IMDb > The Omen (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Omen
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Omen More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 11 of 56: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]
Index 552 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A carbon copy

Author: waleed_essam from Egypt
6 June 2006

A carbon copy, the exact old Omen, the only thing that differs is the date, that actually now we are in 06-06-06. The exact shots with the exact camera locations, exact angles, exact events with the exact parts that first time viewers will scream most of the movie, very small differences. I was like watching the movie again, so i was sitting very calm while people was screaming, i felt a bit bored... Overall, it's better than the old one coz after all we have now more technology to do such movies, but having watched the old one, made me not much impressed by the second, as it didn't have anything new to offer. Actually i think the only reason they did a remake was the date, nothing more. Overall, i think it's a must see if you are a fan of all this kinds of movies (omen, 9th gate...etc.) and try to watch it June 06

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Another Terrible Remake.

Author: Robert J. Maxwell ( from Deming, New Mexico, USA
30 December 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The original "The Omen" was released in 1976. It was a kind of follow up to the successful "Rosemary's Baby" of 1968. In "Rosemary's Baby," the heroine (a frail and boyish Mia Farrow) conceives a baby through Satan and gives it birth. When the movie ends, she's rocking the neonate and cooing to it.

In the original "The Omen," the demonic baby is a changeling who was switched at birth with the offspring of a jackal and Satan. In a sense, the original should have been called "Rosemary's Baby Grows Up," at least to the age of two, at which point he and his evil associates manage to knock off both parents and clear the way for Damien to the White House.

It happened apace in the two sequels, or was it three -- or four? I forget. I didn't watch any past "Damien 2" or whatever it was called, so I don't know his fate.

It doesn't matter. Apparently the pattern had exhausted its potential and died out. Now that another generation has appeared, it seems time for a re-run of "The Omen", this time with Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles as the parents. Mia Farrow and a dog are available to help the evil designs be realized. They are.

I can't recommend this. It's bloodier, more lurid, and edited at a faster pace than the original -- but it's still a remake of a ripoff. And none of these "Omen" movies are as well done as "Rosemary's Baby," which started this whole cascade of junk.

These remakes and ripoffs are getting pretty tiresome overall. Most are bigger and splashier than the originals but that's not enough to recommend them. It looks like originality has gone down on whatever scale is used to measure it, while pandering to an audience of kids looking for adrenalin rushes has gone up.


Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Don't believe that this is like the original. Not even close!

Author: Rufus-T from New York City
11 May 2009

Although it tried to be faithful to the story of the original (which not necessarily a good thing), the remake sorely missed the Gothic score of the original. The original had very creepy moments, even in repeat viewing, could not be achieved in the remake. The casting was much weaker. The 2 leads I thought was miscast. Liev Schreiber was no Gregory Peck. I like Julia Stiles, but she was not credible in her role. Not that the original was a top-notch movie, but the remake made that seemed so. That said, those who never saw the original will enjoy it as a mediocre thriller. Unfortunately, they will miss out the spooky atmosphere of the original, a thriller and a horror.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

never as good as the original

Author: Fever from St. Louis
20 November 2006

No matter how much Hollywood tries to remake the classics (i.e. "Psycho"), they're never as good as the original. The '76 version is truly scary. Well cast, solid script and the final scene still spooks me. This one doesn't cut it. Julia Stiles is too young for the role. I still see her as the high schooler in "Ten Things I Hate About You". There's no chemistry between her and Schreiber (although he does a good job). The fear factor just isn't there and I don't know why directors can't get medical stuff right. There's no way the IV pump would allow an air bubble in the line. The littlest bubble would set alarms off. Plus, it would take a lot more air than that to be lethal. Also, after she flatlines, she's still struggling? whatever. And no one ever seems to work in these hospitals. No one would've noticed? How about a nice KCl push--that'll do the trick lickety split. It also cracks me up that people are saying there are spoilers. Spoilers? Remember guys, this is a remake, we know how it ends. Stick with the original. I just hope Hollywood doesn't try a remake of "Rosemary's Baby".

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: mentalcritic from Southern Hemisphere
28 October 2006

Lest anyone think I am bashing this remake for the hell of it, allow me to be very clear on something. I find the whole concept of a Satanic conspiracy running the world and murdering children unchecked utterly ludicrous. Especially given that of all the world's people, I am among those most likely to join such an organisation if it offers opposition to certain normalistic status quos, just out of spite. So when I say that everything the 1976 production of The Omen gets right, the 2006 version gets wrong, you have to understand where I am coming from. Like many films of the late 1970s, the real Omen was done on a tight budget, with not a lot of provision made for accomplishing elaborate illusions. Storytelling skills, acting, and clever timing was required to bring the viewer into the story. And in spite of viewing the source material as a load of drug-addled arrant nonsense, the 1976 film drew me in, thanks in no small part to a performance by Gregory Peck that caused me to sympathise with him.

