The Omen (2006) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
549 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Save your money--rent the original
sharkey19721 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I wanted to like this remake. I really did. But I can't and the reasons--like Satan--are Legion.

You never realize how important good movie music is until you can compare two films with similar stories and different scores and realize that the original gave you such creepy, stunning music that what is in the remake can never compare. Sorry, but it just can't. If they copied so much else from the original, why not the score? It was vital.

Liev and Julie are just not interesting enough or grounded enough to be able to root for. And who cares that there are allusions to their marriage being a little rocky? Hello! We don't care about that! We want to know about the AntiChrist Kid you adopted, so don't get off on side issues that don't advance this plot.

And what's with having the priest actually say "his mother was a jackal" right at the beginning of the film???? That was one of the best suspense builders in the original. Was it because they didn't think we would understand what a jackal was? The worst was Liev giving him a serious look, as if to say, "hmm, must take this under advisement." And the decapitation of the reporter was BETTER in the original. It was done from the side, in slow-motion, and then the head rolled and landed at Gregory Peck's feet, a chilling sequence which we knew was coming and they built up to it with agonizing slowness. The new one had more blood, but no horror. It was cheesy, instead of scary.

And please--this little kid, who everyone said was so much better than the original acted the part as if he had a sign in neon on his forehead saying, "Hi, I'm the AntiChrist Kid!" Talk about telegraphing.

All in all, this remake was pointless. Maybe the devil can't scare us that much anymore, but the next time I see a remake, I will certainly run for the hills.
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not as good or evil as the original.
movieLoader7 June 2006
I really liked the original Omen. It didn't need to be re-made. There is nothing that modern film-making has brought to this film to make it stand out against the original. It's not as scary, not as honest or raw. The original film is genuinely disturbing -- from the dogs, to the nanny, to Damien... this modern remake just isn't as convincing. It has it's moments, and isn't that terrible, but there's an annoying distance, or separation between the subject matter and the film. It's too clean, too polished... it just isn't evil enough.

The music is not as good, the deaths are not as disturbing. But should we judge this film on its own merits? No, because it's a carbon copy remake. There is very little new material worth mentioning.

The only positive thing to say is that for anyone who hasn't seen the original, it's worth a look -- on DVD. But even then I'd recommend the original.
99 out of 128 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
idancelikethis21 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I watched all of the original Omens. And I was excited to see the remake. Man was I wrong. After seeing the remake, I was thinking how can they think they did justice to the classic Omen. How could they have thought to lay a finger and tamper with the film! The kid's acting reminded me of the 6th sense kid when he whispers. I have no idea why they casted Stiles, besides to attached a Hollywood name. And Schreiber needs to like, never do another movie again. He was the same throughout the whole movie: expressionless. I mean people complain that actors overact, but man that guy doesn't even do anything. Twitch your face, do something. And it's funny how every time they went looking for a priest, it has to be this hunchback of Notre dame looking ugly, and the over exaggerated music, it's like OK we get its supposed to be scary. And I love the grave part, where he needs help to brush off a couple of centimeters of dirt, to so easily push a lid off of a wannabe coffin. Seeing the gorilla in the zoo made me want to watch King Kong again. But I must admit the nanny was a great villain. She made me want to kick her butt! I couldn't stop laughing during the whole movie, because it was so unbelievable, and dumb. And I could also hear the whole audience around me laughing at the mockery as well, and they were also making comments out loud about the poor film.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Just saw a press screening Fri June 2
sigiam22 June 2006
In a nutshell, if you've never heard of the original or are unaware of the storyline, the average horror film lover will enjoy this flick. If however you saw/liked the original, you'll likely still enjoy it..but you'll know exactly what's coming next because it is very faithful to the original. In fact, in most scenes, it's a line-by-line remake, and many camera shots are virtually identical to the 1976 version. What has changed is that Damien's parents are younger, and it's been updated to reflect a contemporary world of today. Also, the screenwriter decided to throw in 9/11 and recent disasters as indicators that the Armageddon is on it's way via Damien Thorne. (SPOILERS FOLLOW) There are elements of "Final Destination", but the original Omen was in fact the first to play with this type of death scene(s), where things mysteriously happen to people through strange accidents,etc. Having said that, these scenes are a little different from the original (most of them anyway) and again, as a horror fan, you'll enjoy the fact that they don't pull any punches graphically.

