The Omega Code (1999) User Reviews

An interesting film, but eerie to watch

[bek-12 · 5/10 · 12 February 2001]

If I gauge this film on the story, without accounting for the religious implications, I'd rate it a 7/10. It's a decent film, but the ending is a bit unexplained to me. I'm a little surprised it has earned such a low rating, but I imagine it could be considered offensive to some people.

I'm not a religious person, but I don't think the antichrist would be so blatant with his identity. I can't imagine people in the world not rising up to stop such an evil force, much less that many people siding with him. That is, if they know who/what he is. I fault this movie on the religious side for that, because the antichrist would come like a sheep in wolves clothes, or so I would think.

Still, an interesting concept that seems somewhat based in truth.

Condenses Way Too Much Material at the End

[Uriah43 · 5/10 · 17 November 2013]

This movie starts off with a Jewish scholar by the name of "Rabbi Rostenberg" (Yehuda Efroni) completing research on a Biblical code which can unlock secret messages of prophetic importance from within the Bible. Because of the significant advantages to be gained from its possession, evil forces want his work and send a hit man named "Dominic" (Michael Ironside) to kill him and acquire it. They succeed in killing him and they get most of the code. But not all. When the news of Rabbi Rostenberg's murder leaks out a popular motivational speaker named "Gillen Lane" (Casper Van Dien) is called upon by television reporter "Cassandra Barashe" (Catherine Oxenberg) to explain to her audience the importance of this Bible code. Not long afterward the man recently appointed as the Chairman of the European Union, "Stone Alexander" (Michael York) calls upon Gillen Lane to be his public relations spokesman as he launches an effort to consolidate the world under his leadership. Anyway, rather than disclose the entire plot and ruin the mystery for those who haven't seen this movie I will just say that while this film is entertaining the story itself is mishandled a bit. The main cause of this is the fact that it spends a great deal of time on setting up the story but condenses way too much material at the end. As a result the ending leaves much to be desired. Still, both Michael Ironside and Michael York, along with Catherine Oxenberg to a lesser degree, performed in a reasonably good manner and their performances make the film watchable. However, I cannot say the same for Casper Van Dien as he just didn't have the presence required to be a lead actor. In any case, this isn't a bad Christian film and I think it deserves an average rating.

It is not as bad as the vote portrays it to be.

[Miss_MiChiMi · 5/10 · 20 October 2004]

I remember hearing the buzz about this movie and deciding that I had to see it. So, I rented it and was pleasantly surprised. Granted, Casper Van Dien would not have been my first choice for the lead, but these types of movies don't have the financing to get A-listers.

What I do not understand is why there are so many bashing this movie as Christian propaganda or apocalyptic foretelling. The movie is someone's interpretation of the Antichrist being unleashed on the world. On that note, if you are an atheist, do not believe there will ever be an "Armageddon", or couldn't care less if Armageddon happens or not, then why would you watch this movie? It's like a vegetarian going to an all you can, extreme carnivore buffet. You know you won't like it, you won't try to understand the underlying story, and you will lose focus because this subject doesn't interest you.

I have to say, given the resources available, the movie was actually quite good. Michael Ironside, as usual, immerses himself in the role and makes the villain larger than life. The movie attempted to bring the message of evil waiting to attack to the masses, and did it in a quite entertaining way.

Before I get bashed for being a "bible thumper" or a "religious zealot", I want to point out that I am not affiliated with any organized religion and watched this movie with people who were Christian, agnostic, atheist, and wiccan. No one complained about the movie.

highly recommended (with a catch)

[preypacer · 1/10 · 13 March 2000]

I would highly recommend seeing this movie. After viewing it, you will be able to walk out of every other bad movie EVER saying "at least it wasn't The Omega Code."

Forget my money, I want my TIME back!

Televangelist's wet dream

[auteurus · 1/10 · 8 August 2004]

Unlike other 'bad movies' like Battlefield Earth or Plan 9 from Outer Space, this mindless piece of propaganda disguised as a film fails to entertain. It's clearly a ham handed attempt to ram an apocalyptic televangelist philosophy down your throat. And you would expect nothing else when you learn it is produced by Matthew Crouch, son of Paul Crouch who is one of the countries leading televangelists and founder of TBN. The plot is lifted directly from the popular Bible Code series of books by Michael Drosnin, although it is dumbed down substantially for the film.

Unfortunately, this film lacks the wacky charm and unintentional humor of the Crouch's TBN TV productions such as "Praise the Lord".

I never expected much from soap actors like Casper Van Dien and Catherine Oxenberg but it is truly sad to see how far Michael York and Michael Ironside have fallen, that they need to appear in mediocre movies such as this.

