free counter with statistics Omen, The | Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

omen-thumb.jpg
6 + 6 + 6 = 18. So Fucking What?

The Omen / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | June 6, 2006 | Comments (71)


Slasher flicks I understand. For the more prurient-minded, a good slasher provides the right balance of soft-core porn, hardcore violence, and just enough “jump” moments for a guy to “inadvertently” avail himself of a left boob and, for the ladies, an opportunity to test a date’s squeamishness (if he squeals like Vin Diesel with a mouse underfoot, you know it’s time to move on). Besides, for the younger set, slashers are ideal make-out flicks because you need only wrench yourself away from his masticating jaw seven or eight times to watch some Barbie catch a pole through her chest and, fortunately for teenage gents, the only thing less appealing than the slobber-covered zit that’s about to erupt below your left nostril is watching a sociopath de-nipple Chad Michael Murray, meaning it’s the only time you’re likely to get more attention than the screen.

But I just don’t get the horror subgenre principally characterized by supernatural evils — the appeal of Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist, Audrey Rose, the original Omen, and all of their cinematic devil-spawn completely eludes me. Perhaps it was some sort of anti-Vietnam sentiment or Archie-Bunkerian counterculture-inspired fear of the occult that catapulted the dystopian Satan flick into the pop zeitgeist of the Nixon era. Or maybe those films just had the benefit of some value-added psychedelia — I suppose after enough peyote, “end-times” movies, and Neal Cassady literary sightings, almost anything would scare the bejesus out of you. I dunno. But watching those films in 2006 does little but arouse boredom and disinterest — the eerie music, the slow-moving plots, the obvious revelations, and the hokey biblical quotes that are supposed to ground these films to some sort of religious underpinning all seem like tired relics of a time, perhaps, when America had difficulty telling the difference between a person possessed by the Devil and someone who had just come out of a Sunday morning Pentecostal revival. But for a generation with an attention span that is pushed to the limits by 22-second Onion podcasts, maybe now is not the best moment to be re-introducing 30-year-old plotlines with dramatic lulls as long and taxing as two-term Republican administrations.

All of which makes it that much more baffling that director John Moore (Flight of the Phoenix) would see fit to work off the same David Seltzer screenplay that Richard Donner used in the original, which means that, for those familiar with the 1976 version, the updated Omen provides hardly anything new. There are a couple of modern flourishes (evil dream sequences and brief allusions to 9/11 and the tsunami in Indonesia, presumably to add some political context), but for the most part, this Omen is as oddly irrelevant today as Gus Van Sant’s Psycho remake was in 1998.

The film opens with a bunch of biblical hooey borrowed from the Book of Revelation and Nostradamus about the impending Armageddon, presaged by 9/11 and some other nonsense that only a religious scholar might find interesting, and only then if it had some grounding in the actual Bible (and it may, but I haven’t made it that far in my King James). Cut to Robert Thorn (Liev Schrieber), who is godson to the American president and soon-to-be Ambassador to Great Britain (also making Schreiber, with The Manchurian Candidate already under his belt, the Ambassador to Unnecessary Remakes); his wife, Katherine (Julia Stiles, sans tights), has just lost her baby because of unknown complications during childbirth. Robert, loving husband that he is, decides to keep this tidbit of information to himself and borrow the Son of the Devil and pass it off as their own spawn, which is all fine and dandy until the nanny hangs herself to celebrate Damien’s sixth birthday.

And, because a nanny with a broken neck isn’t much use hanging from a rope off a mansion wall, the Thorns welcome into their home a new caretaker, Mrs. Blaylock (Mia Farrow), who has an unnaturally close relationship to Damien (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) and is prone to bringing strange dogs possessed by evil spirits into the house. Soon enough, Father Brennan (Pete Postlethwaite) gets a bug up his ass about the return of Satan and starts bothering Robert about murdering his son to save mankind, which elicits all the expected responses, until Brennan is gored by a church in need of some repairs. At that point, the local tabloid photographer (David Thewlis) — who presumably has grown tired of snapping pictures of Sienna Miller — gets himself involved, borrowing a contrivance from the Final Destination series and showing Robert all these photos that seem to portend the death of the characters central to the plot. Alas, Robby is convinced; perhaps there is something strange about a child that would attack his mother before stepping foot in a church. (And is it just me, or could the beautiful Stiles pass off as a pasty, female doppelganger to the Brothers Manning?) So, Bob and the photog set about getting to the bottom of this whole Son of the Devil, 666, Armageddon gibberish so that they can finally get back to the important things in life, like frolicking through London streets with moon pies and penny whistles.

