Customer Reviews

The Omen (Widescreen Edition)

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(39)
2 star:		(22)
1 star:		(29)

 

 

This is a decent re-make of a first class, gothic chiller. It is not, however, as creepy as the 1976 original, which starred Gregory Peck and Lee Remick, as it lacks Jerry Goldsmith's pulse pounding musical score. It also has a younger cast that lacks the gravitas of the original. Still, the film is still worth viewing, if only to see how it fares in comparison to the original, especially as the screenplay used appears to be the original one.

Katherine (Julia Stiles) and Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) are a young, affluent American couple. Katherine is pregnant and, while in Italy, gives birth to an ostensibly stillborn boy, a fact that is kept from her. Knowing how much his wife wanted the baby and the difficulty that she had in conceiving, Robert agrees to have the dead baby supplanted by a living newborn whose mother died in child birth, keeping this information from Katherine. They name this baby Damien.

All goes well for the prosperous Thorn family, until Damien (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) turns five. A series of dramatic, unusual events begin to occur around the Thorns, all seemingly stemming from Damien. Well guarded by a somewhat creepy nanny (Mia Farrow), there are those who would believe him to be the Antichrist. By the time that Katherine and Robert begin to realize who Damien may truly be, their lives are out of control. With the aid of an inquisitive photographer, a repentant priest, and an mysterious man who holds the key to the destruction of the Antichrist, Robert Thorn becomes a man with a mission. Will Damien let him complete that mission? Watch this movie and find out.

Both Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles give credible performances, though they are no Gregory Peck or Lee Remick. Mia Farrow, as the nanny with a diabolical mission, gives a fine and genuinely creepy performance, aided in part by what appears to be a pair of collagen enhanced lips. The rest of the supporting cast is also excellent. While this re-make pales in comparison to the original, it is still enjoyable and worth watching.

I've never seen the original THE OMEN, so - unlike most reviewers - I'm not going to compare this movie to the original; I'll simply judge it on its own merits. Unfortunately, this film is seriously lacking in merits.

Now, I understand that horror movies are unlike other movies. Their primary purpose is to startle, creep-out and disturb. So - if the dialogue is a little mannered, or if the characters aren't fully developed - well, these shortcomings can be forgiven ... but COME ON! The dialogue in THE OMEN is *ridiculously* flat and uninspired. I do not exaggerate when I say it is as if a high school student penned the script. And, while Schrieber does a passable job with his role, Stiles generates one of the worst performances I have ever seen. She should be embarrassed. The one and only star performance is Farrow's; as the nanny, she is creepier than the anti-Christ child (and it did bring a smile to my face to see the star of ROSEMARY'S BABY cast in this film: nice touch).

The sophomoric script and vapid acting wouldn't be as noticeable if the movie were actually scary. Unfortunately, other than a few merely startling moments, there is nothing terrifying about this film. Mind you, this is coming from a woman who rarely watches horror films and is very easily frightened. I had nightmares after I watched DONNIE DARKO for the first time. However, rather than squirm with anticipation (which is the effect most horror films have on me), I spent most of this movie rolling my eyes at the laughable script and poking holes in the story's logic (Are all tombs in Italy that easy to open? How did the photographer know that the maternity ward was on the third floor? Why would an attempted child-murderer get a funeral with full military honors?).

To be fair, I did like the fact that THE OMEN attempted to create terror out of atmosphere and tension rather than out of violence and gore. But the key word here is "attempted." This movie was never able to create a sense of terror.

Basically, this is a silly film. The story is not very interesting. The acting is weak. It is not frightening. I absolutely do not recommend it.

Avoid at all costs! This remake didn't translate at all. The whole movie is bad joke. Many of the character's actions are illogical to the point of stupidity. This may be a good on a rainy day when there's nothing good to do.