Acting wise, the film was somewhat weak - particularly Mia Farrow's performance. In an fitting homage to Rosemary's Baby, Farrow is cast as Mrs.Baylock, the satanic disciple, summoned to protect the Devil's son (in a sense, like her character in Rosemary's Baby)Damien Thorne, in the form of a nanny. I found that she was not nearly as creepy and menacing as the original actress. Julia Stiles was not strong either, and Schrieber was OK. The kid who plays Damien isn't bad, but it's just another brooding kid role with few lines so it's tough to screw that up.

Visually i loved this film, and a few sequences in particular were very very well done. As for the scares, there aren't many at all, and a few could be seen coming a mile away (dream sequence/mirror open then shuts to see apparition in rear,etc..) I did jump physically in one sequence where i wasn't expecting it (which i won't mention specifically so it may surprise you too).

So, it was an entertaining 2 hours. Nothing terribly new, and not as creepy or Gothic as the first one. In a way, i was hoping it might go in a different direction, but perhaps, it's the producers' ultimate compliment to the original - keep it very similar,just updating it for a new generation of horror fans. Recommended.
137 out of 183 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Just made me love the original more
Superunknovvn6 June 2006
"The Omen" is one of those movies that still hold up so well, there's really no need to remake them. The date of June 6th 2006 was probably the most tempting thing for producers to release a new version of this film now.

Well, you can't say they did a bad job. This year's "The Omen" is solid as a rock and very faithful to the original. So faithful in fact, that one has to wonder what the whole point of it is.

Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles are an odd choice for the leading couple but they're both okay in their respective roles. The direction is just okay, too, but you gotta be thankful that no cheap scares (or not too many of them) were thrown in to keep viewers interested. On the other hand, it must be said that the movie is a bit slow at the beginning, especially if you already know the plot. Opinions will differ on how well recent events such as 9/11, the tsunami in Sri Lanka or the death of Pope John Paul II. were integrated into the story, but that's not really a major issue. The few changes John Moore made involve a different way of dying for one character and two or three rather effective dream sequences (the last one sticks out - it's a sequence of really creepy images without any sound effects at all, probably my favorite moment of the whole movie). Also watch out for a nice reference to "Don't Look Now".

The most interesting thing, however, is the complete absence of the infamous choral score that made the original so scary. God knows why it's not here, it sure wouldn't have seem dated.

If I realized anything watching this movie it's how amazing the script was in the first place. It builds up perfectly, it's thrilling as hell (excuse the pun) and there are no plot holes to be found. This is why "The Omen" still works greatly and will hopefully be enjoyed by a lot of young people who haven't seen the original. For everyone else there's no reason to spend money on a movie we have already seen in a superior version.
88 out of 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Surprisingly good remake. Against all odds, I liked it a lot.
basil7829 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was able to get into a press screening leading up to Fox's big "Omen" press junket in NYC.

Judging by the IMDb boards, people seem to be going into this remake with some very strong preconceptions. People who hate the mere idea of an Omen remake so much they'll never allow themselves to enjoy this will obviously come away disappointed. But I'm a fan of the original, and I can honestly say I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this. It may be the first effective horror remake Hollywood has pumped out.

First, let me clarify: this is not, by any stretch, a shot for shot remake in the style of Gus Van Sant's Psycho. It is fairly faithful to the original plot (this is, in my opinion, a good thing) but various things have been added, and those scenes remain the same have all been reworked either in minor or significant ways. I just rewatched the original a month ago, so it may be that I was more attuned to the differences, but I found they hit a good balance in keeping close to the original while adding flair and revamping certain things.

The remake starts out in the vatican with a scene comparing modern day disasters to eerily similar imagery foretold in the Book of Revelations. I wasn't thrilled with the idea of clueing in the audience to the fact that the antichrist was coming so early in the film, but the scene is well done and was effectively creepy. The use of 9/11 footage (as well as starving africans and hurricane katrina) apparently caused someone to storm out of a Q+A with the director later in the week (alas, I wasn't present at that event). I didn't find it tasteless, but I'm guessing this might divide audiences. At any rate, it's a genuinely unsettling opener.

We're then introduced to the new Robert and Kate (as she's called a few times in this one) Thorn. There's a brand new death right at the outset of the film which I won't spoil, but which fits in well and offers an explanation for the young couple's sudden rise to power. From there, the plot unfolds pretty much as expected, but with a few twists. Kathy's paranoia is emphasized a little more heavily, with some nightmare sequences relating to her newfound pregnancy. And a couple of the deaths are redone. Kathy's new death is particularly hair-raising. Immobilized in a full body cast with her jaw wired shut, she can only cry and try to scream quietly as she's held down and a murder of a particularly medical nature is exacted. Mrs. Baylock also gets a brand new sendoff involving a sledgehammer, a car, and a rainstorm. The audience I saw it with (mostly critics, even!) cheered at her death.