While the original Omen had a couple of things working for it — namely some grainy ’70s film stock that set a dark mood and a kid (Harvey Stephens) who probably terrified his own parents — the remake adds a couple of elements that make it slightly better than its predecessor, in the form of a cast that is more palatable to this younger generation of kids (say what you want about Gregory Peck, but Atticus Finch had no business fucking with Satan) and a few deliciously gruesome death scenes that might even give the aforementioned Destination series a run for its money. One scene in particular unintentionally borrows from the David Letterman arsenal, as a central character succumbs to a speeding car in much the same way Paul Schaeffer does three or four times a month, which is about as absurdly funny as The Omen gets. Farrow, for her part, also adds a certain amount of crazy-lady delight to the film’s penultimate scenes. Regrettably, however, this version of Damien is about as horrifying as Dakota Fanning holding a stick of cotton candy (though, I suspect, most audiences would prefer to see Fanning take a holy shiv to the chest). Indeed, the biggest thrill any teenager is likely to receive will be from sneaking in unattended by a parent; and for boomers hoping to recapture the glory of the original, well … umm … I hope you can still track down your dealer. He’s about 55 now, and probably the CEO of the company that just sent your job to India. So, good luck.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. He lives with his wife in a hippy colony/college town in upstate New York. You may email him, or leave a comment below.


Break-Up, The | Fuck Me Gently with a Pajiba



Comments

Dustin:

You hit the nail on the head squarely. As soon as I heard that "The Omen" was basically the same as the o.g. film, I thought- well it didn't work for "Psycho", why would it work here!?

Also, don't trash horror flicks too much for the adolescent set, if you could score with a giant pimple under your nose AND getting to second base, you are doing allright in life.

Sorry, I have to go, someone wants me to read their shot for shot remake of the "Monster Squad".

Posted by: Pete at June 6, 2006 4:21 PM

Having grown up Catholic the only thing scarier than priests is the Devil. I don't know if that is exclusive to Catholics or if it is Christians in general I can only speak for myself. Nothing scares the crap out of me more than the Devil, because you are taught that he is real.

However, if the movie is cinematic crap, I'll take your word for it.

Posted by: MRod at June 6, 2006 4:52 PM

I heart Monster Squad.

Posted by: Jacque at June 6, 2006 4:57 PM

I knew if I saw the words "Gus Van Sant" and "Psycho" anywhere within this review, the movie would be in trouble. Too bad.

Posted by: Candy at June 6, 2006 5:21 PM

You're absolutely right, MRod. After reading the opening of this review, my first thought was, "Hm. Dustin must not be Catholic."

For my part, I yawn at slasher flicks, but Return-of-the-Devil-end-times things freak me out no end. I'm probably the only John Carpenter fan alive who was bored by "Halloween" but loved both "Prince of Darkness" and "In the Mouth of Madness."

I'll be seeing this one.

Posted by: Brian24 at June 6, 2006 6:14 PM

I remember watching the tv version of this movie on my black and white set in my bedroom late at night, and it SCARED THE CRAP OUTTA ME. Why would I ever wish to desecrate that lovely memory by watching Julia Stiles re-act it like a bad Rocky Horror viewing?

Posted by: bob at June 6, 2006 6:17 PM

so its the same as the original? perfect! when I saw the old one, I was like "wow, this is good, but it really needs Julia Stiles!" so I couldnt be happier.

Posted by: Kat... at June 6, 2006 6:46 PM

I've gotta admite, though I realize that I'm in the minority here, I've always liked Julia Stiles as an actress. Why is it that she always makes such HIDEOUS career choices, apart from the Bourne Identity movies? Ah well...