Great production values, if not perfect story/acting

[Gypsy · 18 October 1999]

As a great fan of the "Left Behind" series of novels, I found this film to be a great beginning for films with a prophetic backdrop. It is filled with high production values - good camera work and special effects - comparable to what Hollywood studios have to offer. It's not a perfect film. The script and talent can fail so that some of the key moments the producers would like us to fully appreciate don't quite make it for a cynical audience, but that can all be corrected on the next venture. I hope the box office supports their first attempt in this marketplace so that they will produce more -- and I hope I'll get a chance to work on the next one with them. So see it. Buy tickets. Send your friends. thanks,

Disappointing to say the least

[Willie-12 · 2/10 · 26 October 1999]

Yes I did see The Omega Code, knowing full well that it was probably going to be disappointing, but I was hoping that my preconceived ideas about it would be wrong...they weren't. I am a Christian and I have always thought that if a real "Hollywood" type movie could be made about the end times, then it would be very entertaining and very frightening, even if you don't believe the Bible. I still have that belief, but this definitely wasn't the movie that will entertain and frighten people, on the contrary it will make people confused and probably laugh a lot. I know it wasn't a Hollywood movie, but it did cost about 7 million dollars to make, and that is low budget, but I have seen movies that cost less, and were much better. This one had sub par acting, a horrible musical score that sounded like it was done entirely on a keyboard, and a script that seemed like it was done by people who have had little experience with screen writing. It was extremely confusing to me, and I have some knowledge of Revelation and Daniel, so I can imagine how confusing it would be to someone who has little or no experience with those books at all. Obviously too much of the budget was spent on the effects (and they weren't that great), and not on getting good screen writers and good actors. Overall, very disappointing.

The worst movie I've seen in a long time.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 2/10 · 10 April 2005]

Seriously, this movie was really truly bad!

The story is filled with some gigantic plot holes and because of this already 50% of this movie doesn't even make sense anymore and gets very unpleasant to watch. The movie is ridicules and at times laughable bad and it all just leaves a pointless impression.

Visually the movie looks like an average made for TV-movie, complete with some stupid cinematography and horrible looking special effects. But even worse is the awful directing. Poor Casper van Dien and Michael York, they try the best they can but even their efforts can't save the horrible script, awful dialogs and the even worse directing by Robert Marcarelli. Van Dien seems uncertain how to play in most of the scene's, at times he plays his character with sarcasm and fun (kind of like in "Starship Troopers") but in other scene's he plays him totally serious. Not really van Dien's fault but more the director's I think.

Only thing that saves this movie from being a complete disaster is Michael Ironside. He does what he can do best; play the villain. I mean just look at the guys face, great villain actor! Basically he plays his "Total Recall" role all over again. Catherine Oxenberg always is quite a good actress in this but what the point of her character was?...Most of the characters are just mainly confusing. Also it was kind of fun to see William Hootkins in this, by the "Star Wars" fans he is better known as Red Six, Porkins from "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope".

Poorly made movie, on every front and a waste of the quite good cast. Most certainly not worth your time!

2/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Camp drivel designed to exploit windowlickers

[Lazersetcetera · 1/10 · 27 April 2004]

This movie is, to begin with, deeply offensive. Taking a subject many folk believe in then building a cynical, impossible lie of a story on it, based (not as some would have you believe, Revelations) on a cheap, National Enquirer style sensationalist bit of airport reading trash like the Bible Code (BTW you know they've done 'The Da Vinci code' now too) is offensive not just to anyone who cares about how a premise for a film gets the green light but more disturbingly to anyone who is a mug for this sort of thing.

Now I'm from England so my knowledge of US Christianity is limited but most positive respondents to this pile of pants appear to take it as much as gospel truth as er... the Gospels. That is worrying because in many cases they overlook the eye-popping absurdity of the film. And they should be aware...

Now I missed some of the movie because i took the precaution to be good and drunk while watching this and I fell asleep in some of the slower bits. however, I loved the bits I did see. Highlights and there are no SPOILERS, it can't be done:

Caspar and york's initial conversation was the campiest piffle I've ever seen, I've seen more macho dialogue in Maurice. I have no idea how they kept straight faces.

The dodgy angel guys chasing down the Jewish guy was the least thrilling chase down in any movie. The chuckle brothers are more tense.

