The Omen (2006) User Reviews

Not as good or evil as the original.

[randomStuff101 · 6/10 · 7 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.

Just made me love the original more

[Superunknovvn · 7/10 · 6 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.

Just saw a press screening Fri June 2

[sigiam2 · 7/10 · 2 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.

See the Original Instead

[utgard14 · 4/10 · 5 November 2013]

Virtual scene-for-scene remake of the 1976 Omen film with the 21st century music video gloss that passes for cinematography now. That this was made by the same director who would later do the awful Max Payne and A Good Day to Die Hard should come as no surprise. John Moore is a director more focused on making a film look good than actually be good.

Did The Omen need to be remade? Of course not but such is the nature of the business. Before I start going on a diatribe about that, I'd better get back to this film and what's good or bad about it. What's good: some nicely staged scenes, but nothing particularly creative or original. For a director so obsessed with visuals, Moore offers little to improve upon the original's film's creative death set pieces. He just copies them. How creatively bankrupt is this man? As for the bad: the movie is plodding, unoriginal, often boring with no suspense or scares worth mentioning. Will viewers unfamiliar with the original film feel the same way? I think so unless these viewers are just generally unfamiliar with movies altogether. The cast is nothing to write home about. Julia Stiles tries and Liev Schrieber is dull as mud. Mia Farrow does fine with a performance that, judging by some of the praise I've seen, is a tad overrated.

Overall, it's yet another misfire remake of a superior film. Do yourself a favor and see the original instead. If you already have seen the original, watch something else. Something new or something old you haven't seen before. Just not another crappy horror remake.

By Remake Standards, Better Than Average

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 13 November 2006]

What happens when the son of the devil is raised by an American politician and his young wife? Exactly what you'd expect: all hell breaks loose!

While I haven't seen the original Omen in a while, I remember a few key scenes clearly and I remember I liked it. This alone is enough to make me wonder why they remade it (why remake good movies when there are so many bad films to fix?). But they did good, keeping many scenes identical but making the story very 2006 appropriate.

My favorite thing about the film was the adaptation of the plot to fit around 9/11, and the space shuttle disaster, which were obviously missing from the original. This does seem to imply that American tragedies are more important than non-American ones, though. Many people really feel the apocalypse is coming, so this was an appropriate choice. I also like the move from English characters to Americans (though this really doesn't matter).

The demons were spooky and the new Damien is one goony looking little boy, which is great. I don't mind a Damien that looks like Batboy from the Weekly World News. The other actors were also decent: Mia Farrow, best known to horror fans from that other Satanic child film, "Rosemary's Baby", was the perfect nanny and Liev Schreiber has that level of fame that makes him great for starring roles of this sort (not too big to overshadow the film, but big enough to fill the shoes). See "Phantoms" if you don't believe me. The actors did many of their owns stunts, with Liev Schreiber even cracking a rib.

My biggest concern was Julia Stiles. I said to myself, "Self, this chick is known for over-acting in Shakespearean romances and teen comedies... can she tone it down enough for a horror film?" A few moments had Stiles poking her melodramatic head up out of the ground, but overall she played it straight and I think she was commendable.

The kid who played Damien in the original returns here as a reporter, but don't throw out your copy of the original Omen. But don't go out of your way to avoid this one, either. It is a solid horror film with more than competent directing and acting behind it.

Slick but inevitably inferior remake

[Skint111 · 5/10 · 26 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.

Couldn't beat the original, but more than fine

[kentbrookman · 6/10 · 6 June 2006]

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

An Unnecessary Re-make

[david_tyler_duncan · 4/10 · 6 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?

666

[devils_neighbor_667 · 8/10 · 22 December 2019]

A Well made remake, with a surprisingly creepy performance by the new Damien actor. I also appreciate the movie coming out on June 6 2006 (666)

Well done terror movie where a lot of people meet horrible deaths by terrible demonic forces

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 20 April 2007]

This remake fundamentally centres on the rebirth of the anti-Christ, it's a creepy story where occurs gruesome deaths concerning Satan's son. American diplomat's family (Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles in the roles previously starred by Gregory Peck and Lee Remick) adopts a baby ,he's named Damien and has the devil mark : 666 . One time grown-up , young boy possessed with mysterious demonic powers causing wreak havoc and bizarre killings wherever he goes . The parents hire a nanny (Mia Farrow in the role of Billie Whitelaw) schemes that delightful child anti-Christ can have him carry out all her evil plans . The little boy seems to be around when inexplicable deaths happen including rid of several interfering adults with the aim for world domination . Damien is poised for ruling devil over earth . Meanwhile the father is warned by a priest named Brennan (Pete Postlethwaite in the role of Patrick Thoughton) and a photographer (David Thewlis in the role of David Warner).