And on a completely separate note, "Rosemary's Baby" scared the bejesus out of me. I understand that it's not a slasher flick: but since almost all slasher flicks are hideously bad and only appeal to the pimply teenaged boys, I think that the lack of blood and gore in movies like Rosemary's Baby is a very, very good thing. All the unnessesary gore in slasher flicks just tries to fill in the gaping holes in the storylines, plots, amounts of talent, and plausability.

Posted by: jules at June 6, 2006 7:08 PM

I generally enjoy your reviews, but dude, you have got to look into shortening some of your sentences. It's grating, and usually results in me seeking entertainment elsewhere. This time around I stopped reading halfway through the first sentence of the last paragraph to go see what my friends over at TWoP were up to.

Posted by: lnray at June 6, 2006 7:42 PM

"...and is it just me, or could the beautiful Stiles pass off as a pasty, female doppelganger of the Brothers Manning"

Ok. So you find Julia Stiles to be beautiful? No problem there. But if you find her to be a doppelganger of the Mannings, then logic dictates that you also find them to beautiful. Does our Dustin loooooove Peyton and Lil' Peyton? Tee-hee....

Posted by: Paco at June 6, 2006 7:58 PM

He does seem to be awfully Faulknerian today, does he not?

Posted by: ScarletKnight at June 6, 2006 9:00 PM

...but dude, you have got to look into shortening some of your sentences...it's a matter of concise writing... blah blah blah

Here we go again. Next thing you know people will be screaming how pretentious Dustin and the rest of us who like his writing are.

Posted by: Chantelle at June 6, 2006 10:32 PM

I concur with my Catholic friends. However, I think Southern Baptists have it slightly worse - I remember being told by my 3rd grade parochial school teacher that Halloween was just a way for Satanists and 'real' witches to get recruits and steal little girls for sacrifice. I didn't watch The Exorcist until I was in my twenties, and it scared the shite outta me. Gruesome death and dismemberment? Clearly good makeup. Beelzebub possessing a child and reaking havok on his family via telepathy and spells? It could happen.

I'm not going to see this, not because it looks like a piece of crap [which is sad because I love Liev Schreiber] but because I don't think my roommate wants me sleeping on the floor in his room for the next week.

Posted by: Kitty X at June 6, 2006 11:03 PM

"Father Brennan (Pete Postlethwaite) gets a bug up his ass about the return of Satan"

That made me giggle.

Posted by: Vincent at June 6, 2006 11:41 PM

If they did a shot-for-shot remake of Monster Squad, I'd totally be there.

Posted by: Bistro at June 7, 2006 12:48 AM

The Exorcist bored the shite out a friend and me when we watched it last year. We made it twenty minutes through and when nothing happened, we got bored and watched Mystery Science Theatre 3000.

Posted by: Mara at June 7, 2006 3:58 AM

Let me just say this: Wolfman's got nards.

Posted by: rory at June 7, 2006 4:03 AM

I bet the remake doesn't have the creepy choir music the original had, does it? Or the spinning head decapitation scene? The music is what made the original scary for me.

I don't think the remake took a page out of Final Destination's book for the pictures that fortell the death of the person in said photos because that also was in the original. If anything, FD ripped from horror movies past.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 7, 2006 6:21 AM

Whoops, sorry. Didn't mean to be anonymous.

Posted by: EMTQueen at June 7, 2006 6:22 AM

After sitting through that cinematic pile of turds last night, I have an overwhelming urge to hunt down the director and producers' addresses and mail them bills for the price of my ticket and the time I could have spent doing something more spiritually fulfilling like re-siliconing my shower.


Boring plot. Ham acting. Serious overuse of deep red as a stylistic element. Use of hackneyed horror cliches (she's going to move the bathroom mirror and see something scary. yay.).


The fact that David Thewlis's up close and personal decapitation actually got the audience laughing should tell one something about this movie.


(And if anyone's now irritated that I probably just posted a spoiler, why do you actually care?)