The explosion was hopelessly weedy. It was.... I can't be bothered. This film was pathetically horrible. The only reason to watch it is to drink heavily with and chuck junk at the telly. Funny stuff and utter bollox

Awful

[nolanjwerner · 1/10 · 13 March 2003]

This is, quite frankly, one of the worst movies ever. It belongs on Mystery Science Theatre 3000 but Mike and the bots may not even sit through this terrible thing. How badly made is it? The character with a Ph.D. in Mythology can not pronounce "archetype" correctly.

I know that TBN was involved in this and I just have to say, if there is a hell, I hope that all of the people who made this celluloid abomination spend eternity there.

Matt Crouch's dream come true

[Schlockmeister · 1/10 · 23 October 1999]

Interesting to read comments by viewers regarding Omega Code... many of the overwhelmingly positive comments were lifted almost word for word from TBN broadcasts... the movie looks as if it were made to go directly to video, to be stocked besides the three-part rapture series that was done by some other religious group in the 70s.. dont remember it? You wont remember this one either in a year or two. This is the first movie I have ever seen where it was implied that it was your religious duty to go to it and buy as many tickets as possible to save souls... very shameful... this just goes to show that if you are a televangelist's son, you too can play high-roller Hollywood producer with lil ole ladies tithe money...

How divided people are on this one

[JKearse · 9/10 · 16 November 1999]

One of the most interesting aspects of this film is how divided people feel about it. Most people either love it or hate it. There is little in between. I fall into the group that loved it. Yes, it's true, Casper Van Dien is a little inconsistent. When he's good, he is very good, but sometimes he is less than adequate. (He is more often good.) Catherine Oxenberg is believable in a fairly standard role. Michael Ironside gives a very nice performance in a difficult role; difficult because his role, Dominic, was not well conceived, but he overcomes this problem beautifully. The casting of Michael York was inspired. His excellent performance as Stone Alexander is very suave, very powerful, very weird. I must also mention Jan Tríska and Gregory Wagrowski as the prophets. Their performances are very subtle and most convincing. Overall, well written, the script and story were well executed. I did have a problem with a couple of unnecessary scenes. There were several lines of dialog that were not believably written, but for the most part the script was sound. One piece of advice - go see this movie with an open mind. This isn't a perfect movie, and if you accept that, you should enjoy it immensely.

Best "Christian" Movie in decades

[rjlee · 7/10 · 19 October 1999]

I thought this was a good movie. The pace was fast, and rarely did it lag. Michael York was splendidly evil as was Michael Ironside. The lighting was superb, and it was good to see a movie that could contain violence without feeling as if they had to rub my nose in the blood and gore. The most amazing part of this movie was that it was made for $7M. I only wish they would have spent $8-9M so they could have given Cassandra more depth, and perhaps spent more time working on a little more plausible dialog between Gillen and his wife. The wife's lines were the most disappointing part of this film for me.

I was left with some questions from a Biblical standpoint, but really, it's just a movie, and doesn't claim to be Revelation on film.

Worst movie I have seen

[schaefms · 1/10 · 13 August 2003]

I got suckered by the "Christian" propaganda. This movie is by far the worst I have ever seen. Usually I look for something redeeming. "Legends of the Fall" had cinematography, etc. But there is nothing that I could find in that movie. Cheesy, bad acting, stupid plot straight from some horrible books on Revelation, combined with American paranoia (nuclear war, the beast, Jerusalem, the temple, etc.)

Excellent

[s1man · 24 November 1999]

The movie has been referred to as a Bond film without the sex and gratuitous violence.I agree with this and more!! Usually Christian films are mediocre but not the case with The Omega Code;especially when you consider the budget they worked with.Another good thing is in the end God wins and the movie ends with hope rather than despair.

The WORST movie I have seen in a long time

[dsalyer666 · 1/10 · 20 April 2003]

What a stinker, this movie has no redeeming value. I saw it on video because the premise looked interesting. However, the acting was pathetic and the plot infantile. My wife was so disgusted by how bad this movie was she actually asked for her money back at Blockbuster. Save your time and money and avoid this dud.

Now I know why Paul Crouch and TBN is so annoying

[movieman-41 · 2/10 · 18 October 1999]

This movie demonstrates to anyone who has an interest in Bible that Paul Crouch (Who produced and financed this opus.) is now and always will be a total nitwit. This film is evangelistic in presentation and obviously designed to spread the theology of the Trinity Broadcasting Network. The movie wants to take the viewer through the `Tribulation' of the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel. If you can stand the trite television programs that TBN broadcasts you know the script of this movie. We are to believe that the Bible is really and encryption code and a 3D hologram to boot. Well which text is the code in? We do not have the original and there is a fair amount of difference between the official `Massoretic text dating from the 10 Century C.E. (the Common Era) and the either the Qumran texts (the Dead Sea Text) or the Samaritan Pentateuch for example. Who decided which text to follow for the encryption work?

