Metascore
43

Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics What's this?

User Score
6.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 111 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
Watch On
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 34
  2. Negative: 6 out of 34
  1. 75
    A faithful remake of the 1976 film, and that's a relief; it depends on characters and situations and doesn't go berserk with visuals.
  2. The casting is weaker this time. Watching Peck crumble under fear and doubt was like seeing a skyscraper implode; Schreiber's more of a whipped puppy for most of the film.
  3. 60
    Seriously, that kid is creepy as hell.
  4. 50
    This new version is an almost scene-for-scene remake, which is good news in the first half and bad news in the torpid second.
  5. 42
    Pretty much everyone in the cast is wildly overqualified, including Pete Postlethwaite and David Thewlis in key supporting roles.
  6. The release date is the most original thing about it.
  7. 25
    Not since Gus Van Sant inexplicably directed a shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock's "Psycho" has a thriller been copied with so little point or impact.

See all 34 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 27
  2. Negative: 8 out of 27
  1. DamionH.
    Jun 8, 2006
    10
    I thought it was a faithful adaption prehaps a bit too slick, but well done.
  2. Dan
    Jul 25, 2006
    9
    Really enjoyable and probably a better film than the original. I have been a fan of the director for a while and his choice of actors over Really enjoyable and probably a better film than the original. I have been a fan of the director for a while and his choice of actors over stars was a wise one. The death scenes are really cool and the new music is also quite good . Worth a watch if you like horror and depite what others say its my fav movie of the year so far. Expand
  3. AaronM.
    Aug 31, 2006
    7
    It's actually pretty good...really scary, unlike most of the horror crap we get these days.
  4. ChadS.
    Jun 6, 2006
    4
    For sure, the dog is less scary than the original. He's not bulky enough to be satan's pet. The key scenes might be better staged For sure, the dog is less scary than the original. He's not bulky enough to be satan's pet. The key scenes might be better staged and photographed, but like the second trilogy of "Star Wars" films, new and improved isn't necessarily better. If you never saw the original with Gregory Peck and Lee Remick, you'll probably enjoy "The Omen". This new version feels a little off from the get-go. Since the film already knows that Damien is the devil's offspring, the montage of the boy's infancy is probably accompanied with the wrong music. Where is that foreboding sense that Damien isn't quite right, which Katherine(Julia Stiles) indicates later in the film. Expand
  5. SkipH.
    Oct 22, 2006
    4
    Hard to see why this remake was made.
  6. Jun 8, 2014
    3
    Stick with the original. This remake is scene for scene but not as scary or well acted. Hollywood: DONT REMAKE A MOVIE UNLESS YOUR GOING TOStick with the original. This remake is scene for scene but not as scary or well acted. Hollywood: DONT REMAKE A MOVIE UNLESS YOUR GOING TO IMPROVE IT! 3/10 Expand
  7. E.B.
    Jun 6, 2006
    0
    Absolute trash of a movie. Go see something uplifting instead!

See all 27 User Reviews

Trailers