You have to be logged in to comment! If you don't have an account register now for free! Your account allows you to post comments and reviews, upload videos and images, access or our forums, write personal blogs, and maintain your profile.
I wasn't a massive fan of the original, but I liked this remake better. I know, I know. But really, The Omen is a great, powerful story of a possessed child. This isn't your average horror movie, it's more of a chilling thriller, with a great story. But, what makes my score so low is that the possessed child doesn't look scary. The kid looks hilarious when he's "trying" to be scary. I also felt the movie was a tad bit boring, it dragged on a bit and when there was a bit of action, there wasn't much of it. But, the sound track was great, and the acting was solid, but that just isn't enough to make me like it as much as I should.
I hated this movie.Liev Shreiber was the only decent acting in this hack remake.Damian was more funny than creepy looking.He looked like a pouting child after he realizes he's not getting his way.The cheap jump scenes were pointless to the plot.This was a letdown like the psycho remake.If you like this over the original than your easily entertained.
Posted By: horrorfan25 at 4:50pm, January 27, 2009
"666 is the sign of the devil" quoted by The omen. I thought this was a decent remake with some nice gore effects. The whole film was creepy and showed that if you have a good story, great gory effects, and a twisted ending you have yourself a winner. This is not a guilty pleasure. It's simply a great remake. This film made me jump a lot and I was highly entertained. The omen was a pretty good movie and is something you should watch if you are in the mood for something scary and gory.
Posted By: Protecious at 2:48pm, September 30, 2008
pretty much the same as the original, i feel the boy in the original is more creepier than the one here, there is some nice scenes in this movie that has better elements than the original, but when you replicate almost identically a movie that has been made before, that doesnt mean it's going to be better just because there is new modern cgi and other things to use to one's aid, the film ultimatly is nothing new or different from the original.
I didnt saw the diference within this movie and the original because i fought they were both scary, suspensful and bloody so why are people always bitchin about that this was boring because it wasnt this movie got my attention all the time and the dream sequences made me jump alot of times and my ad who also loved the original like me also loved the remake and hes a die hard fan of all the 4 movies and he said the kid was very creepy.
"A re-make of the original horror classic of 1976, this film offers nothing more than the original film has already given us, besides some admittedly impressive death scenes. This re-make is far below the standard set by the original film. The acting is stiff and stilted, with Liev Schreiber (as Robert Thorne) giving a thoroughly one-noted performance which proved to be quite frustrating to watch for over two hours. Even when he finds out about the incredibly terrible events that consistently occur throughout the film, Schreiber keeps an indifferent expression on his face. This undoubtedly makes many problems arise; how can the audience get involved in a movie if the actors are unconvincing in their roles? Julia Stiles does well, but she doesn't work in her role as Robert Thorne's wife, but Mia Farrow as Mrs. Baylock gives the film a bit of a spark in an otherwise dull film. The main thing is, is it scary? Damien is creepy enough, and there are some OK dream sequences that offer a couple of good jump scares. But this is all it offers in scares. The film is basically just a re-shooting of the original scenes, except they lack the energy and tension. There is no sense of foreboding, and it's almost as if the film makers and actors were just bored and wanting to get it over and done with; it's as if they hardly cared about making a good film. What was meant to be a gripping, horrific and intense viewing experience right up to the stunning climax becomes a boring and plodding time, and you just about lose interest in the whole story, and the characters. Overall, a very disappointing re-make, which begs the question: Why did they re-make it in the first place?" --David Duncan, imdb.com
crappy. Was there really a need to make this movie other than the date June 6th, 2006? You can tell they tried, and stayed true to the creepier parts of the original. The only thing I really liked was creepy Mia Farrow.
