Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: June 6, 2006
6.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 114 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
58
Mixed:
32
Negative:
24
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
MattS.Jun 12, 2006
Was a bit scary but most of it was extremely predictable.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChadS.Jun 6, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChrisD.Jun 6, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JustinM.Oct 17, 2006
If you want to see the Omen, get the original version with Gregory Peck on DVD. While this version isn
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
SkipH.Oct 22, 2006
Hard to see why this remake was made.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AdrianoCrowbarJun 6, 2006
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".
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TigranH.Jun 7, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DannyDOct 18, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MarkB.Jun 13, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
Anand14Oct 6, 2014
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews