|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 8, 2020 0:50:16 GMT
I actually prefer the second. For me, the original is a fairly standard evil little kid movie. The second is about that kid as a somewhat average teenager realizing he's the antichrist, which is a far more compelling story imo. The third is only worth watching if you're a fan of Sam Neill chewing scenery like bubblegum. I don't think I've seen 4. I heard the remake took the Psycho 1998 route of being shot for shot so I skipped. The remake is not shot for shot in the way Psycho (1998) is, but it is very similar. The main differences are the tone is way more in your face dread and the child performance is very self-aware and cringe-y. I actually think the remake has parts that are more effective than the original and I actually prefer Liev Schreiber's performance to Gregory Peck's performance. Peck has always felt somewhat out of place in the original for me. The original is better, but I don't hate the remake by any means. Roger Ebert famously preferred the remake. Is this a recommendation?
|
|
Reynard
Sophomore
@reynard
Posts: 733
Likes: 389
|
Post by Reynard on Oct 8, 2020 0:56:57 GMT
I actually prefer the second. For me, the original is a fairly standard evil little kid movie. The second is about that kid as a somewhat average teenager realizing he's the antichrist, which is a far more compelling story imo. The third is only worth watching if you're a fan of Sam Neill chewing scenery like bubblegum. I don't think I've seen 4. I heard the remake took the Psycho 1998 route of being shot for shot so I skipped. The remake is not shot for shot in the way Psycho (1998) is, but it is very similar. The main differences are the tone is way more in your face dread and the child performance is very self-aware and cringe-y. I actually think the remake has parts that are more effective than the original and I actually prefer Liev Schreiber's performance to Gregory Peck's performance. Peck has always felt somewhat out of place in the original for me. The original is better, but I don't hate the remake by any means. Roger Ebert famously preferred the remake. Yeah, the remake definitely isn't shot-for-shot. Maybe the plot is strikingly similar, I can't really tell since I quit watching after less than 30 minutes in, the reason being that the remake is edited in the kind of "dynamic" music video style that has all the subtlety and nuance of a sledgehammer, while the original was made in that typically restrained 70s style.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 8, 2020 0:59:29 GMT
The remake is not shot for shot in the way Psycho (1998) is, but it is very similar. The main differences are the tone is way more in your face dread and the child performance is very self-aware and cringe-y. I actually think the remake has parts that are more effective than the original and I actually prefer Liev Schreiber's performance to Gregory Peck's performance. Peck has always felt somewhat out of place in the original for me. The original is better, but I don't hate the remake by any means. Roger Ebert famously preferred the remake. Is this a recommendation? Only for people who dislike the original and only as an experiment. I can't say that with most remakes vs. originals. The Omen is one of the more interesting to compare imo.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 8, 2020 1:04:10 GMT
The remake is not shot for shot in the way Psycho (1998) is, but it is very similar. The main differences are the tone is way more in your face dread and the child performance is very self-aware and cringe-y. I actually think the remake has parts that are more effective than the original and I actually prefer Liev Schreiber's performance to Gregory Peck's performance. Peck has always felt somewhat out of place in the original for me. The original is better, but I don't hate the remake by any means. Roger Ebert famously preferred the remake. Yeah, the remake definitely isn't shot-for-shot. Maybe the plot is strikingly similar, I can't really tell since I quit watching after less than 30 minutes in, the reason being that the remake is edited in the kind of "dynamic" music video style that has all the subtlety and nuance of a sledgehammer, while the original was made in that typically restrained 70s style. I agree and disagree. I have the same issue with the editing that you do with the remake, but the original is TOO restrained for my taste. I mean the horror of what is happening barely registers for me in the original. It pales in comparison to most of the other famous 1970s horror movies. Richard Donner is a middle of the road director imo and is much better suited to the action genre. I have the same mixed feelings about Superman (1978) that I do about The Omen. I think his best work is by far Lethal Weapon. As I said before though, my main issue is the story just isn't that interesting and because of that it needed a more visionary director. The 3 scenes that are genuinely creepy are the suicide scene, the cemetery scene and the zoo scene. Everything else is just sort of forgettable.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 8, 2020 1:45:01 GMT
I love the original. It's in my top ten of scariest movies ever made.
What's to enjoy and appreciate?
1. The eerie photographs that predict the characters' grisly fates.
2. The gradual, well-paced unfolding of plot where slowly but surely Robert Thorn comes to know the horrifying truth.
3. A very likable couple in Gregory Peck and Lee Remick. I thought they were very believable together.
4. Billie's terrifying performance as the second nanny.
5. Last, but not least, Jerry Goldsmith's landmark, heart-stopping horror score that could make believers out of all of us!
A solid ***1/4
The sequels...
"Damien: Omen 2" was fun, with a good cast. There are some creepy parts (e.g., the opening buried alive sequence, brrrr...), but all in all, the first one makes this one seem like a walk in the park. I did like it, though, and sometimes will choose to watch this one over the original when I want to be scared, but not really scared. **3/4
"The Final Conflict" - I thought it was pretty dull and the opening suicide number was both over the top and extremely unpleasant. Not scary, just nasty, even vile. *1/2
The remake with Schreiber and Stiles was plain awful. Not scary, not entertaining, with a post-9/11 awareness that just distracts. Liev Schreiber is not exactly good here, but he is vastly more appealing than the intolerably smug, whiny and all around blah presence of Julia Stiles. I could not stand her. (And I had loved Remick's character so much.) I usually like Mia Farrow, but she is completely wasted here, feeding Damien strawberries in the attic??!! What did I just see?