A re-make of the original horror classic of 1976, this film offers nothing more than the original film has already given us, besides some admittedly impressive death scenes.
This re-make is far below the standard set by the original film. The acting is stiff and stilted, with Liev Schreiber (as Robert Thorne) giving a thoroughly one-noted performance which proved to be quite frustrating to watch for over two hours. Even when he finds out about the incredibly terrible events that consistently occur throughout the film, Schreiber keeps an indifferent expression on his face. This undoubtedly makes many problems arise; how can the audience get involved in a movie if the actors are unconvincing in their roles? Julia Stiles does well, but she doesn't work in her role as Robert Thorne's wife, but Mia Farrow as Mrs. Baylock gives the film a bit of a spark in an otherwise dull film.
The main thing is, is it scary? Damien is creepy enough, and there are some OK dream sequences that offer a couple of good jump scares. But this is all it offers in scares. The film is basically just a re-shooting of the original scenes, except they lack the energy and tension. There is no sense of foreboding, and it's almost as if the film makers and actors were just bored and wanting to get it over and done with; it's as if they hardly cared about making a good film. What was meant to be a gripping, horrific and intense viewing experience right up to the stunning climax becomes a boring and plodding time, and you just about lose interest in the whole story, and the characters.
Overall, a very disappointing re-make, which begs the question: Why did they re-make it in the first place?

Why anyone would try to remake a hit movie like "The Omen" starring Gregory Peck and Lee Remmick is the epitome of poor judgement. This movie is a "line for line" and "scene for scene" poor copy of the original with actors who never stood a chance in reprising the roles of great stars like Peck and Remmick. I can't imagine what manner of insanity overcame the minds of those who bankrolled this pale reproduction of a timeless classic. Surely there was some other Original, unfilmed storyline waiting to be produced that their money and effort could have been utilized on? Of course, that would require the talent of creative thinking to create something new from an unused storyline and not waste time and money to copy someone else's already successful film. If the original had been a silent film or a deteriorating black and white film, I might understand the need for a remake, but this copied reproduction was a pure waste of the money and effort that went into it. Obviously, Hollywood would rather copy and piggyback on the work of others rather than relying on original creativity.... which doesn't say much for the level of talent currently directing and producing in Hollywood.

This remake of the 1976 classic is a complete failure.Why did Twentieth
Century-Fox even bother?David Seltzer's new script is dull and stupid.
John Moore's "direction" is nonexistent.There is not one scary or suspenseful moment in the entire film.It even looks cheap and flat.And most of the cast is horrible.Liev Schreiber is flat,and Julia Stiles is bland.Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick is a bore.The star is for a surprisingly good Mia Farrow and Marco Beltrami's creepy score.Skip this garbage and get the original instead.

It's shocking how a movie that's so stunningly similar to the original can still manage to be lacking. I think most of my gripe is because of the child actor they chose for this one-- he's just plain scary looking, whereas the child in the original was creepily cherubic, his smile sweet and sinister, and his curly locks perpetually hanging in his face. This new kid is cold and dark, offering little besides a few menacing stares and hushed speaking lines.

Basic premise: Kate (Julia Stiles) loses her baby during childbirth. Having gone through a difficult childbirth, she's unaware of this, so her husband, politician Robert Thorne (Liev Schrieber) works it out so they can "adopt" a motherless newborn. And of course he tells his wife that this is indeed their child. They name the boy Damien, there's a "happily ever after" montage of birthdays and first steps, and we flashforward to Damien at age 5, who has bags under his eyes, never gets sick, and is a freaky, friendless boy. Kate begins having "delusions" that Damien is evil, and when we see the kid barreling down the hallway on a scooter while mom is standing on a chair at the edge of the balcony watering some flowers, we know that she is most definitely NOT delusional.

The rest of the story centers around Robert trying to discover the underlying secrets of Damien's birth. Scenes with David Thewlis (the journalist who snaps eerie photos that contain, gasp, omens) and Mia Farrow (the "I'm here to protect you" nanny) are especially pleasing. Aside from a few cheap tricks to make you jump out of your seat (and you will!), this movie isn't as scary as the original. Worth a look for horror fans and anyone looking for a few good jumps. KINDA SORTA RECOMMENDED.

The Omen (John Moore, 2006)

[NOTE: this review contains a major spoiler. If you have never seen either version of the film, not read David Seltzer's novel, and you plan to, then do not read this review until after you have done so.]