The original's deaths weren't exactly low-key, and for the remake they clearly wanted to up the ante. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - the results are fun to watch and sometimes disturbing. But I did find myself snickering occasionally at how over the top the offings were. It's not enough that the priest get impaled, he has to get a face (and chest) full of glass too. Not enough that the mother fall and break a rib, she has to plummet down the tallest foyer in the history of movie sets and shatter every bone in her body (who decides to casually water flowers on a teetery chair overlooking a three story drop, anyway!?). And so on.

The biggest surprise of the remake is that it's scarier than the original, which I always considered to be more of a creepy drama than a horror film anyway. This is shot like an out-and-out horror movie, and it works well. There are only a few jump out scares, but it has a much tenser, more nail-biting pacing than the original.

The cast is, for the most part, very good. The supporting cast is actually more memorable than in the original, with David Thewlis and Mia Farrow being the standouts. Farrow's Baylock is particularly interesting, masking her true intentions with a sickly sweet exterior. Her approach to the character is a departure from the original (some may miss Billie Whitelaw's icy turn) but I thought it was one of the best things about this remake. Pete Postlethwait and Michael Gambon are their usual reliable selves. The leads are the weak spot. Liev Schreiber's a damn fine actor, and he actually holds up well as long as you don't try to draw any direct comparisons to the legendary Gregory Peck. But Julia Stiles is merely adequate. It's not a great role in the first place and, unlike Lee Remick, she doesn't do anything to make it memorable. She's not bad, but she doesn't bring any weight to the part.

The one tangible failure of the remake is the score. Marco Beltrami's music is effective and, in other circumstances, I might even laud it as a solid effort. But it just isn't as distinctive or memorable as Jerry Goldsmith's legendary "Ave Satani." The fact that Beltrami didn't even see fit to work some of the original themes into his score is a just a painful missed opportunity. And by the time some Goldsmith finally does show up over the end credits, it's just salt in the wound.

Minor reservations aside, this is an effective movie in its own right, and it won't poop all over your fond memories of the original. Whether a remake was needed at all is another debate, but considered on its own merits, I found the new Omen to be good, scary fun. I'd advise people to go in with an open mind - you might just like it.
96 out of 130 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Slick but inevitably inferior remake
Skint11126 May 2006
This remake is like listening to a cover version of a Beatles song. You like it but really want to hear the original again. The original Omen is such a terrific film, convincing, beautifully cast and with a great, raw Brit Gothic feel to it. The remake is a slightly glossier affair which is enjoyable enough but doesn't really take the story in any new directions, although it hints that it will. Opening images of 9/11 and the Asian tsunami promise a new take on the tale, but with the exception of the very final scene, this doesn't really happen. The set pieces of the original were beautifully done - here they're well done but don't seem to last long enough; they don't feel 'special' enough. The cast is good but, again, it lacks the gravitas of the original. This ambassador is no Gregory Peck. Overall, this isn't a bad way to spend two hours in the cinema - it's a hundred times better and more cinematic than The Da Vinci Code for instance - but could have been a lot more than it is.
176 out of 250 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An Unnecessary Re-make
David Duncan6 June 2006
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?
186 out of 273 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Such a pathetic attempt
hashmanis14 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was very very outraged with this film. It totally lacked any of the suspense and horror that the Donner classic was abundant with. None of the supporting performers turned up or wanted to turn up. Pete Postwaite's performance of a guilt ridden man desperate to right a wrong before cancer killed him cam off as a ho hum sedate and at times seemingly sane man. Not sure if anyone here has conducted a birth of the son of Satan and the killing of another human and then have to be on morphine daily, but Postlewaite's effort was a cross between Obi Wan Kanobe and the host of lets make a deal.

I didn't feel for any of the thorns and so was never taken along the journey to their ultimate doom. Bad directing and bad performances lumped together with no respect or reverence for the Goldsmith score resulted in a pathetic piece of cinema outrage.

