Now come into his full knowledge and power, the Anti-Christ in the body of Damien Thorne is about to strike his final blow. The Christ-child has been born again, on the Angel Isle, Great Britain (Scotland, England & Wales). The plan is simple, kill the Christ child to prevent him from growing up to bring the return of Christ and death of the Anti-Christ.Written by
David Carroll <email@example.com>
Actor James Mason acted as a sponsor to the production for actor Sam Neill. Mason originally suggested to the film's producers that they should check out Neill. Producer Harvey Bernhard had Neill flown in to London for an audition, paid for by Mason. Neill later reimbursed Mason for the airfare. Neill drew on some of Mason's mannerisms for his performance and characterization. See more »
Damien states, while talking to the President, that in two years from that time it will be 1984, making it 1982. If that is the case, then The Omen should be set in the 1950s, not 1976, as it obviously is. This could be due to the fact that at the time, the producers and the studio hadn't anticipated the sequels and the associated timeline. See more »
I now command you to seek out and destroy the Nazarene child. Slay the Nazarene... and I shall reign forever. Fail... and I perish.
See more »
The original "Omen" is one of the most chilling movies I have ever seen. Despite being slightly askew theologically, it boasted outstanding performances from Gregory Peck, Lee Remick, David Warner etc., an intelligent script, and above all chilling atmospherics thanks to director Richard Donner and the powerful Jerry Goldsmith score. You really did believe that the end of the world had begun when it was all over.
The first sequel, "Damien: Omen II" failed to match the original but still maintained reasonably good continuity from the first film and also had some fine performances too. In a sense it was a lot like "Jaws 2". Not as good as the original, but still okay on the whole.
"The Final Conflict" however, is a lame, miserable final chapter of the trilogy and brings the terrifying events of the original to a lame and utterly weak climax that on the way is filled with some of the most gaping plot holes imaginable. None more spectacular than adult Damien at one point saying he wants to run for the Senate in "84". Were the producers, director and writers so dense and stupid that they didn't realize that by saying that they were retroactively placing all the events of the first film in the 1950s? (Gregory Peck's lapels and David Warner's hairstyle, not to mention the automobiles seemed pretty 70s to me!) What's the big deal with these events in Israel and Egypt that are being talked about frequently yet have no relevance whatsoever to the final climax? What happened to that "child" that Father DeCarlo says is now safe and what does it have to do with the climax? How was Father Spiletto (the priest who saw the birth of Damien and arranged the adoption in the first film) able to "confess" to Father DeCarlo since we saw in "The Omen" that he was unable to speak and could only scribble random things with his left hand? And does the ending truly represent the return of Christ and the final judgment of humanity? Evidently not, since we were served up a TV movie a decade later that I don't think I'll waste my time seeing.
Watching Sam Neill recite his Satanic prayers evoked howls of laughter from me. A far contrast to Billie Whitelaw's nanny in the original who truly seemed like a servant of Satan. I guess perhaps the moral of the story is that its better to depict the anti-Christ as a child than as a man, where the whole sense of unanticipated terror about what the future will bring when he comes to power is still there. Indeed, the terror of "The Omen" was in the fact that you could sense that the beginning of the end had arrived but the terror of what was still to come was still in your imagination to fear and worry about. "The Final Conflict", by tackling subject matter that I think is impossible to depict or envision in a credible fashion when the gimmick has already worn out after two previous movies, was in a sense doomed to fail from the outset, though perhaps if there had been some actors the stature of Peck or Holden this time out, the results would have been better.
Stick to the first film and the second, and envision your own scenario of how it all resolved itself. You'll scare yourself a lot more that way than this film ever will.
10 of 20 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this