La Malédiction

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!

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.

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?

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

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.