Solemplex
To me, this movie is perfection.
Portia Hilton
Blistering performances.
Matho
The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.
adonis98-743-186503
An American official realizes that his young son may literally be the Devil incarnate. Despite 2 pretty good leas such as Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles neither of them could match Gregory Peck and Lee Remick plus the movie felt like a piece by piece remake of the original with a few changes here and there like the dream sequence. I mean the priest gets impaled again, the photographer loses his head, the girl jumps and Thorn gets killed in the end. Pretty much piece by piece remake that is without a doubt tho better than The Omen III and IV at least. (D+)
sakram
First of all, I haven't watched the original movie yet (The Omen 1976) so I am not regarding this as a remake, but just like everyone is saying, it was a bad remake, welp, to me, it's a bad "movie". And without its being a remake, I don't get it, there is nothing special about this movie, and it feels like it's trying to get you somewhere but then fails and strays from the road. Aside from a very few good moments, this is absolutely nonsense. I had high hopes, because of the title, and the opening, and most importantly, how people praise the original movie which I will definitely watch. I don't think this is the movie that my cousin had recommended to me, he must've meant the 76' one.3.5/10
thesar-2
Somehow, 11 years later, I remember this movie opening on a Tuesday. They had to, if they wanted to capitalize on the 6-6-06 date. And I guess that paid off for the fans and scaredy-cats of the legend.If 1998's Psycho didn't teach us anything, and apparently it didn't, remaking a movie almost 99% shot-by-shot DOES NOT WORK. I get they wanted to use the 6-6-06 date as mentioned, but they did NOTHING to improve on the original. In fact, they made me appreciate it all the more.I did like the 1976 film about the birth and realization of the Antichrist, but was never the biggest fan. Now I am. Thanks, 2006's The Omen.Probably 3% of the original was updated here, but with far less talent in the acting department and a rush job to speed up the timeframe from the first one. So, literally, I could stop here and say, SKIP THIS. THERE IS NO REASON TO WATCH THIS FILM. Everything failed here. Not a single shot or actor could've saved this project. The original worked fine and still holds up today having just watched it myself yesterday, 7/29/17.Please disperse; nothing to see here. I literally did chores around my room as this played since I had just seen the 1976 film within hours of this one and barely a second was altered. ***Final thoughts: On a personal note, I cannot stand Liev Schreiber. There's just something that irks me about him. That said, I didn't hate him in this, but please. He was NOOOO Gregory Peck. How they landed on Schreiber to fill Peck's shoes is beyond me.Also, Julia Stiles? Awful. Loved her in the Bourne movies, but here, horribly miscast as well.And who played Damien? Not sure. Don't remember moments after seeing this. He was THAT unmemorable.
Goosey1972
It doesn't help that the original is one of my all time favourite films but I found this a total disappointment.I think if a classic is going to be remade then they should try to approach it in a different kind of way but this copies the original virtually scene for scene.That leads to inevitable comparisons.The most obvious is the acting in which Schrieber and Styles deliver shockingly wooden performances.I actually thought it was laughable in places.Whereas Peck and Remick had a chemistry that made the audience genuinely care for them it's almost impossible to give a damn about the leads in the remake.The other main difference is what,to be fair,very few horror films (especially modern ones) seem to capture and that's atmosphere.The original had a very eerie feel to it,helped in no small part to Jerry Goldsmith,but it just wasn't there at all in the remake.On the plus side Farrow and Postlethwaite are decent. A fair argument with remakes is to try and forget the original and just take the remake on its own merits but it just falls short in so many ways for me personally. If an upcoming film maker wanted to learn lessons on how to make a good horror film they should watch the original and then the remake.