They should have re-released the original instead.
21 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Another Insult To A Horror Classic
sexytail19 June 2006
First I'd like to say that Richard Donner's 1976 "The Omen" is not so much a horror film as it is a supernatural thriller. My Summary merely refers this film coming latest in a parade of bad horror re-makes ("Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Dawn of the Dead", "The Fog", etc.).

As most know, "The Omen" was a 70s movie about an ambassador who's baby dies shortly after its born and agrees to take another baby in its place without telling his wife. Five years later deaths start to occur and he begins to fear he's raising the anti-Christ. It was a well-made, subtle, smart suspense film. What made it a classic also made it a prime target for re-making.

It's not the 70s anymore, it's the 2000s, so naturally some things have changed. I expected them to. The poem from the first film is here interpreted to refer to recent events, like 9/11 and that Tsinumi. Since this version takes place in present day it only makes sense. However, opening the film with a slide-show of these things at The Vatican is not only extraneous, but insulting to the viewers intelligence. We all know quite well what time we are living in.

Ignoring that, we have the pleasure of watching the truly talented Liev Schreiber tackle the role of Robert Thorn, originally played by the late and great Gregory Peck. Naturally he's good, and easy to watch. However when paired with Julia Stiles, trying to claw her way into Lee Remick's role as Katherine Thorn, things don't work out so well. Working from almost the same script, the sympathetic mother, through pure delivery, is transformed into a shrill and spoiled nag. The actors sort of cancel each other out, talent-wise.

Ignoring that, we come to the action. As in the original, the plot is moved along by mysterious and terrible deaths. Save for the first one (added for spice, I guess) they are nearly identical to those in the original. However, director John Moore is of the hyper-fast Xtreme school (he also made "Behind Enemy Lines"), so Richard Donner fans beware. I won't spoil things, but I will say that adding screams, flashes, glass shards, fire, and then subtracting the showiest death of all did NOT help this story or this film.

Ignoring that (if one can ignore so much), is the music. Jerry Goldsmith won an Oscar for his score to the 1976 version. It was a very hard won Oscar too because it was pitted against not one, but two scores by the great Bernard Herman ("Obsession" and "Taxi Driver"), and right after his death, meaning Goldsmith competed against great talent and Acedemy sentiment. In short: it was a great score. Marco Beltrami's score to this remake was hardly a match for it. I can hardly remember it. Goldsmith's "Avi Satani" will be with me until I die or lose a piece of my brain.

Ignoring all that... assuming I'd never seen the original, I'm sure I still would not be impressed with 2006's "The Omen". The uneven pacing, the poor delivery, the un-scary dream-sequences, and the generally bad direction make this movie a stinker. It was obviously made to try and cash in on the gimmick of 6-6-06, which is cute at best. They might as well have realized the cheese factor and thrown Iron Maiden's "The Number of the Beast" on the soundtrack (no offense to Iron Maiden).

The original was a classic for a reason. It's sequels and this remake all remind us why it should have stood alone under its own still potent strength.
39 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Here Comes the Son Again
wes-connors6 December 2008
Portending a bad Omen, the film's promotional dialogue barks, "The prophecy is clear, the signs are unmistakable, Armageddon is upon us - and our darkest fears are revealed… as an unspeakable horror 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 chilling realization that their child is the son of Satan!"

This is a well-produced, but uninspired re-make of the 1976 box-office revelation. After about thirty minutes, it's difficult to suppress the laughter (the scene with the Thorn family in a car, on their way to a church). Unfortunately, there aren't enough funny scenes to recommend the second coming of "The Omen" as a comedy. Casting Mia Farrow (as Mrs. Baylock) was interesting, since she so memorably provided a womb for Satan's son in the granddaddy of these films, "Rosemary's Baby".

All in all, you're infinitely better off with originals, like "Rosemary's Baby" (1968) and "The Omen" (1976).

** The Omen (2006) John Moore ~ Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, Mia Farrow
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Watch the 1976 original and forget about this crap.
Warning: Spoilers
David Seltzer rewrote his classic 1976 screenplay, didn't change the structure and kept very much of the old dialogue, so if you know Donner's classic, please do not expect something new.

I watched it yesterday (on 6-6-06, I thought this was a cool idea) and thought, "The classic was so cool and if they didn't change much, what can go wrong?" After sitting through this unintentionally funny piece of filth, I knew: EVERYTHING.

Julia Stiles was not only terribly miscast (she was at least ten years too young to fit this part properly), her acting was worse than ever and made the audience laugh several times.