What really was annoying though is the movie conclusion, where all has been programmed by the code, and must be fulfilled with no exceptions, but one person making a decision to believe then negates all that the Bible has predicted for 1900 years. Casper Van Dien by his discision to kill Michel York (who has already been resurrected from the dead) somehow stops the Second Coming of Christ by his act of belief in God. If God went to all the trouble of encrypting the Bible, you would think He might have know about this little fact and changed the code. Overall the acting is wooden and Katherine Oxenburg (last know from Dynasty in the 80's) is as wooden as a puppet. Wait for the movie in a Church near you and save the price of admission.

A Waste of Time

[huskergrove · 1/10 · 7 August 2002]

Without a doubt, the worst movie I have ever seen. The only aspect of it more pathetic than Casper Van Dien's performance was the script itself. It makes Battlefield Earth seem like an Oscar candidate. The Omega Code was a complete waste of the 30 minutes I endured before turning it off, burning the tape and disconnecting my vcr for a month.

Pathetic display of unconvincing ludicrousness

[aleforce · 1/10 · 16 April 2003]

All I have to say: What a pathetic display of unconvincing ludicrousness. The acting was terrible and the story is the most ridiculous thing that I have come across, yet. And I have seen some bad movies...

The movie makes me realise why people check ratings on IMDB before watching movies

[dlanod · 1/10 · 19 July 2003]

I registered on IMDB for one reason. To alert people to how incredibly bad, painful and generally nauseating this movie is. The acting is bad. The plot bad. If considered within the context of a "Christian movie", it's worse. If you want to spread a message, at least get half-decent actors, better script-writers and a director that knows what he's doing so that you don't just drive off the people you're trying to get your message to. The storyline had a potential to be really good, but instead they left me wanted to stab myself in my eye. Singularly the worst movie I have ever seen, it got me to desperately and passionately believe... in my desire to press "Stop" on my remote. I considering walking out of it, but unfortunately I was watching it in my living room.

Worse than I could've imagined!

[john-579 · 1/10 · 25 May 2002]

Well, I'd heard about this and I just hadda see it when it rolled around on cable. Shoot, it's even worse than I could've imagined.

Michael York must have been really desperate for money to show up in this (although he does his usual good job, I must admit--he really is a trooper). OTOH, Casper Van Dien's performance in this serves only to remind you that his appearance in "Starship Troopers" was Oscar-caliber by comparison. And the constant rewriting of the Bible to suit the filmmaker's or producer's own agendas is really embarrassing to anyone who actually knows their Bible history.

I'd have to rank this film as second only to "Battlefield Earth" for the title of "Bad Film of the Decade."

I'm glad I forgot this movie.

[hamoo · 2/10 · 25 July 2002]

I have an excellent memory. I'm so happy that I can't remember this movie. It must have been horrible because I gave it a 2. Checked my vote history, went to see what this movie was, but couldn't remember. After reviewing the other comments, I'm glad I forgot what it was. I still can't remember!

One of the best supernatural thrillers ever

[michale-2 · 8/10 · 18 October 1999]

For almost no promotion and a relatively small budget, this was an extremely pleasant surprise. The story had enough intelligence to hold the attention of adults, and yet it did not disappoint my teenagers.

This film offers people from a variety of world-views an up-dated glimpse into the prophecies of the Torah, Revelation, and the writings of Nostradamus. If you enjoy movies about prophecy, end-times, or the supernatural in general, you will love this film.

This movie just happens to be based on a true story.

A Decent Apocalyptic Film (For once)

[AL01-3 · 6/10 · 12 July 2000]

This film is undeniably flawed, but it does contain an intriguing premise and story line. The idea that someone would use the Bible Code to try and conquer the world is an idea that has not been utilized before, at least to my knowledge.

The characters definitely could have used some refinement, as they never really are fully developed during the movie. The acting, although not academy award material, was tolerable and did not detract from the story.

Overall, this is an interesting film that has good special effects, especially considering the budget it used. Although it has little competition-considering some of the terrible Apocalyptic movies that audiences have been exposed to-this is one of the better end times movies.

Evangelists spend millions to stupify movie audiences

[ReelFeel · 1/10 · 19 September 2003]

This was absolutely the worst piece of tripe I have ever had the misfortune to subject myself to. I could feel brain cells rapidly disintegrating as each scene assaulted them. I have no idea how many IQ points I lost while allowing the movie to play out. Is it possible that anyone actually liked this piece of garbage? It is "tele-evangelism goes to the movies", and even worse than any TV preaching that I have ever seen.