Posted by: Jen at June 7, 2006 6:43 AM

Lapsed Catholic here - the fear lies in the religion. I absolutely agree that if you didn't grow up being afraid of Satan, Armageddon, the whole 6-6-6 fable, the shock value just isn't there. The original was frightening because of who we were (society, this country) back then, and what we believed. Today it seems almost hokey. We are all way more cynical, a lot less faithful. But that might be a good thing...

Posted by: courtney at June 7, 2006 9:24 AM

I had an errant babysitter who allowed my sister and I (7 and 5) to watch the original way back when while she sat on the phone in another room. To say that experience traumatized me would be putting it lightly.
I will not see this. Not because of its dreadful reviews and not because I am a purist - I will not see this because I can't live through it again. Truth.
Oh yeah, and your reviews are simply phenomenal...word count be damned.

Posted by: pinkisthenewdog.blogspot.com at June 7, 2006 10:08 AM

Hey now...this movie was pretty good, far superior in quality and acting than its predecessor, in my opinion. I jumped a couple of times, got chills once or twice, and even nervously chewed on a fingernail during parts. Mia Farrow was amazing, and I'll have to admit that when Julia Stiles isn't dancing her way into our hearts, she's a pretty fine actress. All in all, it was worth my $7.

Go see it for yourself if religious horror interests you.

Posted by: Shane at June 7, 2006 10:09 AM

I love horror movies...this was more of a comedy.

And Julia Stiles is a horrendous actress. Her delivery alone could have made it a horror movie if not for the laughability of it all.

Posted by: David at June 7, 2006 10:14 AM

Yeah, I gotta stress the Pictures Predicting Oncoming Death was is the book and the original movie.

Posted by: bizzbee at June 7, 2006 10:51 AM

and by the way, yesterday was 6-6-06, not 6-6-6. It's a different number. Six thousand six hundred and sixty six vs. six hundred and sixty six. Idiots.

Posted by: bizzbee at June 7, 2006 10:54 AM

Back in 1906 you would say nineteen "oh" six. In the first decade of the new millenium, saying the "oh" is not necessary, just two thousand six will do. I guess the 6-6-6 makes some sense in that regard. God bless you marketers.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 7, 2006 11:52 AM

I agree about the religion comments. I grew up Southern Baptist, and any movie about the devil or possession freaks me right out. I've only seen the Exorcist once when I was in the middle of my high school religious phase, and I was terrified for MONTHS that I would be possessed. I would lie perfectly still on bed, trying to feel if it was starting to shake.

I don't even believe in the devil anymore, but this kind of movie can give me a relapse! :) The exorcism scene in the The Exorcism of Emily Rose really freaked me out. I ended up waking up at 3 a.m. thinking a demon might be in the bedroom.

Posted by: Kristin at June 7, 2006 11:59 AM

Oh Lord, I just felt a horrible premonition that a re-make of Rosemary's Baby is on the way. If so, they had better let Polanski in the country long enough to film at the Dakota apartments. And please, can Hollywood just let Mia Farrow retire to the countryside so that we might all forget how fast our youthful beauty starts to fade?

Posted by: Nico at June 7, 2006 12:56 PM

...but dude, you have got to look into shortening some of your sentences...it's a matter of concise writing... Why must concision be the primary hallmark of good writing? Damn Hemingway!

Posted by: Amanda P. at June 7, 2006 1:51 PM

Supernatural thrillers are much scarier than slasher or standard horror films because fear of God/Devil runs much deeper within us than, say, fear of an undying summer camper in a hockey mask. I think Constantine, if it did anything right, purveyed the idea of an unseen world of demons and angels perfectly. The thought that these creatures may be right beside us at any time is very creepy. I'll take supernatural horror over slasher 9 out 10 times. But the Omen was a little slow and boring even in its day. I usually don't like remakes to rely too heavily on modern special effects technology, but this one could have used some real sprucing up. Sad to hear they stuck to the original script instead of being creative. I'll wait for the DVD release on 6/6/2106.