Beltrami's score is just plain boring and pointless. One misses the perfection of Goldsmith's moody original music. The direction: poor, alarmingly poor. It seems as if the director phoned it in. A shame! Then: Liev Schreiber, a better actor than Gregory Peck? I don't think so. The supporting cast, like Thewlis, Gambon, and Farrow is practically wasted. At least Farrow could save her the one and only suspenseful scene when she kills Julia Stiles ("Thank God she's gone!") in the hospital. But then again, her performance cannot stand the comparison to Billie Whitelaw's powerful performance.

If you don't know Donner's classic, this might be entertaining. If you do, this is annoying beyond belief. One of the worst remakes in movie history.
17 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What is Hollywood doing?
emilio-tirado21 June 2006
This has gotta be one of the worst movies out there today. All the acting was wooden. Julia Stiles continues to be a marginal actress with a somewhat interesting face. Even Liev Schrieber was boring in this, opting to go the strong silent type. Things in the movie were poorly explained, and it just dragged on and on. With people saying "boobenhagen" all the time with a straight face, I couldn't take it. The little boy just gave mean looks sometimes. Julia just tried to make herself cry as much as possible. Liev just tried to look like he was trying not to cry. And Yes, we understand all the underlying theme of red, we don't need it in our face in improbable places. My god, even the blanket at a HOSPITAL bed was a blood red satin looking sheet. The devil boys scooter had red wheels and a red handle. The director was just punching you in the face with red, YES WE GET IT, MOVE ON.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Why OH Why was this done!
captain_ryder14 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I Cannot believe i actually sat through the whole thing. 10 minutes in, i was ready to strangle everyone. I know the original film Word-4-Word and i could not believe my ears as the dialogue rolled on, hardly a word out of place.

i understand that remake means it'll start the same and end the same BUT COME ON!!! there was no difference except the actors and the way a few characters were killed. Richard Donner's version was definitive with the ominous soundtrack. i hated this version and don't think it should have ever been made. But thats only my opinion.

Question: Does this mean we'll have to endure a remake of the other 2 films too? (I HOPE NOT)
22 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If it ain't broken, don't fix it!
bonnie9112 August 2006
I can't understand this remake binge Hollywood has gone on. Has everyone just gotten too lazy to come up with any original ideas? Some remakes that improve on the original might be worth the time, money, and effort to produce (not to mention our hard-earned money to go see), but not this one! The original The Omen is a horror classic and one of the scariest movies of all time. There was no way they could have topped it. So why did they do it? Like in almost every horror movie, some characters die. The deaths in the original are, to say the least, imaginative. In the remake, the deaths are either watered down copies of the original or changed in such a way that they take away from the story or just aren't as effective, and one death near the beginning of the movie doesn't even make any sense. Who is this person and what does he have to do with anything? Absolutely no explanation, just a disembodied scene that has no connection whatsoever to the plot that I could see.

The atmosphere in the original builds and builds, and is very creepy. In the remake, the atmosphere is kind of blah. And what about Damien? The kid says like three words in the entire movie. And he just doesn't have the presence of the little boy who played Damien in the original.

There's a lot to gripe about and almost nothing good to say about this one. There's probably only one scene in the entire movie that I enjoyed, only because it looked a bit more realistic than in the original. But why pay 4 or 5 dollars to rent a movie out for only one scene? It's just not worth it.

I can only hope that they don't remake Damien: Omen 2, my personal favorite of the Omen trilogy (I don't count the fourth one they made with the little girl in the starring role of the AntiChrist, which is a joke). It would be adding insult to injury!
85 out of 133 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Leave old movies alone, awful.
sweetrevelations7 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I went and saw The Omen today in my local movie theater and I wonder, why do people review this movie with such high scores? I don't see what was great about the movie, I found myself fidgeting in my chair and awaiting the end. I faintly remember the 70's version of the film but I do recall the fact that it kept me interested, it provoked me to stay watching. But unlike the older, "classic" version...the new, updated Omen is a bore and actually caused me to laugh more than jump or cringe in my seat. Sure, it had it's moments when I jumped due to the seemingly calm atmosphere and then a jolt of loud music, but besides that I was not pleased with the lack of suspense or even gore that this movie did have. A couple good bloody parts, but lacking a true horror feel.