What a frustrating movie this is, in that it is possible in many, many scenes to see what could have been. The modernizing touches made in the movie ranged from subtly brilliant to absolutely fascinating (and during the Cardinal's presentation to the Pope early on, you'll be amazed at how the original 1976 poem does match up with current events), and, of course, the better special effects these days made some scenes that were done mostly with camera trickery thirty years ago really shine. And the things they did to make sure it wasn't a shot-by-shot remake, but contained the same basic ideas (for example, transporting the monkey attack to the monkey house at the zoo, rather than the drive-through jungle park), really worked rather well. Unfortunately, some of the rest of the production doesn't live up to those things.

In case you've been living under a rock for three decades, a quick overview: a politician's wife gives birth. When said politician, Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber, who seems to be sliding into typecasting as "the remake guy") gets to the hospital, he is told there were complications and the baby was lost, but there's a way to save his wife's somewhat fragile sanity: another baby was born at the same time, and the mother-- the only family the little tyke had-- died during the birth. Thorn could pass the kid off as his own and no one would be the wiser save Thorn and the hospital staff. He takes the deal, and when he wife Katharine (Julia Stiles) wakes up, hey, there's the kid, Damien. Fast forward five years. Thorn is now the ambassador to Great Britain, after his immediate superior was killed in a suspicious explosion, and Damien is five. And things start going a little bit weird-- his nanny kills herself inexplicably. A drunk priest, Father Brennan (Pete Postlethwaite), starts showing up, darkly hinting that Thorn and his wife are in grave danger. A nosy reporter (David Thewlis) starts doing some digging. And we are pointed to the conclusion that Damien Thorn is, in fact, the Antichrist, born to begin the Tribulation foretold in the Revelation of St. John the Divine (as well as a piece of doggerel David Seltzer dashed off for the original script that has become so culturally prevalent many believe it's actually in the Bible somewhere).

Schreiber and Stiles were probably the least appropriate choices in all of Hollywood to portray Robert and Katherine Thorn. Stiles (10 Things I Hate About You) and Schreiber (Big Night) have both done credible work in the past, but none of it shows up here. (This is something of a surprise with Scheiber, who has been known to carry entire movies in the past; he was certainly the only thing worth watching about the execrable Phantoms.) It's also a touch scary to think about Schreiber and Stiles married. Though when I look back, there was a much larger age difference between Gregory Peck and Lee Remick, so I should probably get over it. (I had no idea Peck was sixty when he made the original until just now. Now I'm even more creeped out by the original than I was previously.) This is all the more odd because the supporting players are great almost to a man; Thewlis and Postlethwaite are both stellar, as usual. And while there is what we shall refer to here as "great controversy" over Mia Farrow's casting as Mrs. Baylock, Damien's ominous new nanny, I thought she was great here. She had just the right touch of syrupy sweetness to make the deception believable. (As much as I loved Billie Whitelaw's portrayal in the original, nothing about that woman ever said "I should care for your kids." Farrow's character has the appropriate mousiness.) Michael Gambon makes a great Bugenhagen. Etc. You get the idea. Surrounding all these great (and some few mediocre) actors is the general look-and-feel of the film, which many have criticized as ripping off Final Destination (to which others have retaliated saying Final Destination ripped off the original Omen). I think both are partially correct; the idea of the Rube Goldberg-esque supernatural death almost certainly came down to Final Destination through the original Omen, but the feel of the deaths here is very twenty-first century. Consider, if you will, the scene considered the most shocking in the original movie: the decapitation of David Warner. Gregory Peck and David Warner have their argument, and it's dusty and gritty and nasty. And Satan's hand causes a worker not to set his handbrake quite right, so the truck rolls backward, and the sheet of plate glass, and the top of Warner's head bouncing off into the dust. It's ugly. It's nasty. In this version, the street where Schreiber and Thewlis play out the same argument (and, as a side note, a comparison of the two back to back will highlight the deficiencies in Schreiber's acting in this movie quite nicely), it's a much more sanitized scene, lots of brick and cobblestone, no dust at all. Instead of plate glass, the instrument of death is an iron fixture from which a peg is knocked loose by a falling hammer. Glass shatters, iron does not. There's just so much less mess about it. It's a whole different type of atmosphere. It's not necessarily a worse atmosphere; it's just different. I think that's a distinction that a lot of us film snobs refuse to make all too often, especially when it comes to a remake that is, in fact, inferior to the original; it's a cheap shot, something to pile on when heaping invective on a movie that never should've got made in the first place.

The thing is, there's so much about The Omen's remake that says it was a film that deserved to be made, like Huston's remake of The Maltese Falcon or Verbinski's remake of Ring, and that it could have been just as good a film, if different than the original. You have to overlook some bad stuff to see it, but it is there to be seen. In truth, the bad stuff is a small part of the total package. Unfortunately, it's the part that's bound to get the most scrutiny, since it comes in the form of the two main characters. ***

First off, I think most "Omen" fans knew going in that they weren't going to see anything transcending or equaling the original. That would be a bit unrealistic. Julia Stiles is no Lee Remick, and Schreiber is certainly no Gregory Peck. Mia Farrow's role as Ms. Baylock does not come close that boorish original actress, whatever her name was. And finally, David Thewlis is no David Warner, at least not in this one. We do get some treats, actually more than a few; some of the stylistic additives the director decided to make work spectacularly, and I myself jumped at certain scenes as the other reviewer did. I liked seeing a different take on Damien as a little more threatening than Harvey Bernhard, although in the end I find this ineffectual. The scene in this film where Damien knocks Mrs. Thorn off the balcony with his bicycle is more maliciously done than in the first version. (Here Damien displays telepathic powers occasionally, too--that is how he and Ms. Baylock communicate and one of the ways that his mother ends up quite dead.)

Whether you have seen the original film or not, some of this will be genuinely frightening--possibility for nightmare frightening. The ending was done beautifully and some of the classic scenes from the 76' version were creatively enhanced. Not really remade, just enhanced.

Why people are complaining so much about a film that adds some innovation to a great movie while not disrespecting it by making some impossible attempt at transcending it is beyond me. (There are only adequate actors/actresses here--the resources simply weren't there. This is a good thing. There's plenty here to enjoy. (I have to admit, though, that Mia Farrow really disappointed me: you would think a veteran-horror movie actress lik herself would have came to this determined to beat the first Ms. Baylock.)


The director has respect for the horror genre, I think, and probably saw all the ridiculous remakes of decent ("When A Stranger Calls", etc) horror films and was unwilling to do that with "The Omen". God Bless him, no pun intended! Worth buying.

The old cliched statement that many reviwers used for films they despised is "2 hours of my life I cannot get back," or something along those lines. Many get tongue tied and really find it hard to say how truly pathetic a film was, so the easy route comes to mind rather quickly. That line, or many like it, is beyond acceptable for this mess.

What amazes me the most about film goers, is their unkeen assessment of what a quality remake is. What epic, suspenseful gothic cinema is about. Is this a gothic film? No it's excrement, and the wild and whacky trip in this endeavor was that I knew from jumpstreet how bad it was going to be. I mean honestly, really, truthfully work with me here: can you get any better than Gregory Peck and the classic that this was based on?

The answer is a definitive no. The suspense is junvenile at best. This is a film about the anti-christ, make it TERRIFYING. Was it terrifying? No. This is a film about the number 666. That, in itself, should send shivers up our spines. Did it come across in the film in a way to demoralize our senses into the realm of the beast? No. Do not let anyone make you believe this film has any saving graces, as it doesn't. Save the rather stellar actors in the film (Mia Farrow, Pete Postlethwaite) (why someone as superbly talented as Pete Postlethwaite, who I met on the set of Amistad, and is REALLY that amazing, would ever take a role like the one of the priest, is beyond comprehension).

Go outside and breath in the life that revolves around us, you'll find more excitement in suburbia, and much more evil lurks out your front door.

Pathetic and John Moore is a joke.