Posted by: altan at June 7, 2006 1:55 PM

Thanks Altan, for pointing out what I said out loud in the theater upon seeing the preview - "I wonder how long they held onto that script waiting for that release date?"

Posted by: Kitty X at June 7, 2006 2:15 PM

I think I'll always remember the original where the priest gets impaled...other than that, I don't really have an interest in seeing the remake. The Exorcist was pretty good, but they didn't remake it, which is a better idea. They just remastered it. So let's leave the devil movies alone, and let them thrive on their own originality, i.e. Rosemary's Baby.

Posted by: Gina at June 7, 2006 2:33 PM

But really, how could you NOT release The Omen on such an auspicious date? 6606 vs. 666 notwithstanding, it's sort of surprising more studios didn't have a bevy of demonic flicks lined up for that release date. And why hasn't anyone compared Damien to "Little Nicky"? Enjoyed the review, will also wait for the DVD, as there are just too many mindless blockbusters on my list to fit this one in.

Posted by: CapnGravy at June 7, 2006 2:38 PM

Hmm, B actors, washed up Mia Farrow, sounds like a waste of my precious 2 hours. If I want to meet the son of satan,,,I'll sit in traffic for 2 hours and cut some miserable prick off. Then people get all Dante on your ass.

Posted by: C.J. at June 7, 2006 2:38 PM

Why stab Dakota Fanning?

Posted by: Brian at June 7, 2006 3:07 PM

I enjoyed it, though it was slow in some parts, but nothing unexpected. Stiles' acting was rather sub-par at times (again, nothing unexpected). I'm glad I found Pajiba, the critics here are objective and effective at cutting through all the hype BS, right down to the nitty-gritty. It lets me enjoy even craptastic movies more before I see them.

Posted by: travis at June 7, 2006 4:42 PM

Count me in as another one who is scared by supernatural horror flicks. I was raised Christian in Appalachia where haints and boogers lie behind every closet door. These movies are always way more scary to me than slasher movies.

Posted by: SuperSally at June 7, 2006 5:29 PM

The original Omen didn't scare me. The only thing that scared me about The Exorcist was the "Abuse of the Cross" scene that really should have been named "Abuse of the Crotch". I had my hands over my vajayjay the entire time, and it makes me feel saquirmy to this day.

Not having been raised Catholic, or even Christian, demonic horror just strikes me as cheesy and ignorant, and I certainly will not waste my time and money on this. In fact, I'm still shocked that Hollywood thinks it can keep getting away with this cinematic recycling campain, whether it be terrible-old-movie-to-terrible-new-movie or terrible-old-tv-show-to-even-more-terrible-film.

However, clearly there are people for whom this genre is really effective. Some of the above posters mentioned it. I read in the paper today that many women were either induced early or tried to "hold it in" so that their child was not born on 6/6/06. I argue that those ig'nant bitches shouldn't have been allowed to breed in the first place.

Posted by: MaiGirl at June 7, 2006 6:18 PM

Why stab Dakota Fanning?

To get her to blink!

Posted by: ScarletKnight at June 7, 2006 6:32 PM

Julia Stiles without tights? Dude, you just saved me some cash. Thanks.

Posted by: Matt at June 7, 2006 8:07 PM

The funniest thing written in this entire thread - including the review itself - was MaiGirl's referencing her "vajayjay"!

thank you Pajiba and Pajibans for making this my favorite site when I need to laugh.

Posted by: Michael at June 7, 2006 9:33 PM

I really wish hollywood-level writers would just drop the remakes and come up with something fresh. College students have produced much better material than the drivel that's been coming out of big box office production companies lately (at least in the way of horror). I've been dying to see a really engaging and psychosis-induced, delusion-producing scary movie. Seven was probably the most engaging flick I've ever seen, but I've never seen any movie reach true absolution as far as horror goes (at least for me...then again that's subjective to the audience).

Posted by: travis at June 7, 2006 9:38 PM

Great review. Something about Julie Stiles HAS always bugged me - she has one of those faces that I can't categorize, can't stop looking at, and can't really get comfortable with even if I do admire it. Then again, it could have been the spoiled little twit she played in I See Black People, or whatever that was, that has turned me off to her (and I am one of the seven people on Earth, apparently, who could not give a shit about the Bourne Identities).