I'm not sure whether or not my movie theater just got a special version of this film or whether everyone saw it too but ignored the ever-occurring audio equipment. Was it just my group of viewers who were introduced to the large microphones being dangled over Julia Stiles' head and the bobbing black tip of the equipment at the top of the screen. I do believe that overall we got to see the audio equipment a good 10 minutes or so. It caused a good laugh and made me pay attention to the film instead of the numbness in my behind. They gave me a disclaimer for The Ring 2, but I got nothing when walking into this movie, which made it all the more amusing.

So Dan Zimmerman, maybe you need to figure out how to edit a film? But looking at his list of works, he's more into the editing of a comedy film, maybe he wanted to add a little humor? Beats me. Either way, I'd go see it for a laugh if it wasn't so damn expensive to see a movie.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Couldn't beat the original, but more than fine
Movie was good, better than expected, don't know why but it reminded me a lot to stigmata, anyways, picture is pretty good all over the movie, characters were chosen fine, i think Julia Stiles is still too young for her character, the kid was amazing, of course never like Harvey Spethens but still, the new Demian's smile was one of the best things on the movie, priests were fine as usual, and the nanny wasn't scary as i expected. The deaths were probably he highlights of the movie, absolutely well done, i think i jumped off the chair like 5 times. Now the worst thing, THE MUSIC, something so necessary in this kind of movies, it felt many times that appropriate music was being missed. so, an overall of 6 out of 10, great movie to have a good time, not one to remember. Happy 6/6/6 to everyone
53 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Yet another pointless remake
The_Void3 January 2007
Like most of the horror loving community, the news that British classic The Omen was to suffer an Americanised remake wasn't welcome, but I figured I'd give it a fair chance anyway. As usual with remakes, I now wish I hadn't as all this film does is remind me of how good the original is. Indeed, there is nothing that the remake has over the original and all it is offers is a tired retelling of a very good story. The plot hasn't been changed, but the film does offer some new ideas, all of which are misplaced and don't work well - bringing the two towers into it being a case in point. Anyway, the plot focuses on Robert Thorn, the British ambassador and a man who unwittingly takes on the Devil's child after his own died at birth. A few odd events later and Thorn becomes convinced by various parties that Damien is the devil's spawn and so sets off to get some daggers to kill him with.

The cast is one of the most annoying things about this remake. Liev Schreiber is a poor successor to the brilliant Gregory Peck, while the likes of Julia Stiles, Mia Farrow Michael Gambon and Pete Postlethwaite all fail to impress in their respective roles. The kid that they've got to play Damien isn't menacing at all, and this is a huge dent in the film as this is an important role that the audience must believe is the root of all evil. The film has none of the atmosphere of the original, and the glossy cinematography does the plot line no favours. The over the top death scenes were a big part of the 1976 classic, but here they suffer from the same problem as the rest of the film - that being the fact that they're well known now and so don't have the power that they did in the original. A lot of the people that see this won't have seen the original, but for those of us that have watching this remake is an excruciating waste of time. The original Omen received a couple of pretty terrible sequels, but not one of them (not even Omen IV) are even half as bad as this crappy effort. Overall, I can't recommend this film to anyone - fans of the original will hate it for not living up to the standard, and those that haven't seen the original will hate it because it's just so poor. Don't bother, is my advice to everyone.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh my God!!! What have they done?!
cbvanraij6 June 2006
This film is really terrible. It should have never been done at first place. The classic Omen(1976) is the most perfect horror film ever done. Perfect cast, perfect screenplay, and most of all a brilliant soundtrack, which carries the movie. And Richard Donner did a great job. This new Omen is too bad, a big mistake. Liev Schreiber is the only good thing in the film, but not even close to Gregory Peck. Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick is pathetic as Damien. All the time I felt like he knew exactly what he was doing. Come on!! He's a five year old kid! The scene that he's making a sandwich, in the dark, with a PSYCHO knife is the most ridiculous of all. And what about the nightmares?! Jesus!! What's that?! It made Damien look like a vampire or a psycho killer. The scariest role in the classic Omen is Mrs. Baylock, perfectly done by Billie Whitelaw, but Mia Farrow is the biggest disappointing thing in this Omen. She doesn't look bad at all. The zoo scene is awful!! People who didn't watch the classic probably will enjoy this one, it's a very well done film. But who ever watched the original, stick to it.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Surprisingly good!
u2bme1025 June 2006
I saw a sneak preview of The Omen tonight. At first, I couldn't tell if it was going to be a spoof of the original or if it was going to be a serious remake. Audience members were laughing at parts which were supposed to be serious.

and then ...

the entire audience jumped.

and a little while later jumped again.

by the end of the movie, the audience was cheering and totally wrapped up in the movie.

