La malédiction

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.