Never saw the original; will probably wait for the DVD on this one only because I lust for Liev and kinda like the color red, too. My plea, however, is that Hollywood put down Revelations for Dummies long enoug for someone in Van Nuys to check it out, and launch the next big thing in porn. For chrissakes (no pun intended)...we're dealing with Satan, impregnation by demons, black magic, rituals, the number six/nine....HELLO. It writes itself. In terms of culture and aesthetic value, Holy Mother Church hasn't really put the numbers up since the Renaissance, and it's time to get back in the game and start contributing (something positive, that is). Tera Patrick, you're needed on the set.

Posted by: Calpurnia at June 7, 2006 11:12 PM

The original was slow paced and all I could think about was how they enticed Gregory Peck to lead in it. Seriously, how much did they pay him?

As for the remake...it has no excuse nor any merit. All I can say is that the 666 gimmick worked. Oh, and I did like Constantine, the casting was spot on character wise. But I digress...

Posted by: io at June 7, 2006 11:57 PM

As remakes go, this was pointless but much better than "Poseidon." It will only work for those who never saw the original. I was a kid when I saw the '76 version and it scared me because it was creepy and Jerry Goldsmith's music was very dark and ominouos and it had the spooky chanting. The only jumps in this one occur because of the bombastic score and high decibel sound effects, like the one that accompanies the thing in the mirror dream. You know she's going to see something in the mirror, so the only way they can make you jump is to blast some sound effect. When Damien is riding his tricycle around the top floor in the original, there is no music playing and you don't know he's about to run into his mother. Now, the orchestra is cranked up to 11 to accompany Damien's trip on his scooter in an effort to set the audience on edge. There's nothing unexpected, and that's why it's pointless. And Lee Remick had a much more spectacular, shocking, show-stopping death than Julia Stiles does. Would a servant of Satan have to physically administer the air bubble to the IV tube? I think not! That's the one scene they didn't keep from the original. Toss her out the window, damn it!

Posted by: Chuck at June 8, 2006 9:04 AM

Yeah. Regarding the scariness quotient of devil-related things, Emily Rose fucked me up for a good week.

Posted by: TheIdleReceptionist at June 8, 2006 11:50 AM

I never considered the possibility that my vestigial Catholicism caused my deep-rooted fear of the Devil and Satanic possession. An interesting suggestion, Pajiba-ites.

Nevertheless, when I saw the original Omen back in my youth, it scared the crap out of me and it haunted my dreams for days. And I don't mean in a good way. I still can't hear the name "Damien" without thinking "Antichrist." Slasher flicks are campy and suspenseful if you're willing to go along for the ride, but the Omen, Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby , etc. are much, MUCH scarier because they tap into fear of powerful and aggressive Evil; Evil working to infiltrate and destroy humanity.


That being said, I have no idea why anyone decided to remake this movie, especially with Julia Stiles as the lead actress. She will always be a Mona Lisa wanna-be hip-hop dancer and mediocre actress to me. Hard to get into the Lucifer mood when she's on the screen, I imagine.

Posted by: filakia at June 8, 2006 2:08 PM

you could say the date was o6.06.06. would that make more evil sense?

Posted by: lizzie at June 9, 2006 3:47 AM

I agree with the previous complaints of long sentences. Sometimes it makes your reviews impossible to read. Do you have ADD or somthing? How many jokes, metaphors, and cultural refernces do you have to squeeze into every single sentence?

Posted by: Christine at June 9, 2006 10:06 AM

I'm sorry, but too many words make reviews become IMPOSSIBLE to read??!?



I would think that would be an indicator of A.D.D.



... or just an indicator of stupidity, take your pick.

Posted by: Chantelle at June 9, 2006 8:30 PM

The fear lies within the premise that the world is too smart, too cynical, too secular for the religious hokeyness of the devil to have any impact on it- but they are wrong- dead wrong.

