Das Omen

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!