The director did a great job of pulling us in.

Does everyone already know the basic plot? If not, I think it's best if I don't say anything about the plot, so I don't give away anything.

Mia Farrow was great in her role as Damien's nanny. Julia Stiles was the one who was unintentionally funny at the beginning of the movie, or maybe it was intentional, because she ended up pulling off the role quite well.

but the movie belonged to Liev Schreiber. He wisely did not try to do the same as Gregory Peck, and was excellent in the role.

It's worth seeing. Be forewarned - the movie is much more graphic than the original, so don't take the kids.
113 out of 207 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A bad sign!
Shawn Watson29 October 2006
I'm not one of these crazy people who go mental every time Hollywood remakes a movie. Such movies can be appropriate and interesting if they are brought into a contemporary setting or given a new political twist. But for every brilliant Dawn of the Dead there are a million pathetic Wicker Men or The Grudge. It's an easy, lucrative business practise but the shocking thing is how often directors screw it up when the template on how to make a good movie from the material is right there in front of them.

Let me begin with saying that The Omen 2006 is, hands down, one of the worst films I have even seen in my life. Simply saying this is an understatement, I left it feeling insulted, offended and angry. But I don't want to waste energy and word-space aptly describing how wretchedly incompetent the film is at absolutely everything so we'll leave it at that.

It's been over a decade since I saw the original, I was about 12 when I caught it on TV late one Saturday night. It would probably wouldn't scare me now but I was mildly freaked out by it then. With Richard Donner behind the camera you can rely on it being a strong movie regardless of the scares. Working from, more or less, the exact script, hack, nobody director John Moore hasn't got a rat-arsed clue and makes a mess of this from the very beginning.

Ditching the scope-widescreen photography of the original he shoots the film in plain old 1.85:1, which would be fine if he did something slightly artistic with it. But instead he gives us the blandest cinematography possible and it looks incredibly TV-movie-ish. Which is weird considering his cheap, Wal-Mart widescreen photography in Behind Enemy Lines and Flight of the Phoenix (another remake). Every single 'scare' he has up his sleeve is no more than an amateurish, simple-minded 'stinger' which you will ALWAYS see coming because they only 'work' when they are put into a scene of total silence. So whenever there is a sudden silence in the movie, prepare for the 'boo'.

I can't see any reason why any of the cast would appear in this drek other than the fat paycheck. Liev Schreiber sleepwalks his way through almost entirely monosyllabic role (or perhaps he's just a terrible actor) while surrounded by a bunch of equally stupid characters who deserve to die for being so foolish. All the slasher-movie elements are in place here eh? That's all it is.

Considering the material there was so much potential for so much more. How about some insight into the inner workings of heaven and hell? How about the tiniest bit of plot logic? Where's the atmosphere? But no! They chuck it all away because their imagination and creativity cannot stretch that far and serve up yet another bog-standard, run-of-the-mill crap-fest that will only appeal to brain-dead philistines.

Marco Beltrami's generic score (is this man capable of anything else?) is almost as bad Moore's direction (if you can call it that). Once again, here we have so much potential for a great score (Jerry Goldsmith knew this and won an Academy Award for the original), but you need talent to do this or care about the project instead of just being involved for the sake of food and heat. Nobody, NOBODY, from the director all the way down to the dolly grip, gave anything to this far inferior remake. It was a chore to make and a chore to sit through.

Of all the terrible remakes that have come and gone in recent years (it's frightening how many there are now) this one has to be the most pointless. How stupid do they think we are? Who on earth would fall for this crap? John Moore has insulted both God AND The Devil with this garbage.

I could give you 666 reasons why you shouldn't watch this movie. But I'm almost out of word-space.

19 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Recommended For Those Who Haven't Seen The Original
ccthemovieman-129 May 2007
For those who never saw the original, this is a good movie. It's intense, nicely photographed with excellent surround sound, and capably acted.

For those of us who watched the original in 1976, the one that starred Gregory Peck and Lee Remick, we have to ask, "What is the point of watching this?" For us - at least most of us - the original is superior, but not by a wide margin, to be fair. I have no problem with remakes if they are not cheaply presented and I was entertained by this presentation even though I knew the story.

