LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Konterr Brilliant and touching

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Kirpianuscus ...I saw this film just as a childish joke. sure, in some measure, as new demonstration of stupid cliches. it is a B film. wit not the worst beginning. and with a handsome Michael Pare. but nothing more. few Romanians actors in small roles. mix of mythology and fake believes. Romano - Catholic priests in Greek - Orthodox churches. Brasov as near place of Bucharest. and decent special effects. yes, I am profound subjective . but this film, like others , are only proofs of experiments in a cheep place from East Europe, with few nice locations, good actors and chance to say absurde stories without limits or good sense.

Wuchak Released in 2004, "Gargoyle: Wings of Darkness" (also known as "Gargoyle" and "Gargoyle's Revenge") is a low budget made-for-TV creature feature about the invasion of gargoyles in modern Romania. It's Grade B all the way and I'm going to review it as such. As far as I know 1972's "Gargoyles" was the first film on the subject and was also made-for-TV. That film dealt with the rebirth and invasion of gargoyles in the American Southwest and starred Cornel Wilde, Jennifer Salt and Scott Glenn. If you've never seen it be sure to check it out because it's a minor masterpiece for what it is and proves that you don't have to have a huge budget to make a good movie. "Gargoyles: Wings of Darkness" is sort of a sequel in the sense that it shares many of the same elements of "Gargoyles" (e.g. gargoyle cocoons hatching in a cave, a gargoyle attacking a speeding car by getting on the roof, etc.); the main difference of course is that the invasion takes place in Romania and the gargoyles are all CGI as opposed to stunt people in cool rubber costumes. Is "Wings of Darkness" as good as "Gargoyles"? I'd say no, but it's hard to say for a few reasons. For instance, "Gargoyles" was the first of its kind, as far as gargoyles go, and there was nothing else like it in the early 70s; hence, it's easy to view it favorably with nostalgia-tinged glasses. "Wings of Darkness" came out 32 years later amidst a glut of low-budget creature features, including many with winged monsters like the two "Jeepers Creepers" flicks, not to mention later films like "Wyvern" (2009) and "Roadkill" (2011), which are both well done. What if "Wings of Darkness" came out in '72 and was the first flick of its kind? I'm sure it'd be regarded more highly. Okay, why am I giving "Wings of Darkness" a 7/10 Star rating? Because it's good for what it is and tries hard to entertain. For one thing, many scenes are reminiscent of the Hammer films of the 60s and early 70s; needless to say, if you like Hammer you'll probably appreciate this flick. But what do I mean by "tries hard to entertain"? I mean that director/co-writer Jim Wynorski throws everything in but the kitchen sink in an effort to entertain the viewer; there are so many crazy ideas and subplots thrown in that it's almost impossible to get bored during the 87-minute runtime. Here's a list of items: Ancient Gargoyles with offspring being born from "Alien"-like cocoons. The gargoyles don't look bad for CGI, although to be expected they're kinda cartooney; plus you get quite a few good looks at 'em, including close-ups; there's even a prominent scene where a gargoyle attacks in broad daylight. Authentic Romanian locales with lots of castles, ancient churches, graveyards and mountain vistas. A terrorist kidnapping. A wild shoot-'em-up car chase. Mulder & Scully-like CIA agents (Michael Paré and Sandra Hess) and their investigation into the gar-thing phenomenon. A "cool" drug-lord and his sinister nightclub. A satanic ritual with quasi-altar sacrifice and requisite scantily-clad wenches. Rival drug gangs. Dracula's castle (actually Vlad the Impaler). Another wild car chase; this time with a winged gargoyle along a spectacular mountainside road.Other than Sandra Hess, a stunning brunette leading lady, Dr. Christina Durant (Kate Orsini). In fact, the film's full of incredibly gorgeous women, like Hammer. How can all this stuff possibly gel together in a coherent story? I don't know but it's not bad for a low-budget TV monster flick. On the downside, some of the acting/dialogue is kinda wooden or unconvincing as if the actors first read the script that morning, but that's to be expected in this type of Grade-B creature-on-the-loose movie; it's not "Apocalypse Now" after all. Also, at one point the movie mixes-up gargoyles with dragons, which is strange since they're two totally different mythological creatures; although I'm not sure 'gargoyle' can legitimately qualify as a creature since the term is actually a word of French derivation meaning "water-throat" referring to ornamental fixtures or grotesques on Gothic era cathedrals who's mouths served as water spouts to facilitate the flow of rain buildup from their roofs. A quick search on Google reveals little as far as supernatural mythology of gargoyles and chimera, the non-functional grotesque variety that were added as pure decorations. Some mention is made of tales regarding the gargoyle forms as guarding their cathedrals during the night in a living form and then returning to their stoned state during the day, but such tales were created after the fact to explain why they were so commonly seen. Humans have always had a ghoulish, darker side and the forms stuck in the popular consciousness. So enterprising 14th century devotees came up with a fanciful explanation for why they were there for young inquisitive minds, perhaps as a put-on to scare kids into finishing their vegetables. There are no tales of gargoyles having banded together with Satan to do his bidding on Earth as depicted in the 1972 film's commanding prologue, and in fact the opposite is actually what is implied since they were guarding churches. If you're into gargoyles, Hammer Films or creature features in general you should check this one out. Like I said, it tries hard to entertain despite the low budget. It's at least an enjoyable guilty pleasure.GRADE: B

EllenRipley112 This is just one of the hundred million movies where the directors try to shove too much drama into a movie that's not dramatic at all. Like in the beginning, the part where the monk dude shoved the arrow into his own hand, then shot that same arrow into the gargoyle five minutes later--no sense whatsoever.The only thing worse than the plot line is the CGI, which would be greatly rivaled by a homemade flash movie. The actors look like they're doing their hardest to portray a bunch of 70's robots; the dialogue makes so little sense it's not funny.Many things just HAPPEN with no explanation as to how or why, such as a lady suddenly wandering around a zoo that had shut down hours ago. And when she sees this THING flying towards her, her first reaction is to take a picture, rather than what she does a full ten minutes later---power-walking (not even running) like her life depended on it--which, obviously, it doesn't.Overall, not recommended. Makes me wish they still did new episodes of MST3K.