Despite the atheistic zeal that dominated the 70's and rears its head once more in the 21st century (despite the rightwing Xtian fervor that claims the contrary) Satan is real and he will have a son the antichrist and woe be to anyone who tries to stop his ascension to absolute power. Only horrible agonizing death awaits you. THAT is the reason to be afraid.

That being said remakes suck the monkey's butthole and I'll never sit through another one since that fiasco that was Dawn of the Dead- sprinting zombies my ass !!

Posted by: Dan at June 9, 2006 9:07 PM

I do think in the interest of modern-day reading levels and various screen settings that shorter sentences would reach a broader audience. More paragraphs?

Posted by: MrG at June 9, 2006 9:59 PM

In other words:

"Since I can find no error in what you've written I'll piss and whine about the delivery."

Don't blame me for your lack of ability or discipline, straw man.

Posted by: Dan at June 9, 2006 10:31 PM

I just came back from a screening of this film and thought it was pretty good. It pales in comparison to all of those slow horror films you dislike so much (it's called suspense, building upon the slow burn, slowing notching up the tension until you just can't take it anymore, and Rosemary's Baby is the shining example of the subgenre). Horror films aren't all about hack-and-slash. Sometimes the thought is scarier than the image, and horrendous deaths aren't necessary for a film to be fantastic. That said, the greatest scenes (other than the Mia Farrow freakout sequence - awesome) were the horrendous death sequences that showed everything. Everything. Over, and over, and over.

Three big problems with this film. 1) it tried to act like a modern conventional horror films, with really poorly done MTV style editing and shock sequences. 2) the editing/cinematography was just awful for the first 2/3's of the film - shaky camera, bad focus, horrible shot composition, and really terrible MTV style editing attempts at shock sequences. 3) Leiv Schreiber has the charima of a styrofoam plate run over on the highway during a thunderstorm - none. I did not feel sympathetic for this man and his problems because his face never moved. Ever. Eyebrows, mouth, even the thoughts running in his head never seemed to move from flat. Any other actor could have played this part better and it's a shame his performance was supposed to carry the film.

That said, I actually prefer this to the original. I thought the original was so damn boring. At least this version, flawed as it was, did not bore me. It made me wish that I was watching other films that did certain sequences better (thoughts included: Rosemary's Baby, Jian Gui (The Eye), The Village, and Silent Hill among others), but was good enough for a popcorn flick. And did I mention the Mia Farrow freak out sequence and its inherent awesomeness?

Posted by: Robert at June 9, 2006 11:01 PM

I like Rowles' writing, but I agree, his sentences are a bit long. I've thought several times that they're overstuffed with unnessecary allusions (spelling, I know). He illustrates his points very well within his own writing; his allusions often help these points, but they're often laborious to read. They are a bit run-on as well; the content is often hilarious, but could be better organized.

Posted by: rmj at June 10, 2006 1:28 AM

I though cinematic.wise (is that an english word?) the movie was good. They had great ictures, and i liked the way they put some red into every scene. And other than the Psycho remake, which was completely lame, this one at least had better quality and actors. The original was a joke.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 10, 2006 5:03 AM

"I'm sorry, but too many words make reviews become IMPOSSIBLE to read??!?

I would think that would be an indicator of A.D.D."

HEY. I *have* severe ADD, and I read Dustin's reviews just fine, thank you very much. :)

When I was a wee little girl I caught the original Omen on tv a few times, and honestly just found it to be kind of blandly icky and ultimately boring. When someone told me they were remaking it, though, I was really pleased. I started to really hope that they would update it and make it less yawneriffic (I *love* a well done supernatural thriller, and I always thought that The Omen had great story potential and that the suckitude was, possibly, removable). Then I saw the teaser they released to the movie theaters. You know, the one with the kid wearing a red coat, sitting on a swing? And the camera swings around and he's staring "malevolently" at you?

Yeah, that killed all hope for it being good and scary, right there. That glare looked a lot more like "It's my weekend at my Dad's and instead of just buying real food he fed me bad Mexican and now my insides are roiling, I missed my nap, it's cold and it's wet, and I have to play outside while he has "grown up time" with his 'special new lady friend -- this SUCKS" and less "I will crush your worthless human soul beneath my heel after I annihilate your fleshy outer casing."