As an admirer of the '76 movie, my main objection to this was the casting, and mainly with two women: Julia Stiles as "Katherine Thorn" and Mia Farrow as "Mrs. Baylock." Stiles is a competent actress but she has a face that could pass for 15 or 16. At least Lee Remick looked the part: the wife of a mid-30s American diplomat. Farrow has the same problem in here: too soft (and pretty) a face and voice to be playing an evil nurse. Perhaps Mia has a fondness for films about the devil, dating back to "Rosemary's Baby in 1968, but she was totally miscast. Billie Whitelaw, in the original version, oozed evil in her role, and was genuinely frightening, something Farrow didn't come close to being in here.

Liev Schreiber, meanwhile, had the unenviable task of supplanting Gregory Peck. Schreiber can't be faulted for not having Peck's film presence, but his character in here is such a downer that he almost has an evil countenance himself. I don't remember Peck playing this character so unsympathetically. Stiles, too, has a character that wasn't as pleasing as Remick's.

This film seems to emphasize the couple's lack of spiritualness more so than the previous film. I may be wrong, but I don't remember Peck going to these lengths to give his bias against religion, nor do I recall Remick wanting an abortion, nor do I remember the priest saying "I'll see you in hell, Mr. Thorn." Perhaps they did, and I just don't recall. No priest, by the way, would act like that, except in the movies, nor would any cleric look and act as goofy as the ones in here.

In both films, the theology is laughable - pure Hollywood, and the priests in here are, too, being clueless about what "grace" and "the cross" are all about. Filmmakers generally won't deal with those topics, but they do a good job in making a case for Satan, I'll give them that. You saw a similar instance of this in "The Exorcist."

As for the other characters, the young boy - who has no dialog - is similar to the boy in the original but a little less evil-looking and David Thewlis in this movie did an excellent job as the photographer, as did David Warner in the first movie. Overall, I thought the first film was creepier than this one, but since I was already familiar with the story prior to watching this, a comparison may be unfair.

It was interesting to see this with the updated technology both off (digital surround sound, etc.) and on the screen (laptop computers, cell phones, etc.) but the story is still similar enough that owning both of these films is questionable. Given the choice, I would stick with the 1976 film, but - I repeat: if you've never seen "The Omen," this movie is recommended. It's entertaining, that's for sure.
30 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's just bad.
runaragust-16 June 2006
This will be my first and i propably the only review i will do here on IMDb. But i actually feel obligated to tell people, that this is without a doubt one of the worst movie's ever made. The original movie is a cult classic, and of course you might ask yourself why would anybody dare to remake it? The original script is really good, and it is one of the best horror stories that have ever been told. But throwing in cheep scary clips that you might see on a Flash homepage, made to scare you for a second, it's basically just a insult to this story.

I really wish there was some invention that could take me back a couple of hours in time, so i could spent this time on something more productive, like sleeping or shooting myself.

I wish no one the horror of actually seeing this movie! ITS JUST THAT BAD!
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No improvement on original
jill-corfield7 June 2006
Despite all special effect stuff available today there was nothing new - no improvement on the original film made 30 years ago?

Same scares in same places.

No new twists or additional scares. C

continuity was not good, acting was cheesy, actors waited til others had finished talking to begin their dialogue. Wooden acting - esp Mr Thorne who failed at most junctures to move his mouth. I had some credibility issues with this too.

Child was scarily poor and wooden. Obviously felt he had achieved the 'scary look' which was basically all he did with no conviction at all. I was not convinced!! Very disappointing
25 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Disappointing and actually quite humorous
rich_z472 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was expecting a lot more from this movie and I was instantly disappointed. It was a mediocre attempt to bring this movie back to life. I went to the screening and throughout the movie people laughed and chuckled (not the kind of response one expects from a horror film). The only parts that "scared" people involved sudden dog barks and growls. Actually the only action in the movie involved dogs. The kid who plays Damien was disappointing; he was not intimidating like the original Damien. Julia Styles was more than disappointing; her acting was dull and half ass-ed. The movie used cliché attempts to turn it into a horror film like the typical and overused mirror scene. To add more negative aspects to the movie the plot was not well structured and weak. If you saw the original you know that Damien does not die, and the fact that in the last scene he looks back at the camera and smiles in a poor attempt to look evil gives way to maybe another horrible sequel. Even though the screening was free I felt ripped off. I was hoping at least for a great sound production like the amazing job Jerry Goldsmith did for the original and I didn't even get that. I don't want to sound bias but really I did not find one positive thing about this movie and I was looking forward for this, which only increased my disappointment.
24 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews