The Omen (Widescreen Edition)
|
List Price: $9.98
Our Price: $1.14
Your Save: $ 8.84 ( 89% )
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Manufacturer: 20th Century Fox
Starring: Predrag Bjelac, Carlo Sabatini, Bohumil Svarc, Liev Schreiber, Giovanni Lombardo Radice
Directed By: John Moore
|
Average Customer Rating:  
|
|
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Audience Rating: R (Restricted)
Binding: DVD
Brand: TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOME ENT
EAN: 0024543374213
Format: AC-3
Label: 20th Century Fox
Number Of Items: 1
Publisher: 20th Century Fox
Region Code: 1
Release Date: 2006-10-17
Running Time: 110
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Theatrical Release Date: 2006-06-06
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: Dynamite remake of . . .
Comment: A Dynamite remake of the original, which itself was a tough act to follow . Political Nuance, Occult Intrigue and just the right amount of suspense coupled with classic European scenery and Manor-House backdrop . Well recommended .
Customer Rating:
Summary: Not As Good As The Original
Comment: I admit that I came to this remake with a bit of bias. The 1976 classic is one of my all-time favorite films. It was more of a psychological thriller than a horror film. This remake has some impressive photography and I did like the added scenes taking place at the Vatican. However, I felt that the original Damien was more effective as an innocent child who didn't fully understand the evil he possessed. In the scene in which Gregory Peck was about to kill him on the altar, one could understand how Robert Thorn could have doubts when Damien looked up at him and pleaded, "Don't Daddy."
This kid was so blatantly evil, it should have been a no-brainer!
And...I hesitate to bring this up, since I've made some mistakes in my own work, but...who was the fact-checker on this film, anyway? When Thorn is told to go to the city of Megiddo, he's told it's "south of Jerusalem."
Nobody on this film had GPS, or at least a map? Megiddo is NORTHWEST of Jerusalem, south of Nazareth!
Customer Rating:
Summary: Abysmal Remake
Comment: In standard Hollywood fashion, this remake of the Gregory Peck classic thinks it's making things better by making things more extreme. So here, hellish dogs in a cemetery don't just threaten and terrify, they physically lock on to Liev Schrieber. That's the pattern throughout -- ratchet things up, hope for the best, or the worst in this case. The air of foreboding and menace in the original is traded here for thin thrills, more gore.
The movie suffers further from a poor cast poorly directed. Schrieber, Stiles, and Farrow have done good stuff. Here, all seem wooden, emotionless, cardboard cutouts. Stiles is utterly devoid of presence. Schrieber (39, and the best of the lot, but too young to plausibly be ambassador) and Stiles (25 at release) are both too young for their roles. This is the kind of casting decision that's made solely for marketing.
Schrieber is an excellent actor, though he doesn't have the sheer force of presence that Gregory Peck brought to every role. The character of Katherine Thorn has been considerably expanded, but Stiles is no Lee Remick.
Mia Farrow is the worst of all -- truly terrible -- the worst I've personally seen her. And of all the characters, she fares worst in comparison to the original -- Billie Whitelaw as Mrs. Baylock in '76. Whitelaw conveyed such an air of pure malevolence. I can imagine Farrow cringing as she took direction.
Customer Rating:
Summary: COULD'VE BEEN VERY GOOD WITH THE RIGHT CAST!
Comment: I haven't seen such a ruination of a classic as this one because of bad casting - an absolutely abominable choice of high-end actors to play the story. Sorry but Julia Stiles is too butch and too cool to play a part that was played by Lee Remick who gave the character of Kathy class and likeability. Leiv Schreiber, who I love, was also not for this movie. He's too cool. Maybe better choices would have been George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Mia Farrow as Mrs. Balock just didn't work. She's too delicate and doesn't look like a demon. The boy who plays Damien is awful. He's non-descript except to say that his acting is bad. He looked at the camera a few times and when he was supposed to look menacing, he either looked like he was sulking or looked like a kid just play acting. In the scene in the car, he just didn't rough up his mom like a wild little animal like the original Damien. And let's face it, you can't compare this child to the little boy in the original Damien. Little Harvey Stevens had that little smirk that was beautiful AND creepy.
On the plus side, the added scenes which were not in the original movie were very good, such as the creepy images that come to their minds and especially the gut wrenching scene in Mrs. Thorn's hospital room when she's visited by Mrs. Balock. Very creepy and very sad. So, I thought it was good but it could've been much better with the right cast.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Adequate, Pointless
Comment: 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.
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: Dynamite remake of . . .
Comment: A Dynamite remake of the original, which itself was a tough act to follow . Political Nuance, Occult Intrigue and just the right amount of suspense coupled with classic European scenery and Manor-House backdrop . Well recommended .
Customer Rating:
Summary: Not As Good As The Original
Comment: I admit that I came to this remake with a bit of bias. The 1976 classic is one of my all-time favorite films. It was more of a psychological thriller than a horror film. This remake has some impressive photography and I did like the added scenes taking place at the Vatican. However, I felt that the original Damien was more effective as an innocent child who didn't fully understand the evil he possessed. In the scene in which Gregory Peck was about to kill him on the altar, one could understand how Robert Thorn could have doubts when Damien looked up at him and pleaded, "Don't Daddy."
This kid was so blatantly evil, it should have been a no-brainer!
And...I hesitate to bring this up, since I've made some mistakes in my own work, but...who was the fact-checker on this film, anyway? When Thorn is told to go to the city of Megiddo, he's told it's "south of Jerusalem."
Nobody on this film had GPS, or at least a map? Megiddo is NORTHWEST of Jerusalem, south of Nazareth!
Customer Rating:
Summary: Abysmal Remake
Comment: In standard Hollywood fashion, this remake of the Gregory Peck classic thinks it's making things better by making things more extreme. So here, hellish dogs in a cemetery don't just threaten and terrify, they physically lock on to Liev Schrieber. That's the pattern throughout -- ratchet things up, hope for the best, or the worst in this case. The air of foreboding and menace in the original is traded here for thin thrills, more gore.
The movie suffers further from a poor cast poorly directed. Schrieber, Stiles, and Farrow have done good stuff. Here, all seem wooden, emotionless, cardboard cutouts. Stiles is utterly devoid of presence. Schrieber (39, and the best of the lot, but too young to plausibly be ambassador) and Stiles (25 at release) are both too young for their roles. This is the kind of casting decision that's made solely for marketing.
Schrieber is an excellent actor, though he doesn't have the sheer force of presence that Gregory Peck brought to every role. The character of Katherine Thorn has been considerably expanded, but Stiles is no Lee Remick.
Mia Farrow is the worst of all -- truly terrible -- the worst I've personally seen her. And of all the characters, she fares worst in comparison to the original -- Billie Whitelaw as Mrs. Baylock in '76. Whitelaw conveyed such an air of pure malevolence. I can imagine Farrow cringing as she took direction.
Customer Rating:
Summary: COULD'VE BEEN VERY GOOD WITH THE RIGHT CAST!
Comment: I haven't seen such a ruination of a classic as this one because of bad casting - an absolutely abominable choice of high-end actors to play the story. Sorry but Julia Stiles is too butch and too cool to play a part that was played by Lee Remick who gave the character of Kathy class and likeability. Leiv Schreiber, who I love, was also not for this movie. He's too cool. Maybe better choices would have been George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Mia Farrow as Mrs. Balock just didn't work. She's too delicate and doesn't look like a demon. The boy who plays Damien is awful. He's non-descript except to say that his acting is bad. He looked at the camera a few times and when he was supposed to look menacing, he either looked like he was sulking or looked like a kid just play acting. In the scene in the car, he just didn't rough up his mom like a wild little animal like the original Damien. And let's face it, you can't compare this child to the little boy in the original Damien. Little Harvey Stevens had that little smirk that was beautiful AND creepy.
On the plus side, the added scenes which were not in the original movie were very good, such as the creepy images that come to their minds and especially the gut wrenching scene in Mrs. Thorn's hospital room when she's visited by Mrs. Balock. Very creepy and very sad. So, I thought it was good but it could've been much better with the right cast.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Adequate, Pointless
Comment: 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.
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) substitutes an orphan for his own stillborn baby in order to spare his unknowing wife (Julia Stiles). But after a series of grotesque murders and dire warnings, the Thorns come to the horrifying realization that their child is the son of Satan!
|
|
|
- Ask about this healthcare product "The Omen (Widescreen Edition)" in the forum
- Give review on this healthcare product "The Omen (Widescreen Edition)" in the forum
- Search related information in the forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