Now, I am not going to say that Liev Schreiber fails here. Of all the performances in The Omen circa 2006, his is easily the best. Its just that the screenwriter, editor, and director give him so very little to work with here. Giovanni Lombardo Radice makes a long overdue debut in "legitimate" film here (astute observers will recognise his name from Italian exploitation trash like Cannibal Ferox). He may as well have not bothered, considering how well this remake was sold on the world circuit. Which further cements my point. The reason the 1976 film drew me in despite its problems was because it slowly built up the tension, keeping the viewer in as much doubt as possible about the truth of the scenario, right to the end. Everything in the 2006 remake is on fast-forward, with no passion for the material on display at any moment. Clumsy reedits do not help either. At one scene, Robert Thorn determines right there and then to kill Damien. One scene later, when he is being told how to do it, he is telling us the idea is madness. I do not know whether David Seltzer or John Moore are responsible for this, but they needed to know they cannot have it both ways.

A good example of this terrible writing and planning is demonstrated by the first big death scene. Robert's superior in the American embassy is killed in a manner that can only be described as utterly ludicrous. If you have seen the film already, you know what I am about to say. If you haven't yet, I am doing you a favour by warning you. Put simply, if I locked a man in his car, put a lit cigarette down some fifty feet from the car, and poured petrol over the car in the hope it would run to the cigarette then ignite, he would have an abundance of time to escape before the petrol ignited. And that is making the bold assumption that the petrol would ignite at all. Having set no small number of things on fire when I was younger, I learned a lot about how difficult it can be to set fuels alight with different triggers. Petrol is not easy to ignite when it is soaking into concrete or bitumen to start with, and the odds against a lit cigarette dropping an ember into the liquid, as would be necessary to start the fire, are not astronomical but they are still quite high.

That is about the level of respect the entire film treats the audience and the cast with, however, so get used to it. Seriously, if they wanted to make a memorable version, they should have let me write the script. No supernatural tricks, no global conspiracy that cannot even sign its own name without raising suspicions. For starters, I would probably write that the child we see throughout the film is in fact not the Antichrist, and this is all an elaborate ruse to get the real Antichrist, already an adult and looking for a way into the political system, into Thorn's position. Hell, just for a giggle, I would make this Antichrist someone whom Thorn already knows. No need to set up a silly adoption routine that way, and it shows more imagination in a few sentences than anyone demonstrated in this entire film. If anyone in Hollywood is reading this, take it as a sign of how far you are falling behind the expectations of your customer base.

Another aspect the new Omen does not seem to get is that character development triumphs over all else. Like I said, the 1976 original is a silly story based on an even sillier idea, but it works because the director makes the effort to sell you that story. In the original, we slowly came to believe Harvey Stephens as the ultimate expression of evil because of the actions of those protecting him, along with subtle cues that reinforce his evil quality in spite of his consumingly cute appearance. Put simply, Richard Donner knew well that there was more to selling a character as evil than appearances, a fact demonstrated by the final shot of Damien in the 1976 film. By comparison, the final shot of this 2006 remake demonstrates that John Moore thinks looking evil is enough to make a character evil. Sorry John, but speaking as someone who has seen no end of abuse because of this kind of thinking, I would like you to take the attitude and go back to the nineteenth century where it belongs.

For these reasons, I gave The Omen circa 2006 a three out of ten. Normally, I would give it a two, thus ruling it out of so-bad-its-good territory, but Schreiber earns it an extra star. He is about the only aspect of the film that was not phoned-in.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

The Omen 2006 Worst Movie Since the Exorcist the Heratic!