After the Exorcist , Richard Donner's Omen was one of the most famous films of all time and the major possession movie of the 70s and created an authentic sensation , originating even various sequels: Damien: Omen 2 , The final conflict and Omen 4 . The inevitable comparison between Liev Schreiber and Gregory Peck reveals that Liev is just too cool for this role in spite of Peck is an immortal star . The chief excitement lies in seeing what new and amazing victim can be dreamt by the believable FX technicians . Meantime Damien seems to dispatch new bizarre killing every few minutes of the movie . Atmospheric score by Marco Beltrani,however I miss impressive score by Jerry Goldsmith , deservedly winner one Academy Award . It's all frightening amusing , if predictable but we have seen the previous classic movie but also its predictability is redeemed in part by the charismatic performance of excellent protagonists and all around . Although redundant to original film is a fitting description of the director John Moore ; however , being sometimes a shot-for-shot recreation but it doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence . The studio originally wanted the film to receive a PG-13 rating but John Moore insisted on an R-rating, suggesting people would "smell a cop-out" if a remake of original Omen was to receive a family friendly certificate .

Fails to capture any of the originals magic

[Goosey1972 · 4/10 · 18 November 2013]

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.

Useless, But Inoffensive Remake

[jeanlevy · 6/10 · 21 June 2019]

The Omen wasn't exactly crying out for a remake. It was done well the first time, but Fox just couldn't pass up the gimmick of having a film coming out on 6/6/06 and decided to greenlight this remake. It sticks pretty close to the original script (clearly, they knew they couldn't do much better than that) and they've cobbled together a wonderful group of actors who take the film quite seriously. Liev Schrieber is excellent in the lead role with Mia Farrow deliciously playing the wicked nanny Mrs. Blaylock.

Visually, the film is a bit more stylized than Richard Donner's version, but it helps it stand out a bit. Someone clearly has a love affair with the color red since it's everywhere in this movie.

This retelling of The Omen doesn't need to exist, but at least it's well done and not an embarrassment.

Yet another pointless remake

[The_Void · 4/10 · 3 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.

Stylish But Inferior Remake.

[drownsoda90 · 7/10 · 6 June 2006]

I went in seeing "The Omen" remake today without many expectations, and for me the movie was okay. It is basically the same plot as the original, and almost everything in the film was the same besides some additions and changes here and there.

Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) is an American ambassador, and his wife, Katharine (Julia Stiles), has a miscarriage. Instead of breaking the news to her, Robert exchanges his dead son for a baby born that morning whose mother died in childbirth. Katharine will never know, and they can raise the son as their own. But on little Damian's 6th birthday, his nanny commits suicide in front of the entire party, and a strange replacement nanny named Mrs. Baylock (Mia Farrow) arrives. As a priest tries to warn Robert of his dangerous son, a reporter teams up with Robert and they together try and determine Damian's origins, for they believe he is the son of the Devil, and they must hurry before more lives are lost and the Antichrist takes over.

Considering this was a remake, it really wasn't that bad. When I saw Julia Stiles was playing Katharine in this film, I was a little skeptical, but she gave a pretty good performance. Hardcore fans of the original film may want to dismiss this a terrible remake of an excellent film, but the two movies really aren't different - they're nearly the same, besides the new actors and modern day settings. They really stuck to the original here. The deaths were a little bloodier, and the settings much more elaborate, which was nice. I thought the release date (06/06/06) was kind of clever, and I'm sure the box office will pull in plenty for this film (at least for today) considering that it's being released the same day all across the world, and how the release date relates to the content of the film.

In my opinion, this was alright for a remake, and I enjoyed it for the most part. It doesn't live up to the original, but it was a worthy effort. Some fans of the original "Omen" may appreciate this, some may not. But definitely see the original before you watch this, that way you can compare the two. It could have been worse. 7/10.

Another Insult To A Horror Classic

[sexytail · 1/10 · 19 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.

Totally Unnecessary, but a Good Remake

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 23 February 2007]

When the Vatican observatory priest sees the appearance of a comet, the Church is sure that it confirms the eve of the Armageddon. Meanwhile, the USA President's godson Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) is informed in the maternity in Rome by Father Spiletto (Giovanni Lombardo Radice) that his wife Katherine (Julia Stiles) has just lost her baby and she had troubles with her uterus and would not have another pregnancy. Spiletto suggests Robert that another just born child that lost her mother could be the substituted for his son, and Robert accepts the child and gives the name of Damien. Robert is promoted to ambassador in London after a tragic accident. When Damien's nanny commits suicide in his birthday party, a substitute, Mrs. Baylock (Mia Farrow), comes to work and live with the family. Along the years, Katherine realizes that Damien is evil, while Robert is contacted by Father Brennan (Pete Postlethwaite), who tells him that Damien is the son of devil. When the priest dies in a bizarre accident, the photographer Keith Jennings (David Thewlis) shows evidences to Robert that the boy is the Antichrist. They travel to the town of Megiddo to learn how the boy can be stopped.

