact with the Norse demon Fenrir, who takes control of his body. Werewolfish Fenrir can only be destroyed by a Christopher Lambert-esque clock maker and a well-read teenage boy. David Newman's (Heathers, Frankenweenie) melodramatic score makes this movie stand up a notch above the rest. This one is a winner for fans of movies like Warlock and Bad Moon.

"The Runestone" is a conglomeration of ideas, some good, but mostly bad. The mythological reasoning for a Norse discovering of America, long before Christopher Columbus, is shear genius. It seems that the Norwegians had a monster, closely resembling "Pumpkinhead", that they wished to dispose of. Tricking the beast and entombing him in a gigantic rock, they then set sail for the farthest disposal land they could find, thus stumbling upon America, and dumping their unwanted rock in what is now Pennsylvania. This concludes the good ideas. Once their rock is unearthed in a coal mine, and brought to New York City, we get a standard monster on the loose affair. It is a real shame that an intriguing cast, including William Hickey, Lawrence Tierney, Peter Riegert, and Joan Severance, is so badly wasted here. Another uneasy element is the weak attempt to throw levity into the mix, although there is one "Paul Bartel type" dark comedy moment in an art gallery, that is definitely worth seeing. - MERK

This film has some pretty good character actor and B movie talent behind it. It's also got a cool story set-up, borrowing the idea of Ragnarok from Norse Mythology for a horror film.

Unfortunately the end result is... not great.

From the crazy angles of shots to the overly dramatic framing of some scenes, it just gets tiresome to watch. I get the director was going for something that would make you feel uncomfortable, but the over-use of low-angle shots of sweating faces doesn't do much except annoy after you've seen it for the tenth time.

The acting from veterans of B movies is also really odd, basically cause the script is so badly written no one can make this thing believable.

The whole film feels odd and off, with some shots looking decent to others looking like Uwe Boll made them with his patented "point a camera in the vague direction of the actors" method of filmmaking. The acting is so wooden and stilted that you end up cringing half the time.

One scene is supposed to give us the impression that two old flames are rekindling their lust for one another, but the lady touches the guy's arm with all the emotion of a plank of wood leaning against a brick wall.

And it commits the cardinal sin of bad movies - it's dull. None of the characters are interesting and the monster takes too long to show up, resulting in a movie that really isn't worth watching, unless you need some background noise while you paint some miniatures or something.

HEY EVERYBODY ITS ME (4) and today we review .........my pet rock ...THE MOVIE !!!

Once again we visit 1991 .... a GREAT year for creature features and sci fi horror ........where monsters literally run rampant ......good times ....

here we have a mix of "warlock" meets "and american werewolf in paris " kind of ? .... its more like they said ...you know .... we have this werewolf suit we bought last halloween BUT the budget fell through for that film SO we wrote up this crazy idea for a ruin thing ... magic rock summons demon, and we play off the raging newyork art culture boom right now ... ya that should do the trick ..... BAM this film was born

the monster is decent though .... i mean .. MAYBE could have gone a bit more demon than werewolf .... or else maybe NOT talk about it being a canine at one point ... like ... it kind of gives off the idea that at some point maybe they DID start writting a werewolf film ... i can totally see that , this COULD very easily be turned into one with just a couple of scene cuts ......heck they could have made 2 films for the price of one with a good editor .... i mean .. im cheap they should have it me up .... even though i was only in the 9th grade (i think lol)

over all for a creature feature its great , it has all the classic elements and the story, the acting the FX ...its your run of the mill monster flick so awesome ... any fan of the genre will love it ....no complaints here .......except the ones i have lol........LIKE - why would she still have a painting of her EX at her house with her new husband ? ...LOL talk about red flags .......that new guy should probably have just said "naaa im good lady lets not do this whole married thing" and he would have avoided the entire mess of werewolf ex problem ....

7/10.

OK - I had to throw in my two cents after I read a reviewer professing The Relic to be a BETTER film?! What! Firstly - The Relic sucked. Period. No scares, no thrills, no suspense, totally ridiculous, horrible direction. It was one of the horror movies you go to opening night amongst a packed theater and afterwards everyone just kinds of sighs "man that was anti-climatic". The Relic on the other hand is a good little monster movie, and it's certainly compelling and hold's interest. It had a nice thick atmosphere and a good build - some good scares and laughs. This is a good Saturday night at home w/popcorn, soda, and wine, kind of movie.

Check it out!