Author: scott_tinari from United States
25 October 2006

The was by far the worst movie I have ever seen. Let me start off by saying the score or music was really really bad. Where the heck is Jerry Goldsmiths score. Marco Beltrami wrote an awful score. When the scene got a little intense there was no music, I just don't get it. Liev Schiber was so bland and didn't show any emotion whatsoever in this movie, bad actor. Mia Farrow was bad as well and so were the other casts. I wouldn't even recommend renting this movie. Stay far away. I would suggest sticking with the original Omen. Why does Hollywood insist on making re-makes when there is nothing wrong with the original. I guess its because they are running out of fresh ideas.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

the omen thirty years later

Author: dbdumonteil
30 July 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The block Hollywood has been going through for several years must be big enough to prompt producers to produce remakes of successful films and "the Omen" is one of them. This remake opened on the 06th June 2006, a beautiful date to serve the publicity campaign to promote the film. By the way, what's its contents worth? I'll be frank and say that it's a well-crafted but lackluster menu for it contents itself to take literally virtually all the sequences of Richard Donner's opus and to reproduce without trying to bring something new or novel the different steps of the story. However, there's one major difference with its elder brother and it is to be found at the very beginning. The scenes in Rome at the Vatican weren't included in the 1976 movie. Otherwise it's the same draft-proof universe with, however some little modifications. In Donner's film, in one sequence Damien's mother was irritated by the noises her son made with billiards balls. In Moore's effort because of the modernity of the habits video games superseded these balls. That said, Moore succeeds better than Donner to build a latent and lasting tension to the audience and to ensure her a good dose of shivers and it often works. The best sequence would probably be the death of Damien's mother in alternate editing with Damien staring at a cop who's sweating.

But the cast is patchy. Liev Schreiber was a better choice than Gregory Peck as the lead because he's younger. But Julia Stiles can't match Lee Remick. Ditto for David Thewlis who isn't as good as David Warner. As for Pete Postlethwaite, he was far better and disquieting in Bryan Singer's brilliant "the Usual Suspects" (1995). But Mia Farrow as the housekeeper gets the lion's share and I can't help but smiling when I think about her real function in this remake: she has to defend Damien and so Satan whereas in "Rosemary's Baby" (1968), she struggled against him.

This remake of a good fantastic film doesn't certainly deserve to be disowned and the movie buffs who gave thumbs up to Donner's flick might be curious to have a look at it even if they know where they stand with it. Anyway, this remake of a fantastic film dealing with Satan is preferable to another lousy fantastic film on the same topic. See "End of Days" (1999) or "Lost Souls" (2000).

By the way, the little Harvey Stephens who held Damien's role in 1976 has a cameo as a journalist here.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Inferior to the original

Author: andrea-manning from United Kingdom
14 June 2006

After first overcoming my outrage that the powers that be dared to remake this classic I saw this film at the weekend. It started off quite promising with lots of recent events eg. tsunami being given as evidence of the the scriptures being fulfilled, but for me the sense of drama didn't continue. Where the original film built up the suspense and used the splendid Ave Satan to crank up the atmosphere I felt this film just wanted to make you jump with the absurdly loud noises throughout. For me the casting was a bit hit and miss, I thought Liev Schreiber was adequate as Robert Thorn but thought Julia Stiles a little young for the role of Kathy. For me the worst cast role was definitely Mia Farrow as Mrs Baylock, she came off like a ditzy old lady and not nearly as menacing as Billie Whitelaw in the original film.

To sum up, the 1976 version is the only film I have ever watched that has scared me, even now I only watch it during the daytime. However for this film I felt one of the most powerful moments was when the familiar sound of Ave Satan was played over the closing credits!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

If Only I Could Give A Negative 10 Rating...This Was TERRIBLE!

Author: a-NiC from Canada
10 June 2006

I'm still trying to figure out why there was so much hype built up for such a terrible movie. I saw it last night expecting to see a very scary movie, but there was only one jumpy part which wasn't even frightening since they'd showed it in the trailer. I was more scared of the trailer than I was of the actual movie. From beginning to end The Omen was very lame, pathetic, cheesy, and just down right awful. I feel as though I'm being very negative with this so I have been trying to find something good to say about it; I haven't come up with anything. This movie was a complete waste of money, it delivered far more laughs than it did scares. If I had have wanted to laugh I would have gone to The Break Up cause I hear that's great. So if you're looking for a scare, do not waste your time with this movie. The frustration and disappointment I felt when I left the theatre led me to conclude that The Omen is the WORST MOVIE EVER!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Critics are out of touch

Author: daaazer from United States
6 June 2006

I hate remakes -- but in my opinion, this one actually lived up to the mark. I had read the reviews and didn't have very high expectations at all, but when I walked out of the movie I realized that for once, the remake was almost as good as the original. Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, Mia Farrow, David Thewlis -- all did a nice job -- exactly what I would expect of actors of their caliber.

There were some things I found lacking, such as the musical score was not quite what I had wanted ( then again, how do you improve what the original had without ripping it off?), and the pacing of the movie at times was a little rushed, especially the last third or so.

I think lately the critics are just out of touch, they seem to condemn movies while audiences disagree. My two cents.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 11 of 56: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history