Brandt Sponseller After a brief Van Helsing-styled prologue establishing gargoyles in historical Romania and implying that they've been trapped under the ground, Gargoyle: Wings of Darkness (the title given by the film as well as the video box) takes us to modern day Romania, where Ty Griffin (Michael Paré) and Jennifer Wells (Sandra Hess) are working on the kidnapping of a public official's son. While chasing the kidnappers, Ty discovers that one has suddenly disappeared--only valuable cargo and a large bloodstain remain. Meanwhile, two archaeologists/historians, Christina Durant (Kate Orsini) and Richard Barrier (Jason Rohrer) are working in a church that we realize has a connection with the prologue. How will they all tie together, and what will they do if a gargoyle is on the loose again? Although Gargoyle is a bit awkward in a couple spots--the pacing isn't quite as smooth as it could be--I really enjoyed the film. Director/co-writer Jim Wynorski has a long history making campy, low-budget exploitation horror films (which is a positive in my eyes) and his experience shows. Gargoyle looks much more high-budget and "high-class" than a lot of his other work, but it still retains a sense of fun, freshness and finely honed craft that comes from being a veteran.So imagine my surprise when I check out the other reviews on IMDb and see that to date, the film is almost universally loathed. While reading through most of the other comments, I couldn't help feeling that the majority of them were simply ridiculous. While I can see many filmgoers not pronouncing Gargoyle a masterpiece, I can't see giving this film a failing grade. Like usual, it was clear that the reviewers who hated the film must have had bizarre expectations.Despite the detective/crime/action elements that are prominent in the scene immediately following the prologue (and which were handled brilliantly in my view), Gargoyle is at its heart a monster flick, and a fairly traditional one at that. Surprisingly, a number of people commented on various facets of Gargoyle seeming implausible. Monster films are a subgenre of horror, and horror is really "dark fantasy", or "dark fairy tales" (there are some difficult cases for that description, such as serial killer biopics, but "dark fantasy" works for most of the genre). Thus, Gargoyle is not a documentary. So it really doesn't matter if, for example, gargoyles were unheard of in Romania until recently. It doesn't matter if the CIA doesn't do the work they're shown doing here. You should expect Gargoyle to be implausible--hopefully, you don't believe that giant flying gargoyles are real or believable; when that's the premise, it's not the filmmaker's fault if you expect but do not get plausibility.At that, the film references a number of historical facts. Wynorski and his cohorts actually did a fair amount of research for the film. For example, they talk about the historical Dracula, Vlad Tepes, and contextualize the "reality" versus the myths that were built up around him. They actually went to the trouble of finding a property that looks remarkably similar to the famous 19th Century pencil sketch of the ruins of Castle Dracula (you can see it Chapter 6 of Raymond T. McNally and Radu Florescu's book, In Search of Dracula). They also insert a number of clever references to past horror films. One of the principal homes of villainy in the film is named Castle Orlok, which comes from Graf Orlok, the name of the Dracula character is F.W. Murnau's 1922 classic, Nosferatu. There is a reference to Vasaria, the village introduced in Ghost of Frankenstein (1942). There are obvious visual references to the Alien films. They also reference real-life horror culture, such as "vampire clubs".Other reviewers complained about the special effects. CGI is the only means available to produce this kind of film at this kind of budget. Yes, the cgi in the film looks "fake". Again, hopefully no one would think that a huge flying gargoyle would look real, anyway. It's a fantasy token. You have to use your imagination when watching fantasy. Mechanicals/animatronics of flying gargoyles would have looked "fake" too, and would have raised the budget to 100 million. One person commented that the cgi appears as if Wynorski's crew had been trying to capture the look of Ray Harryhausen claymation ala the Sinbad films, and another said that the effects had a 1950s flavor. Believe it or not, a lot of us love Harryhausen's work and monster flicks from the 1950s; so if the cgi has that look, we think it's a good thing. As for the look of the blood and "gore" effects, I thought they were well done. They were stylized and artistic. I like that. To repeat, the film is not a documentary; the blood and gore do not have to look like crime scene photos to be good.Others complained about the performances. The dialogue and acting seemed more than fine to me. I'm not sure what anyone would find unsatisfactory there. The film is a bit campy, but intentionally so--remember Wynorski's roots, after all, and camp is not at all unprecedented for a monster flick. If you like monster flicks, you probably have a fair taste for camp. The one thing that I do agree with most reviewers about is the comment regarding the female cast members--they are all exceptionally, enchantingly beautiful. So even if you don't like the performances, there is plenty of eye candy when it comes to the cast as long as you're attracted to women.Gargoyle had a remarkably modern feel to me. To a large extent, it actually reminded me of "Special Unit 2" (2001) an unfortunately short-lived, campy horror television show that was also unjustly slammed by some critics. It's extremely important to have appropriate expectations when watching a film like Gargoyle. As long as you like the genre and the tone, you should find the film sufficiently entertaining.