So, I'm not really surprised by this review. But I sure did enjoy it!

Posted by: Caroline at June 10, 2006 1:15 PM

I saw this movie, and although enjoyable, I didn't think the kid was up to the role. He wasn't evil or creepy enough. Mia Farrow was stupendous. Julia and Liev were ok by themselves, but together they had less chemistry than Vince and Jennifer in "The Break-Up". I kept waiting for her to call him "uncle".

Posted by: Anonymous at June 10, 2006 4:03 PM

In her first role with a white co-star she ends up getting with the monkey in the zoo scene, I dont remember that in the original

Posted by: zrawk at June 11, 2006 12:19 AM

Bugenhagen!

best part of the movie...

Posted by: rachelsuzanna at June 11, 2006 9:38 AM

If it's a carbon copy of the original, which you obviously haven't watched, how could it be borrowing contrivances from Final Destination?

Those photos and the photographer were in the original too.

Personally, I won't be going to see this remake, why bother? The original is an excellent movie and if it doesn't appeal to this attention-deficient generation, well, that's their loss.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 11, 2006 12:48 PM

I agree thant being raised Catholic makes these movies scary. I can't watch the Exorcist, and the Emily Rose *previews* scared me. Because you learn about the Devil at such a young age, it stays with you emotionally even if you reject it in reality. So I won't know if this movie's good or bad.

Posted by: Erin at June 12, 2006 9:30 PM

Am I hearing right? Please make your sentences shorter because they are TOO HARD TO READ this way?
Jeezuz....Heaven forbid that we actually think as hard about a review as the author did while writing it...

So, in order to help...Mongo say movie BAD. Mongo say no see movie.

Posted by: Lawrence at June 12, 2006 9:46 PM

Forgetting the odd ending, Rosemary's Baby was a bit freaky because the umbrella conspiracies and demonic worship where not explained by some cockamaime Priory of bullshite story. Plus, Mia Farrow was thinner than Calista Flockhart after lunch.

Posted by: Allison at June 12, 2006 10:04 PM

If I remember right, Liev Schrieber was in Scarface. So that's something.

Posted by: Allison at June 12, 2006 10:04 PM

Did anyone notice the insane racism of zrawk's post? Did zrawk notice it? I am almost certain that some posts get screened/edited/deleted based on content. Though it may have slipped past a simple language filter, that post is about as subtle as a punch in the stomach, and far more sickening.

Posted by: Lee at June 13, 2006 9:47 AM

...and the hokey biblical quotes that are supposed to ground these films to some sort of religious underpinning all seem like tired relics of a time, perhaps, when America had difficulty telling the difference between a person possessed by the Devil and someone who had just come out of a Sunday morning Pentecostal revival...

OK, this is what made me laugh so hard! (Being part of a Pentecostal church for some time, but no longer...)
Thanks for the laughs and being able to share this with my mom, who along with me, never see these kind of movies, but knows they are evil because they suck any kind of spiritual intelligence you might have right out of you.

Posted by: laura at June 13, 2006 12:04 PM

This movie made me laugh so hard. It was like an even more horrid version of The Da Vinci Code, and I was glad when Julia Stiles finally kicked the bucket.

WTF was Mia Farrow's role? Seriously. I was left confused as to what she was actually there for, other than wide-eyed closeups of obvious fanatical faith, however dark. And .. where did the Vatican part go anywhere in the movie? So many strings left untied. People in the theater were actually surprised when they found out Damien was still alive. Shows the IQ rating over here.

Posted by: duckandcover at June 13, 2006 8:45 PM

"...watching a sociopath de-nipple Chad Michael Murray..."

That sociopath better have a big knife. Dude's got some huge nipples, that's all I'm sayin'.

Posted by: Craig at June 15, 2006 5:11 PM

the kid in the story is too old for the plot and his face is not evil enough to make the audience scared.

Posted by: leia at June 22, 2006 9:42 PM