It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

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

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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

Some CIA types travel to Romania to look into a kidnapping. What they find is an ancient evil reborn, in the form of a gargoyle. Not a bad plot, and the movie starts out with a sense of mystery and dread even though we know this resurrected gargoyle is the real culprit. Michael Pare is the lead, and he is as wooden as ever. The gargoyle itself is pretty effective, better than a lot of other CGI creations. The Romanian backdrops are used to decent effect, but in the end the movie proves yet another Sci-Fi Channel dog. There is a gargoyle movie from the 1960s or early '70s with Cornel Wilde that puts this baby to shame, even with far less sophisticated special effects (the gargoyle is a man in a rubber suit, for instance).

Underneath a Romanian Catholic church's graveyard lies a breeding ground of eggs containing gargoyles an evil priest is harvesting for Armegeddon as the mother creature is out flying the skies looking for victims to munch on. Michael Paré and Sandra Hess are American agents working on a case regarding a criminal who was snatched away by the mother gargoyle monster, trying to determine what had caused his death, among a string of attacks concerning the beast. Kate Orsini is an art curator helping to restore and modernize the Catholic church where creepy corrupt priest Fintan McKeown is secretly working against his clergy hoping to unleash an army of hatched gargoyles on an unsuspecting public. Petri Roega is a priest sent by the Vatican to replace McKeown and indeed knows what his plans are. Paré will hook up with Orsini after reporting to her after learning about her missing co-workers..in their search for truth regarding bizarre crime scenes and elaborate pictures of gargoyles found in a book of study on McKeown's desk(..not to mention Orsini's discovery of a missing painting hidden in the Catholic church she is working on containing a gargoyle)they will soon learn about a special crossbow and blood-blessed arrows meant to use on the mother gargoyle sweeping down and snatching human food. Tim Abell, a Wynorski regular, has a supporting role as Lex, a showman who passes himself off as a cult leader of vampirism finding a devoted following of goth-obsessed flunkies who frequent his club for kicks. Abell sees himself what the gargoyle can do when it swoops down taking out a gang of thugs who wish to take over Bucharest's streets. Another Wynorski regular Arthur Roberts has a small role as a Bishop who lives within the ruins of a castle on the outskirts of Bucharest who holds the special crossbow and gives knowledge to Paré and Orsini regarding the gargoyle on the loose.Serious creature feature from Wynorski plays it completely straight unlike his usual efforts, certainly relies heavily on computer generated monsters which look more like giant bats when cloaked in the darkness of night or within the catacombs underneath the graveyard. Wynorski does, when given a chance, direct films geared towards fans of sci-fi/horror/action, but rarely has sufficient funds to finance a feature with superior special effects. When the gargoyle charges towards the camera, that's when the computer generated effects are truly exposed. Wynorski actually focuses more on plot than usual with a cast keeping a straight face with Paré coasting on his charisma. I think fans of Sci-fi channel monster movies will find this better than most of their usual fare, but I'm not sure that's an insult or a compliment for Wynorski's movie. I love gargoyles, but even the finest CGI monster would pale in comparison to the animatronic wonders created by the ingenuity and artistic skill of the crew for the "Lover's Vow" tale in Tales from the Darkside-The Movie(1990). Like other directors who wish not to give their correct name in the directorial credit, Wynorski uses the alias of Jay Andrews. The movie doesn't really separate itself from the gluttony of monster movies that have populated Sci-fi channel over the years so don't expect any really big surprises.

This is yet another Gutter grade "B" movie, exactly the type I like.The CGI is a bit better then average for this style of campy low budget movie, and certainly watchable. The gore is minimal but effective. This movie has a real great car chase in the opening 15 min, and the Church sets are mouth dropping beautiful,Romania must be a beautiful place.Michel pare is a bit wooden in this but watchable (I always thought we would make it into the big league...oh well). The rest of the cast are watchable and capable actors, the dialog can be a bit stiff, but who cares? The story was fun and pretty fast paced.The action good, and the gargoyles, for the budget just fine.Worth a watch.