The Omen (2006)

If you can overlook its glaring redundancy, The Omen is a faithful and well-crafted remake that does adequate justice to Richard Donner's popular 1976 original. It's a completely unnecessary film, given that David Seltzer's original screenplay wasn't even rewritten (as would normally happen with a Hollywood remake), but when viewed with fresh eyes, or by anyone who's unfamiliar with the original, it retains most of the serious, intelligently plotted chills that made Donner's horror thriller a box-office sensation. It skews to a younger audience (of course), with Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles in the roles originated by Gregory Peck and Lee Remick. As newly-promoted U.S. Ambassador to England Robert Thorn and his troubled wife Katherine, they grow increasingly suspicious that their young son Damien (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) may be the devil incarnate. An anxious Roman priest (Pete Postelthwaite) and a freelance photographer (David Thewlis, in the role memorably originated by David Warner) are equally terrified of this Satanic scenario, and Damien's new and eerily protective nanny (played to perfection by Mia Farrow) adds further evidence of Damien's malevolence, as Vatican prophesies of Armageddon are rapidly fulfilled. Director John Moore (who also remade The Flight of the Phoenix) offers a few minor improvements in suspense and gruesomeness (including a more graphically inventive death for a prominent character), but he's also hampered by the weaker presence of Davey-Fitzpatrick, who's not nearly as creepy as the original film's Damien. Otherwise, this copy of The Omen justifies its existence as a worthwhile diversion for stormy-night viewing.--Jeff Shannon Amazon.com

COULD'VE BEEN VERY GOOD WITH THE RIGHT CAST!

I haven't seen such a ruination of a classic as this one because of bad casting - an absolutely abominable choice of high-end actors to play the story. Sorry but Julia Stiles is too butch and too cool to play a part that was played by Lee Remick who gave the character of Kathy class and likeability. Leiv Schreiber, who I love, was also not for this movie. He's too cool. Maybe better choices would have been George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Mia Farrow as Mrs. Balock just didn't work. She's too delicate and doesn't look like a demon. The boy who plays Damien is awful. He's non-descript except to say that his acting is bad. He looked at the camera a few times and when he was supposed to look menacing, he either looked like he was sulking or looked like a kid just play acting. In the scene in the car, he just didn't rough up his mom like a wild little animal like the original Damien. And let's face it, you can't compare this child to the little boy in the original Damien. Little Harvey Stevens had that little smirk that was beautiful AND creepy.

On the plus side, the added scenes which were not in the original movie were very good, such as the creepy images that come to their minds and especially the gut wrenching scene in Mrs. Thorn's hospital room when she's visited by Mrs. Balock. Very creepy and very sad. So, I thought it was good but it could've been much better with the right cast.
August 16, 2008

Oh goody, another remake.

HORRID, simply horrid and not in the good way a horror movie should be.
Everything about this movie stinks.
The boy stinks.
All the actors stink.
The remake is IDENTICAL to the original, making me wonder......why did they even bother?
Criminally, the only thing they really changed was the music.
The Omen is known for that music, and to take that out was just insulting.
If you wan to see how a remake should be done, check out Rob Zombie's Halloween.
That's a remake.
That's being an artist.
That's being innovative.
This movie?
AVOID!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 24, 2008

Adequate, Pointless

Hollywood will not rest until every notable horror film produced in America during the '70s or Japan over the course of the past decade has been remade. Even then, the terrible temptation of the sequel will not be resisted. A remake of the great Satanic classic "The Omen" was by no means necessary, so here it is!

This remake distinguishes itself from most of the others pumped out by major studios by not being in any way terrible. There is nothing trashy and very little that is particularly stupid in "The Omen," which is actually quite refreshing. However, there is also very little that's original here. This is perhaps the most stringently faithful remake that I've ever seen, so much so that I was able to predict nearly every single occurrence in the film ten minutes before it happened. Even the dialogue in many of the scenes is often identical to that of the source. The few variations of the story are manifest as surprises, most of which are quite effective. This film induces a few shocks and a couple of genuine scares, but that's about all. Most of this is a rather dull retread of the 1976 classic.

One of the primary sources of this blandness is Liev Schreiber, who is as wooden as a crate in the lead. I can only imagine that whichever relative stuck his foot in the door for Schreiber was the same person who did him the disservice of telling him that he can act. He affects a baritone that sounds vaguely similar to that of Gregory Peck at times, but most of his lines are delivered in a monotone and he quite literally expresses almost no emotion over the course of the entire feature. He smiles once, tries (and fails) to emote a few times and generally makes an ass of himself. Schreiber has a keen look about him and some screen presence, but he simply can not act, and whoever chose to cast him in a lead role doesn't deserve the job. Any comparison drawn between Schreiber and Peck is laughable. Gregory Peck was one of the most charismatic, commanding actors of his generation; Liev Schreiber is good-looking window dressing.

The rest of the cast is actually quite good. Stiles (whose Celt face is chubbier all the time) capably substitutes for Lee Remick; though she is neither as shrill or as convincing as her predecessor, her performance is decent, and leagues more impressive than her awful dye-job. Pete Postlethwaite plays a more subdued, less intense Father Brennan as compared to Patrick Troughton's wild-eyed delivery. Mia Farrow's role as Luciferian nanny Baylock is quite well-played and her casting is a clever (albeit obvious) reference to "Rosemary's Baby"...the trouble is, how many devoted horror fans are going to watch this to recognize the intent in the first place? While not quite a weak link, Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick is hardly as cute or creepy as the original Damien, Harvey Stephens.

John Moore's direction is at times very impressive; many of the scenes here are beautifully framed, and the editing is excellent. However, Jonathan Sela's cinematography bears mixed fruit. Some of the bright, oversaturated scenes invoke fond memories of the grainy 35mm stock on which so many '70s B-movies were shot. This has nothing to do with "The Omen" and it's implemented infrequently here, but it is a nice look. Unfortunately, most of the film is predictably tinted with color filters, a photographic trend that's become as ubiquitous as it is excessive in contemporary American films, and especially those of the horror genre. A hint for Mr. Sela: low backlit lighting produces much creepier results than tinting half of the entire film and producing a thoroughly blue movie, one that isn't any more atmospheric for it.

In summary: it's not too bad, it's a thing of its time and place, if it weren't made, nobody would care, it can't touch the original and it makes for a nice summer viewing if you want a few scares. That is all. April 15, 2008

6+6+6= VERY GOOD REMAKE.

Yes I liked this one more than the original!!!!!!!!! The updated special effects, music and acting were freshened to make this Omen quite enjoyable. I always felt the original was less a Horror movie and much more a drama with some creepy moments. This one felt more like a good horror movie thru and thru. Lets hope they do the Omen sequels too. April 8, 2008

Absolutely disgraceful and that is putting it mildly

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. March 25, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...