Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
In this chilling remake of The Omen, that is even more terrifying than the original, man's darkest fears are manifested as an unspeakable terror is unleashed on the world! U.S. diplomat Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) substitutes an orphan for his own stillborn baby in order to spare his unknowing wife (Julia Stiles). But after a series of grotesque murders and dire warnings, the Thorns come to the horrifying realization that their child is the son of Satan!
As typically happens with horror films, the unrated extended scenes and extended ending of The Omen are an opportunistic excuse to show more gore than the theatrical release. In this case, the unrated extended scenes are "The Impaling" of the priest played by Pete Postlethwaite (showing that character's grisly fate in longer shots and different angles, so we see his face sliced up by shards of fallen glass); and "The Beheading" (of the photographer played by David Thewlis) includes a few insert shots of splattering blood and the severed head rolling down a flight of stairs. In the extended ending, Liev Schrieber's character is shot multiple times by the police (instead of just once, as shown in the theatrical version), and the camera lingers on his death. "Omenisms" is an excellent and candidly revealing behind-the-scenes documentary that emphasizes the difficulties (or curses?) encountered during production, and it's one of the few "making of" featurettes to show the director (John Moore) actually losing his temper over unforeseen delays like a full day's shooting lost to damaged negative or an important night scene delayed by faulty dolly track. Lighter moments are also included, giving the viewer an excellent idea of what it's like to actually be on a movie set. The "Abbey Road Sessions" featurette offers an in-depth look at composer Marco Beltrami as his superb score for The Omen is recorded in the legendary London studio. "Revelations 666" is a 22-minute program produced for British TV that explores our social fascination with good and evil, and the historical significance of the number "666," with interviews from a variety of "experts" including Christian author Tim LaHaye and Brian Moore, a warlock from the Church of Satan; it's a bit silly and sensational, but otherwise enjoyable and informative. The feature-length commentary by director John Moore, producer Glenn Williamson and editor Dan Zimmerman is a mixed bag of casual observations, but dedicated Omen fans should give it a listen for a few interesting comments about set design, editing, visual technique, and other filmmaking details. Also included are the film's theatrical teaser, two theatrical trailers, and a trailer for the 1976 Omen Collector's Edition DVD. --Jeff Shannon
- Commentary by director John Moore, producer Glenn Williamson and editor Dan Zimmerman
- "Revelation 666" Featurette
- Unrated extended sequences
- Unrated extended ending
- Omenisms Documentary
- Abby Road Recording Sessions Featurette
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
I know that people our eyes are one way about this movie or the other meaning that they like it a lot or if they don't like it at all. I remember buying it when it came out on DVD somewhere around Halloween 2006. I really like the movie. I thought it was very good and creepy and I know that back in the 70s, which was people are born, but this and the exorcist were considered the scariest possessed or evil child like movies. But as with the omen when I always found interesting was. To not having a soul being the son of the devil and looking so innocent and pure, but the eyes are so evil at the same time. Then, at the time of both releases, even though I think there were 40 years apart, they still caused controversy. Which I don't think when you look at remakes they are very well executed or the cast is that great I can clearly say that this has a very good cast whether people say well Julia stiles is not popular anymore or of recent movies have not been good that's up to interpretation however if you look at the time this was Which I don't think when you look at remakes they are very well executed or the cast is that great I can clearly say that this has a very good cast whether people say well Julia stiles is not popular anymore or of recent movies have not been good that's up to interpretation however if you look at the time this was enterprise and so was Leiv Shrieber and they also had me a fare who was in one of the best evil child movies of its time and still classic. Rosemary's baby. So as we all know, child is. Praised and grown up with the thorn family, the father is high up in politics, I can't remember if he's a company Senate or what his level in the government is and you know that they live a high rich, lush lifestyle. On the day of Damian. 6th for day his babysitter commits suicide in front of probably a 100 and more guests, saying this is all for you to a man after that more and more weird scary, crazy stuff happens. The violence towards his mother, who he already was talking about, she didn't feel close with them. Et cetera. And I don't want to mention one key thing because if you haven't seen it and it's a really good giveaway. But her but when he is around animals animals start attacking things and other people etc. And realize the baby center is there to help coach Emma long as he becomes more and more evil and also knows he is the son of Satan.
