User Score
6.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 110 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 65 out of 110
  2. Negative: 23 out of 110
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. 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 TO IMPROVE IT! 3/10
  2. E.B.
    Jun 6, 2006
    0
    Absolute trash of a movie. Go see something uplifting instead!
  3. CliveW.
    Jul 7, 2006
    7
    A good remake, but please dont try to substitute Prague for London when it comes to film locations.
  4. MattS.
    Jun 12, 2006
    6
    Was a bit scary but most of it was extremely predictable.
  5. 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 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 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
  6. DamionH.
    Jun 8, 2006
    10
    I thought it was a faithful adaption prehaps a bit too slick, but well done.
  7. SunnyS.
    Jun 6, 2006
    10
    Far better than the original; may have problems at the box-office, with all the critics ganging up against it because it's a FOX made movie. But it has depth and a very anti-establishment political tone to it which is very un-FOX like.
  8. ChrisD.
    Jun 6, 2006
    4
    A completely uninteresting remake. There were some serious parts that could be taken seriously. Outside of the that though, expect to laugh a few times.
  9. ThomasM.
    Jun 6, 2006
    10
    I've seen the earlier movie, and while this one is nothing really new, it was tighter, snappier and as good as the original. Loved every moment!
  10. TheElusivePossom
    Jun 7, 2006
    8
    This gets an 8 comfortably, being probably the best horror released this year, and the most surprising hit. The acting is strong on all accounts (even Damien himself has perfected a demonic scowl) and special mention goes to the male members of the cast, who provide an intriguing dynamic. The film is genuinely suspenseful, and the "jumpy" bits will literally make you jump out of your This gets an 8 comfortably, being probably the best horror released this year, and the most surprising hit. The acting is strong on all accounts (even Damien himself has perfected a demonic scowl) and special mention goes to the male members of the cast, who provide an intriguing dynamic. The film is genuinely suspenseful, and the "jumpy" bits will literally make you jump out of your seat, handled like they should be in every film. The deaths each have a Final Destination-esque grewsomeness, and the dream sequences, if confusing and irrelevant, are disturbing and fit perfectly. It's fast-paced too, and the ending will catch many off guard...perfect for the release date of 06/06/06. It could have been improved with a good soundtrack, but an outstanding must-see all the same. Collapse
  11. LaPeche
    Jun 7, 2006
    3
    The movie was nothing compared to the original. The fact that mics showed up in the movie completely lost the scare and made me realize that it was only a movie which disabled me from getting wrapped up in it.
  12. JohnT.
    Jun 8, 2006
    2
    Cynicall remake bringing nothing new whatsoever to the film.
  13. JustinM.
    Oct 17, 2006
    4
    If you want to see the Omen, get the original version with Gregory Peck on DVD. While this version isn
  14. SkipH.
    Oct 22, 2006
    4
    Hard to see why this remake was made.
  15. Mike
    Jun 22, 2006
    0
    Far and wide the single worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. I would give it a negative score if I could for using 9/11 footage to make a false point of the Book of Revelations predicting the future when, in fact, it tells of the past. Worthless pile of crap plotted to entertain masses of teenagers. Awful special effects--everything about the original far surpasses this rotten, Far and wide the single worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. I would give it a negative score if I could for using 9/11 footage to make a false point of the Book of Revelations predicting the future when, in fact, it tells of the past. Worthless pile of crap plotted to entertain masses of teenagers. Awful special effects--everything about the original far surpasses this rotten, festering 2-hour piece of garbage. Expand
  16. JakobK.
    Jun 6, 2006
    7
    Exciting, scary, and interesting, if somewhat slow in places. As usual, the critics only focus on how much "better" it is than the original, or how much it has changed.
  17. AdrianoCrowbar
    Jun 6, 2006
    4
    A pale and silly remake of the 1976 original, with extremely dumb scares (those awful nightmares). It doesn't even have the "guilty pleasure" feeling of Gus Van Sant's "Psycho".
  18. TigranH.
    Jun 7, 2006
    6
    On one hand it is bundled into a series of flaws that show up from time to time and make this a hollow release. They can be found in the directing, story telling and mostly in acting. I truly expected more from a Tony award winner like Liev Schreiber while Julia Stiles did give slightly more then the others (it made a difference). The little boy was good at times but behaved like an On one hand it is bundled into a series of flaws that show up from time to time and make this a hollow release. They can be found in the directing, story telling and mostly in acting. I truly expected more from a Tony award winner like Liev Schreiber while Julia Stiles did give slightly more then the others (it made a difference). The little boy was good at times but behaved like an autist for the rest of it. The original little guy was evil incarnated! The fact a lot of this was filmed in the Czech Republic (you realize that at the end of the movie) made it much worse. Less authenticity and any will to use the Armageddon topic to the fullest is obvious here. Yes, there are brilliant momements of horror in split seconds where you can get a heart attack but there is a lack of perpetual evil here - where the plot gives you shivers throughout. That's what the old Omen did which was the best movie in the genre, aside from the Exorcist of course. But there is also something new and hip about this release which makes it worth seeing. Expand
  19. AlanW.
    Jun 7, 2006
    2
    Awful ... I never seen the original but friends say its alot better. I thought the acting was terrible and the whole film was very very slow. Lots of silence and stupid predictable scare moments....
  20. 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 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.
