The Omen at DVinfo.net

Michael Wisniewski · June 6th, 2006, 10:31 PM

**********SPOILERS************
**********SPOILERS************
**********SPOILERS************

When I left the theatre I thought it was suprisingly good. Better than I expected it would be and better than the original. If you saw the original, it's almost exactly the same, in terms of shots.

It's a dark, brooding film, slow paced, with lots of beautiful shots that just sit there and let you absorb them. There is a lot of dead calm throughout punctuated with the occasional shock edit. The style reminded me of Polanski's The Ninth Gate, but more real and grittier. They also tied in a lot of current events and video from recent times to make it more timely.

The cinematography was good, and the lighting was IMO gorgeous, very subtle, and well done. Lots of really beautiful low light, diffuse, and side/backlit shots, that created just the right ambience. And the lighting got better and better as the movie progressed. <FILM GEEK=ON> I could watch the whole movie again just for the lighting <FILM GEEK=OFF>. I don't know why I thought of this, but if they ever make a movie based on the Blizzard videogame Diablo they should get the DP from this version of the Omen.

Mia Farrow puts in a creepy performance with shades of Rosemary's baby. And I always like the two actors who play the priest and the photographer. The main actor was decent as the unbelieving diplomat.

Frank Granovski · June 7th, 2006, 12:45 AM

Yeah, the reviews were okay, but not okay enough for me to bother seeing it. Poor Hollywood.

Michael Wisniewski · June 7th, 2006, 01:14 AM

I still trust Roger Ebert and he gave it a thumbs up, on the other hand Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 31%, which says more about the reviewers than it does the movie.

But, if it's not your cup of tea, then c'est la vie. On the other hand, if you like to watch these types of movies in theatres, then I think you'll probably enjoy it. It falls into the B movie category, so it does have a few warts, but that's part of the fun. For example, when I saw it, the audience kept laughing and giggling whenever they saw Damien on screen. I don't know if that's what the movie makers intended, but there you go.

Kelly Goden · June 8th, 2006, 12:07 PM

Another pointless remake--its a worse trend than sequels

The only clever thing is casting Rosemary as the Nanny.

I hear the original Demian appears in it though so i will see it eventually to spot him(and listen to the chanting theme music again)

I think the late 60s-70s was THE Golden Age for Satanic/(as well as Horror/Vampire) movies(68-75--though we can push it ahead by a year for the Omen's sake).
Something really creepy about that period...

Hippies, Charles Manson, Nixon

on the other hand if there was ever a time for an Apocalypse, its now.

I didnt intend that pun on the end.

Leo Pepingco · June 8th, 2006, 05:48 PM

stupid, and a waste of money

Frank Granovski · June 8th, 2006, 09:16 PM

My brother went to see it with his "baby doll." My brother laughed through it while baby doll chewed down her broken finger nails. My brother hasn't had all the pieces removed with his back yet. Bugger. Pass---. No wonder I hardly ever go to see movies no more. :-)

Robert Kirkpatrick · June 9th, 2006, 10:48 AM

It was disappointing. I've had to babysit scarier kids than the Damian in this version. He looked like he just needed a good nap. His scary face was about as realistic an acting job as the kid from Phantom Menace.

Basically, it's like they took the original Omen, and reshot it by turning it up to 11. Snazzier, more fogs, more cool lights, more funky stuttering effects. But it ended up lamer. If you never saw the original Omen, you *might* be freaked, but it hit the same plot points and sequences as the original. But you know, with hardc0re 3DG3 doodz.

Marco Leavitt · June 9th, 2006, 11:36 AM

I never thought the original was that good of a movie, or that scary for that matter. It is fun though.

Frank Granovski · June 9th, 2006, 06:36 PM

Yeah, the original one was no big whoop.

Dennis Stevens · June 12th, 2006, 06:02 AM

I agree the cinematography was what I noticed. I've just been reading about shot composition, and I was really noticing that. There's a scene with Liev Schreiber talking with the American flag behind him, that was somehow really striking to me.

I suppose since the director said decided to make an exact replica of the original - the only concessions were to things like cell phones and modern items. So the only creative choices were lighting, composition.

June 6th, 2006, 10:31 PM	#1
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	The Omen ********SPOILERS******** ******SPOILERS******** ******SPOILERS********** When I left the theatre I thought it was suprisingly good. Better than I expected it would be and better than the original. If you saw the original, it's almost exactly the same, in terms of shots. It's a dark, brooding film, slow paced, with lots of beautiful shots that just sit there and let you absorb them. There is a lot of dead calm throughout punctuated with the occasional shock edit. The style reminded me of Polanski's The Ninth Gate, but more real and grittier. They also tied in a lot of current events and video from recent times to make it more timely. The cinematography was good, and the lighting was IMO gorgeous, very subtle, and well done. Lots of really beautiful low light, diffuse, and side/backlit shots, that created just the right ambience. And the lighting got better and better as the movie progressed. <FILM GEEK=ON> I could watch the whole movie again just for the lighting <FILM GEEK=OFF>. I don't know why I thought of this, but if they ever make a movie based on the Blizzard videogame Diablo they should get the DP from this version of the Omen. Mia Farrow puts in a creepy performance with shades of Rosemary's baby. And I always like the two actors who play the priest and the photographer. The main actor was decent as the unbelieving diplomat. __________________ "Ultimately, the most extraordinary thing, in a frame, is a human being." - Martin Scorsese

June 7th, 2006, 01:14 AM	#3
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	I still trust Roger Ebert and he gave it a thumbs up, on the other hand Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 31%, which says more about the reviewers than it does the movie. But, if it's not your cup of tea, then c'est la vie. On the other hand, if you like to watch these types of movies in theatres, then I think you'll probably enjoy it. It falls into the B movie category, so it does have a few warts, but that's part of the fun. For example, when I saw it, the audience kept laughing and giggling whenever they saw Damien on screen. I don't know if that's what the movie makers intended, but there you go. __________________ "Ultimately, the most extraordinary thing, in a frame, is a human being." - Martin Scorsese

June 8th, 2006, 05:48 PM	#5
Leo Pepingco Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 275	6 words to review it... Yes, I said 6! stupid, and a waste of money

June 7th, 2006, 12:45 AM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Yeah, the reviews were okay, but not okay enough for me to bother seeing it. Poor Hollywood.

June 8th, 2006, 12:07 PM	#4
Kelly Goden Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: Surrey BC Posts: 259	Another pointless remake--its a worse trend than sequels The only clever thing is casting Rosemary as the Nanny. I hear the original Demian appears in it though so i will see it eventually to spot him(and listen to the chanting theme music again) I think the late 60s-70s was THE Golden Age for Satanic/(as well as Horror/Vampire) movies(68-75--though we can push it ahead by a year for the Omen's sake). Something really creepy about that period... Hippies, Charles Manson, Nixon on the other hand if there was ever a time for an Apocalypse, its now. I didnt intend that pun on the end.

June 8th, 2006, 09:16 PM	#6
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	My brother went to see it with his "baby doll." My brother laughed through it while baby doll chewed down her broken finger nails. My brother hasn't had all the pieces removed with his back yet. Bugger. Pass---. No wonder I hardly ever go to see movies no more. :-)

June 9th, 2006, 10:48 AM	#7
Robert Kirkpatrick Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Little Rock, AR Posts: 199	It was disappointing. I've had to babysit scarier kids than the Damian in this version. He looked like he just needed a good nap. His scary face was about as realistic an acting job as the kid from Phantom Menace. Basically, it's like they took the original Omen, and reshot it by turning it up to 11. Snazzier, more fogs, more cool lights, more funky stuttering effects. But it ended up lamer. If you never saw the original Omen, you might be freaked, but it hit the same plot points and sequences as the original. But you know, with hardc0re 3DG3 doodz.

June 9th, 2006, 11:36 AM	#8
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I never thought the original was that good of a movie, or that scary for that matter. It is fun though.

June 9th, 2006, 06:36 PM	#9
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Yeah, the original one was no big whoop.

June 12th, 2006, 06:02 AM	#10
Dennis Stevens Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 425	I agree the cinematography was what I noticed. I've just been reading about shot composition, and I was really noticing that. There's a scene with Liev Schreiber talking with the American flag behind him, that was somehow really striking to me. I suppose since the director said decided to make an exact replica of the original - the only concessions were to things like cell phones and modern items. So the only creative choices were lighting, composition.