Subject: I have found a DVD that I think you would enjoy
|The Omen |
Full Screen Edition
Actors: Predrag Bjelac, Carlo Sabatini, Bohumil Svarc, Liev Schreiber, Giovanni Lombardo Radice
Genres: Horror, Science Fiction & Fantasy, Mystery & Suspense
In this chilling remake of The Omen ? that is even more terrifying than the original ? man's darkest fears are manifested as an unspeakable terror is unleashed on the world! U.S. diplomat Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) subs... more »
Similarly Requested DVDs
Member Movie Reviews
Jen L. from RALEIGH, NC
Reviewed on 6/17/2009...
Not as much of a horror movie as I first thought, this movie is more of a suspense. The kid is creepy. The mom is believable. The nanny is, too. The dad ... enh ...
RE-MAKE OF A CLASSIC GOTHIC CHILLER...
Lawyeraau | Balmoral Castle | 04/16/2007
(4 out of 5 stars)
"This is a decent re-make of a first class, gothic chiller. It is not, however, as creepy as the 1976 original, which starred Gregory Peck and Lee Remick, as it lacks Jerry Goldsmith's pulse pounding musical score. It also has a younger cast that lacks the gravitas of the original. Still, the film is still worth viewing, if only to see how it fares in comparison to the original, especially as the screenplay used appears to be the original one.
Katherine (Julia Stiles) and Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) are a young, affluent American couple. Katherine is pregnant and, while in Italy, gives birth to an ostensibly stillborn boy, a fact that is kept from her. Knowing how much his wife wanted the baby and the difficulty that she had in conceiving, Robert agrees to have the dead baby supplanted by a living newborn whose mother died in child birth, keeping this information from Katherine. They name this baby Damien.
All goes well for the prosperous Thorn family, until Damien (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) turns five. A series of dramatic, unusual events begin to occur around the Thorns, all seemingly stemming from Damien. Well guarded by a somewhat creepy nanny (Mia Farrow), there are those who would believe him to be the Antichrist. By the time that Katherine and Robert begin to realize who Damien may truly be, their lives are out of control. With the aid of an inquisitive photographer, a repentant priest, and an mysterious man who holds the key to the destruction of the Antichrist, Robert Thorn becomes a man with a mission. Will Damien let him complete that mission? Watch this movie and find out.
Both Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles give credible performances, though they are no Gregory Peck or Lee Remick. Mia Farrow, as the nanny with a diabolical mission, gives a fine and genuinely creepy performance, aided in part by what appears to be a pair of collagen enhanced lips. The rest of the supporting cast is also excellent. While this re-make pales in comparison to the original, it is still enjoyable and worth watching."
An all-around lousy film
Cecily Champagne | Indiana | 10/31/2006
(1 out of 5 stars)
"I've never seen the original THE OMEN, so - unlike most reviewers - I'm not going to compare this movie to the original; I'll simply judge it on its own merits. Unfortunately, this film is seriously lacking in merits.
Now, I understand that horror movies are unlike other movies. Their primary purpose is to startle, creep-out and disturb. So - if the dialogue is a little mannered, or if the characters aren't fully developed - well, these shortcomings can be forgiven ... but COME ON! The dialogue in THE OMEN is *ridiculously* flat and uninspired. I do not exaggerate when I say it is as if a high school student penned the script. And, while Schrieber does a passable job with his role, Stiles generates one of the worst performances I have ever seen. She should be embarrassed. The one and only star performance is Farrow's; as the nanny, she is creepier than the anti-Christ child (and it did bring a smile to my face to see the star of ROSEMARY'S BABY cast in this film: nice touch).