Would I recommend this movie? Yes, I would I really really like it, I actually own 2 copies because when I worked at the video store that was in my town before it closed. I purchased the full screen edition on DVD because my flat screen along with purchasing along with 1 to 4 on VHS. So all in all a that would say I like the movie I really would recommend it
I think the major problem lies in the conception and written execution of the story itself. At this point, we all know exactly what Damien is. In the original version, there was a slight air of mystery surrounding the child's origins and a great degree of detailed horror as the revelations were presented. To blandly reiterate the story without new angles or dimensions, that would maintain a degree of faithfulness but also expand upon a story with which we are all quite familiar, shows the film to be a very deliberate cash-grab. The direction adds nothing visually provocative. Aside from the superfluous addition of extraneous ghoulish imagery--which, had it been more relevant to the story, might not have seemed as gratuitously vulgar and pandering--the direction seems amateurish. For example, we aren't given a really lucid understanding of the mansion where the Thorn's live. While you could argue that this is to unsettle the viewer's sense of space, you need to have a certain pattern of setting in place so that the audience can actually be unsettled when the setting is changed. The direction also lacks any depth: everything is far too continuous well lit to the point that the obvious lack of thematic explorations is illumined by the visuals.
One final note about the performances: it is hard to sympathize with the plight of the parents because they never seem to exert any emotional attachment to their son or even give the audience a reason to care about their individual plights outside of their lives as parents. While Stiles's distance was an inconspicuous plot choice, and not really a good one, Schreiber relies on the dialog of his character to convey his internal conflict without actually putting any effort into creating an emotional connection; there is absolutely no continuity in his approach. Both of the leads are bad, but it does appear (and I use that word tentatively) that Stiles is at least trying. Schreiber is lucky in that his scenes are largely bolstered by Davis Thewlis's performance, which manages to be quite endearing. Mia Farrow's very convincing update of Mrs. Baylock is quite nuanced in many ways, but, and I really fault the writing here, she is written as more covertly evil without the subtlety. Given this, Farrow's performance can seem over-the-top and transparent at times. Still, she does great work with what she's given...to the point that you sympathize with her over Damien's dull, vacant, mostly unfeeling, and quasi-robotic parents.
The movie's a poor dilution with nothing new to speak of but the cheapest and shallowest contemporary horror conventions. I'm not opposed to remakes, but I find thoughtless attempts like this to be a transparent cashing in on a better film's legacy for nothing more than a profit.
The nanny doesn't have the eeriness of the original nanny. Damien's original mother was better. The father and photographer are OK, but even the original dog was creepier.
The original Damian outwardly looks and acts like a normal kid, even a bit cute...but you can SENSE his his evil - the scene at the zoo (the equivalent scene in the remake is not nearly as good), his slight and subtle grin, his terror when approaching the church. It's precisely this subtly that makes him so creepy, evil disguising itself as innocence.
The new Damian, on the other hand, is more like an actor trying too hard to be "bad," and instead comes across as an angry, grouchy kid who scowls throughout the whole movie. He's more annoying than creepy. Take the church scene, as an example. *Spoiler* The original Damian begins shaking in fear as he approaches, and eventually latches onto his mother in sheer terror. Portraying a church as something terrifying to a child makes that child seem inherently evil, and is done in a brilliantly subtle way.
In contrast, new Damien seems to get angrier and angrier, instead of scared, as he approaches the church. The effect is ruined, as he attacks his mother when they get close, seemingly not out of terror, but out of rage.
Then, of course there's the soundtrack, which I think MAKES the original movie. The new soundtrack left no impression on me at all.
So, why the three stars? I would give 2.5 if I could. It would be an OK movie (especially for free on Prime), but I can't help comparing it to the original.