Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

generationofswine There is something off-putting about it. I know, it's The Omen, there is supposed to be something off-putting about it, but its not in the creepy good way.I think the bad after-taste is that it follows the original far too close and because of that, like most remakes, it's not saying anything new. It sort of leaves the viewer in the position where they don't understand why they are still watching it.True, the first Omen does seem dated...but even then it adds to the retro appeal and, honestly, it still seems fresh. The concepts, the movie, it was all new in the original and you still have that sense when you go back it it.Honestly, dated isn't bad. it takes a special kind of short-bus rider to dislike something just because it looks old.The remake, it's covering the same old ground and, honestly, aside for a couple dream sequences and the scene at the zoo, it hasn't really improved at all.And then you have the cast Liev Schreiber doesn't really fill Gregory Peck's shoes. Julie Stiles is OK...but wooden compared to Lee Remick.Thewlis was good, but Warner made the more believable photographer.In fact, the only real improvement is Postlethwaite but this is the one case where they really cast a better actor in the role. Troughton was OK, but really, you can't compare.And the talking Damien...no, he was creepier when he didn't really speak.So what you are left with is a shallow remake that doesn't say anything new, offers no revelations, no new insight, and doesn't have the same caliber actors in it.I mean, the only people that are going to like it more, are the mouth-breathers that can't stand watching anything dated.

Python Hyena The Omen (2006): Dir: John Moore / Cast: Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, Mia Farrow, David Thewlis, Pete Postlethwaite: Faithful remake to the 1976 horror masterpiece about the son of Satan entering the world parented by the American Ambassador and his wife. Strange occurrences follow as Ambassador Thorne is approached by a paranoid Priest claiming to know the actual birth right of his son. He is also approached by a photographer who made haunting discoveries that will lead Thorne on a quest that he wishes not to fulfill. Totally unnecessary remake is beautifully made and directed by John Moore who made the awful Behind Enemy Lines. Some of the differences lose their dramatic shock or payoff such as nearly every death scene, which are altered. The scene at the safari park is also a mishap here. Liev Schreiber holds strong as Robert Thorne as does Julia Stiles as his wife but filling the shoes of Gregory Peck and Lee Remick is no easy task. Mia Farrow appears as the ominous nanny promising protection to Damien. The problem here is that it is too much of a send off to her great performance in Rosemary's Baby. David Thewlis is rightly cast as the photographer out to assist Thorne with proof of his son's birth right. Pete Postlethwaite plays Father Brennan who approaches Thorne with information regarding his son's birth. Pointless but well made update remains inferior to the original. Score: 7 ½ / 10

Goosey1972 It doesn't help that the original is one of my all time favourite films but I found this a total disappointment.I think if a classic is going to be remade then they should try to approach it in a different kind of way but this copies the original virtually scene for scene.That leads to inevitable comparisons.The most obvious is the acting in which Schrieber and Styles deliver shockingly wooden performances.I actually thought it was laughable in places.Whereas Peck and Remick had a chemistry that made the audience genuinely care for them it's almost impossible to give a damn about the leads in the remake.The other main difference is what,to be fair,very few horror films (especially modern ones) seem to capture and that's atmosphere.The original had a very eerie feel to it,helped in no small part to Jerry Goldsmith,but it just wasn't there at all in the remake.On the plus side Farrow and Postlethwaite are decent. A fair argument with remakes is to try and forget the original and just take the remake on its own merits but it just falls short in so many ways for me personally. If an upcoming film maker wanted to learn lessons on how to make a good horror film they should watch the original and then the remake.

Nickolaus Pacione This one is exceptionally slick for a remake but also one that made me throw up in the movie theater. The scenes in the remake are over the top graphic and they had to cut them out on the WGN showing of The Omen. This one is up there with the original with how scary it is -- everything about the film is strong but not perfect.It is a word for word remake but the death of the mother is different in the remake and that is all I am giving you about that, you have to figure it out for yourself about how the mother dies. That is not the ending though, I am not going to give that away though -- the mother's death is a spoiler in terms of one of the deaths in the movie, so I am just going to give that detail.The movie version of the original she dies from falling out of the hospital. The hospital death is a little different. The movie is all in all chilling but very graphic and vomit inducing in parts -- I normally don't have that reaction to horror films but this one gave me that reaction. The room mate got some vomit on her leg from when I threw up in the movie theater, I saw this on the premiere of the film on 6-6-06. It was worth every penny.