The sophomoric script and vapid acting wouldn't be as noticeable if the movie were actually scary. Unfortunately, other than a few merely startling moments, there is nothing terrifying about this film. Mind you, this is coming from a woman who rarely watches horror films and is very easily frightened. I had nightmares after I watched DONNIE DARKO for the first time. However, rather than squirm with anticipation (which is the effect most horror films have on me), I spent most of this movie rolling my eyes at the laughable script and poking holes in the story's logic (Are all tombs in Italy that easy to open? How did the photographer know that the maternity ward was on the third floor? Why would an attempted child-murderer get a funeral with full military honors?).
To be fair, I did like the fact that THE OMEN attempted to create terror out of atmosphere and tension rather than out of violence and gore. But the key word here is "attempted." This movie was never able to create a sense of terror.
Basically, this is a silly film. The story is not very interesting. The acting is weak. It is not frightening. I absolutely do not recommend it."
Robert Buchanan | Wisconsin | 04/15/2008
(3 out of 5 stars)
"Hollywood will not rest until every notable horror film produced in America during the '70s or Japan over the course of the past decade has been remade. Even then, the terrible temptation of the sequel will not be resisted. A remake of the great Satanic classic "The Omen" was by no means necessary, so here it is!
This remake distinguishes itself from most of the others pumped out by major studios by not being in any way terrible. There is nothing trashy and very little that is particularly stupid in "The Omen," which is actually quite refreshing. However, there is also very little that's original here. This is perhaps the most stringently faithful remake that I've ever seen, so much so that I was able to predict nearly every single occurrence in the film ten minutes before it happened. Even the dialogue in many of the scenes is often identical to that of the source. The few variations of the story are manifest as surprises, most of which are quite effective. This film induces a few shocks and a couple of genuine scares, but that's about all. Most of this is a rather dull retread of the 1976 classic.
One of the primary sources of this blandness is Liev Schreiber, who is as wooden as a crate in the lead. I can only imagine that whichever relative stuck his foot in the door for Schreiber was the same person who did him the disservice of telling him that he can act. He affects a baritone that sounds vaguely similar to that of Gregory Peck at times, but most of his lines are delivered in a monotone and he quite literally expresses almost no emotion over the course of the entire feature. He smiles once, tries (and fails) to emote a few times and generally makes an ass of himself. Schreiber has a keen look about him and some screen presence, but he simply can not act, and whoever chose to cast him in a lead role doesn't deserve the job. Any comparison drawn between Schreiber and Peck is laughable. Gregory Peck was one of the most charismatic, commanding actors of his generation; Liev Schreiber is good-looking window dressing.
The rest of the cast is actually quite good. Stiles (whose Celt face is chubbier all the time) capably substitutes for Lee Remick; though she is neither as shrill or as convincing as her predecessor, her performance is decent, and leagues more impressive than her awful dye-job. Pete Postlethwaite plays a more subdued, less intense Father Brennan as compared to Patrick Troughton's wild-eyed delivery. Mia Farrow's role as Luciferian nanny Baylock is quite well-played and her casting is a clever (albeit obvious) reference to "Rosemary's Baby"...the trouble is, how many devoted horror fans are going to watch this to recognize the intent in the first place? While not quite a weak link, Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick is hardly as cute or creepy as the original Damien, Harvey Stephens.
John Moore's direction is at times very impressive; many of the scenes here are beautifully framed, and the editing is excellent. However, Jonathan Sela's cinematography bears mixed fruit. Some of the bright, oversaturated scenes invoke fond memories of the grainy 35mm stock on which so many '70s B-movies were shot. This has nothing to do with "The Omen" and it's implemented infrequently here, but it is a nice look. Unfortunately, most of the film is predictably tinted with color filters, a photographic trend that's become as ubiquitous as it is excessive in contemporary American films, and especially those of the horror genre. A hint for Mr. Sela: low backlit lighting produces much creepier results than tinting half of the entire film and producing a thoroughly blue movie, one that isn't any more atmospheric for it.
In summary: it's not too bad, it's a thing of its time and place, if it weren't made, nobody would care, it can't touch the original and it makes for a nice summer viewing if you want a few scares. That is all."