  21. RickP.
    Aug 18, 2006
    0
    flat out horrible...and i mean that in every way possible...this movie is so bad a three year old could find himself laughing. It is nothing put pure trash and cinimatic garbage. The acting is so bad, the lot is so silly and the irector is so clueless of how to achive scares, that this movie falls flat out terrible.
  22. DannyD
    Oct 18, 2006
    4
    A hilarious film that had me laughing all the way through. Whoever's idea it was to cast this kid as Damien should be fired. There is one moment when the kid is wearing the mask from Jim Carrey's 1994 film The Mask that will have you in stitches.
  23. Tonydannie
    Jun 11, 2006
    1
    It was as if someone decided to take a Camera and film paint drying. Then they decided to call it "The Omen"
  24. MarkB.
    Jun 13, 2006
    6
    Along with monsoons and sunburn, one inevitable by-product of summer (at least lately) has been a pile of Unnecessary Remakes of box office hits and pop-culture milestones from the 1970s, including in the last two years Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Longest Yard, The Bad News Bears and Poseidon, with Tim Burton's candy-covered remake of the first being the only one of Along with monsoons and sunburn, one inevitable by-product of summer (at least lately) has been a pile of Unnecessary Remakes of box office hits and pop-culture milestones from the 1970s, including in the last two years Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Longest Yard, The Bad News Bears and Poseidon, with Tim Burton's candy-covered remake of the first being the only one of the bunch that had any reason to exist and the only one that didn't absolutely suck. (Don't be too surprised if, in the next couple years, you're treated to Vince Vaughn and Jack Black taking another whack at the Faber College homecoming parade, Jet Li as a half-Asian, half-Native American martial arts expert kicking redneck ass for peace and justice, and/or Keanu Reeves running down futuristic streets yelling, "Hey! Soylent Green is people, dude!") Surprisingly, this scene-for-scene retread of 1976's effective horror smash about a childless ambassador and his wife who unwittingly adopt the son of Satan, isn't all that bad...at least not any time the two lead actors aren't on screen. A big part of what made Richard Donner's original work as well as it did was the sheer class of its two stars, with Gregory Peck's steely solidness and Lee Remick's lovely, fragile vulnerability agdding tremendous tension and poignancy to the ultimate good-vs.-evil struggle: Atticus Finch himself debating over whether to kill ANY child, however satanic...how heartwrenching is THAT? [***SPOILERS***] Here, Liev Schreiber's single facial expression battles for screen time with his mercilessly unyielding monotone, while Julia Stiles is hopelessly amateurish. The complete ineptitude of these two pivotal performances has the unfortunate effect of drawing undue attention to the Hell-sized holes in David Seltzer's concept and script: for example, even though Robert Thorn isn't a beliver, he IS a politician, so wouldn't he have taken his son to church sometime before age 5 (if only for show and possible photo ops) and discovered something was amiss a lot earlier? (For that matter, wouldn't we have gotten a far more interesting film all around this time if Thorn had been rewritten as a typically RUTHLESS politician reaping his just desserts, rather than being recycled as a stolid goody-goody?) It both helps and hurts this remake that supporting players David Thewlis, Peter Postlethwaite (both hopefully doing this so they can afford the lower paychecks offered by doing films by Mike Leigh and Jim Sheridan) and Mia Farrow are such effective scene-stealers, with Amy Hunt as little Damien's fragile, doomed first nanny providing an object lesson in how to make a bit role truly unforgettable. Director John Moore does his best work yet (though considering that his previous films were the forgettable war movie Behind Enemy Lines and the totally uncalled for 1960s remake Flight of the Phoenix, that isn't saying a hell of a lot); he works hard at creating intelligent suspense and building momentum out of a series of foregone conclusions and frequently succeeds, giving us a couple of very effective claw-the-ceiling moments and at least one great gory bit that suggests that the Devil has been boning up on his viewing of Final Destination videos. By the way, does it strike anyone as a bit curious that while the religious community got all hot under the collar about the movie version of The Da Vinci Code, which could at least get Christians to engage in honest discussions about the particulars of their faith, if they can stay awake during the non-Ian McKellen portions of the film--while this film, which states that Satan can do just as good a job of protecting his son as God did His, only this time God stands idly by and lets the chips fall, debuts (on 6-6-06, no less!) without a chirp of protest. Are there some skewed values and priorities at work here or what? Expand
  25. AaronM.
    Aug 31, 2006
    7
    It's actually pretty good...really scary, unlike most of the horror crap we get these days.
  26. Oct 5, 2011
    8
    This was an amazing movie with many memorable moments. The thrill of this movie was warranted especially since one of the few horror movies I enjoyed representing the devil and all things dark.
  27. Oct 6, 2014
    4
    the movie has no story..The vatican is misrepresented.the scary bits are not very scary to be truthful.the photographer in the film is having a unique behaviour,.morover a disappointment
Metascore
43

Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 34
  2. Negative: 6 out of 34
  1. Reviewed by: Jordan Harper
    40
    There's a fascinating movie buried inside this story, but it's not the one the filmmakers decided to make. This Omen is simply too big for its britches.
  2. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    40
    Yet another remake no one needs is The Omen.
  3. Reviewed by: Devin Gordon
    50
    At least in the new Omen, the filmmakers have the sense to keep evil Damien's dialogue to a minimum. His villainy is all in the dimples. But is it too familiar to be scary anymore?