I would like to begin my review questioning director John Moore why did he remake "The Omen", a masterpiece of horror of 1976. The screenplay is exactly the same since there are few minor modifications. After watching this remake, the viewer has the sensation of Déjà vu or listening to a cover of a great band: the song we hear is the same, but the fan knows that is not the original. Of course the screenplay is excellent and the cast is great, and certainly the movie is good and entertaining. I was curious to see this film, and I am not completely disappointed but I feel sorry for a director that chooses to make an identical successful movie, following the easiest way to the success, instead of risking a movie of his own. In the future, I am sure that I will watch once again the 1976 film, but I have no intention of watching this forgettable remake again. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Profecia" ("The Prophecy")

Tired remake

[richardahughes · 5/10 · 17 January 2009]

A pretty tired remake of the original; admittedly they had a very hard act to follow but didn't really even start to live up to it.

Quite apart from the film merely following the original scene for scene but with less impressive actors was the state of the locations. The original was actually filmed in London but in the remake they substituted Prague for London. One European city may look like another if you've never been East of the Mississippi but if you actually live here it just made the whole thing look like a joke.

The American Embassy was suddenly transported from Grosvenor Square (a leafy tree-lined square built up on all sides) to the south bank of the Thames with big open views across the river.

And somehow we were supposed to believe that Prague's cathedral, the tramlines and overhead cables and traffic lights were supposed to be central London? In your dreams!

Recommended For Those Who Haven't Seen The Original

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 29 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.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it!

[bonnie91 · 1/10 · 12 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!

If its not broken don't fix it!

[fenstonwinklepickers · 6/10 · 28 August 2009]

The Omen (Origional) Is one of my favourite movies of all time and I really don't feel like it needed to be re-made. I admit some bits in the original are a bit shabby. I thought the impaling scene was more realistic in the remake. In the original the priest just stands there waiting to be impaled. But in the remake it caught him by surprise. I thought that Damien in the remake looks more evil than Damien in the original. He looks to cute to be the son of the devil in the original. Lol. Those are the only two points that I thought were better in the remake. I feel like they tried to make it a horror thats visually scary and a typical horror that rely on typical horror stuff. But the original was a psychological horror that really made you think. I mean, this stuff is predicted in the bible! Thats the scariest part.

I think eventually people are going to run out of ideas for horrors so everything will be re-made... I really hope that doesn't happen! Writers need to start digging deeper than pointless gore and slasher films. They don't make them like The (Origional) Omen any more. 6/10

Is it really necessary?

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 27 October 2013]

That's the big question for this movie. I'm not going to go through this shot for shot. I don't know how many lines are different. I don't know how many scenes are shot at different angles. None of the changes are significant enough to overshadow how some of the most iconic imagery in movie history are simply copied. It's annoying at best, and sacrilege at worst.

Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, and David Thewlis are all great actors. And it's incredible that Mia Farrow played Mrs. Baylock. It's a well made movie. The problem is we've seen this movie before. We've seen these images before. We've seen the nanny jump off the roof before. We've seen the priest spiked through the chest before. We've seen Damien on his tricycle before. What's the point of a remake if it means copying?

Here Comes the Son Again

[wes-connors · 2/10 · 6 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

Surprisingly good!

[u2bme102 · 9/10 · 5 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.

Doesn't match up to the original

[Dillypogo · 6/10 · 16 November 2008]

It was 1976. The Omen was released in cinemas worldwide and was to become one of the greatest horror movies ever made. Then, 30 years later, some idiot came up with the idea of remaking it for a modern audience. "Oh God", most people thought., and they were right. Leiv Schreiber stars as Robert Thorn, whose wife, Catherine, (Julia Stiles) loses her child whilst giving birth. Robert is approached by a priest, who suggests that he adopt an orphan (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) and not tell his wife of the dead child. However, 5 years later Robert regrets this decision when he begins to suspect that the boy, Damien, is the son of the Devil.

I'm going to admit that I do respect the makers of this film due to the amount of guts they must have had in order to do this. But, this doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid decision. The original Omen was such a great film that it was almost impossible for the remake to match it, and I know how they thought they could do this: taking every scene from the original and just changing it slightly. However, this technique doesn't work, and makes it very unoriginal and incredibly predictable by those who have seen the 1976 version.

The film isn't really very scary either. The only way it manages to scare its audience is by making a sudden change in decibel level. Ooooh, scary! The original had a spooky atmosphere which is what made it a great movie, but the remake fails terribly to do this.

However, I did actually like Leiv Schreiber in his performance, although I still prefer Gregory Peck from the original. Schreiber is a genuinely good actor and he did a great job in lifting this movie up and getting it a couple more marks. Julia Stiles is also on excellent form as Schreiber's wife, as is David Thewlis as the photographer. Also, Seamus Davey Fitzpatrick is pretty damn good at, well, looking creepy as hell.

What I think the writer should have done is do a re-imagining rather than a frame-by-frame remake. This worked perfectly for Rob Zombie's remake of John Carpenter's Halloween and it probably would have benefited The Omen. This would have made it a lot more original and given the writer a lot more creative freedom rather than just copying the 1976 version.

Even as a stand-alone movie, The Omen is still pretty average. Then again, if it wasn't for the original, it would probably be slightly better, but only slightly.

It most definitely isn't as good as the 1976 version, but The Omen does boast good performances from Leiv Schreiber and Julia Stiles. I give it 6/10.

A bad sign!

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 1/10 · 29 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.

Beware!