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 8, 2020 13:38:54 GMT
The dog in Omen 3 making mothers burn their babies with a hot iron--you don't see that anymore (though the alien in Alien vs Predator 2 injecting the pregnant woman with alien eggs was pretty horrifying and then the hospital blows up too). To get the kid for the Omen they told him to kick Donner as hard as he could in the shin and the kid was so enthusiastic for doing it he had to be pulled away, and then they knew they found the right kid. I'd read that little Harvey Stephens put his foot, ummm, somewhere else!)
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Oct 23, 2020 20:24:33 GMT
The Omen (1976), directed by Richard Donner. First reviewI hadn't seen this for decades, but the characters all seem so familiar, probably because they have been reused and lampooned in later movies: the troublesome photographer (David Warner), the sinister nanny (Billie Whitelaw), the guilty, crazed, incoherent priest (Patrick Troughton, Doctor Who #2), and the amoral scientist who knows just what to do (Leo McKern, the real #2). Less stereotyped are parents Gregory Peck and Lee Remick, gradually realizing the awful truth the audience has known since before the lights went down. Remick fears she is going insane and sees a shrink. Peck really does go nuts; how else to work up the will to kill a child you have come to believe is the antichrist? As religious horror it has some good aspects but is a bit pale compared to The Exorcist (1973). A research topic: when (and why?) did children become proper subjects of evil in movies? Village of the Damned (1960), The Bad Seed (1956), that sort of thing. As was common during that period they use some sort of lens filter that puts a star or cross on bright points of light; here they look like prismatic fans. It's an interesting effect but can't be good for the fine detail. Jerry Goldsmith's score was, unbelievably, his only Oscar win. He has this really great "machinery of hell" motif when the car approaches the church wedding. The music is very "up front" throughout, more common then than now. Available on Blu-ray. Some thoughts on demoniacal horror movies. I care for only one small sub-genre, best represented by some of the episodes of Chris Carter's Millennium TV series with Lance Henricksen. In a lot of fiction (and rock music album covers) "evil" is represented as majestic and alluring, which of course it must be to be seductive. In the series evil is never any of those things, it is just... sad. The tragic, elegiac, autumnal tone to this treatment is appealing in a different way. I don't know if many movies take this approach; Fallen (1998) with Denzel Washington might be one. Finally, Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman is a pretty good comic novel about the Beast and the Apocalypse. The first section contains a satire on The Omen: the son of Satan is supposed to be born to an American diplomatic family in Britain, but the babies are accidentally switched at the hospital... [Later: Expanded into a TV miniseries]. Second reviewAdditional notes and new thumbnails. It begins with a lie and you might think that is dad's unknowing pact with the devil. It ends with the antichrist's sly smile and evil has won. But think again. The lie was done out of love: dad's substitution of a baby to spare his wife pain. In the end Damien lives because his father hesitated to stab and murder him, a human response. Maybe Satan has won this battle, but not yet the war. Notes: - Gregory Peck and Lee Remick have weight and intelligence that balances out what might otherwise have been a pretty silly plot.
- The nanny who hangs herself at the birthday party: for the first time it occurred to me she might have been part of the cult and her sacrifice completely voluntary, not just a possessed compulsion.
- Patrick Troughton as the ranting priest would be more effective if he were less crazed.
- Watching Billie Whitelaw (Twisted Nerve (1968)) I thought of a comedy skit were she was Nanny McPhee's or Mary Poppins' evil cousin.
- What is that creepy painting in the library?
- Not a large budget but great use of different Euro locations.
- There is no omen in The Omen. The quoted prophecy is not from the Bible.
Available on Blu-ray with two commentary tracks: - Thoughtful reflections by Nick Redmond, Lem Dobbs and Jeff Bond, with quite a lot about Jerry Goldsmith's score.
- A chatty conversation between Brian Hegeland and director Richard Donner. Some good stories but not very information dense.
Donner says the film made so much more money than expected that it gave the studio funds to do Star Wars (1977) right. That film took cinematographer Gilbert Taylor based on this one.
My thumbnails are from an old Blu-ray; I believe it has been remastered since.
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Oct 23, 2020 20:24:50 GMT
Omen II: Damien (1978), directed by Don Taylor. Aka Damien: Omen II. It opens just after the end of The Omen (1976). Uncredited Leo McKern ( The Day the Earth Caught Fire (1961), Help! (1965), Ladyhawke (1985)) and Ian Hendry ( The Hill (1965), Theater of Blood (1973)) -- the archaeologists who know too much -- suffer death by sand in an unfortunate worksite accident. Several years later Damien is living with his uncle and family, still in wealthy surroundings, now in Chicago and attending a military academy. He does not at first realize his true identity, but has powers to control other people. The secret society of satanic protectors grows around him. As a story this is pretty low-grade filler. The whiff of the infernal is not very strong, the kid is not frightening and the plot belabors the notion that Thorn Industries seeks to control world food supply, someday making Damien a powerful person. I think we could have accepted that as given. There is no real payoff; tune in next time. If as a literary conceit the Antichrist is to have a life parallel to Jesus, then I suppose this segment could be taken as representing the missing years, but not much is done with it. The plot becomes formulaic: someone suspects the truth or is just in the way, that someone dies in a inventively horrible way. Waiting for the next one becomes a game for the viewer. I think we actually envy Damien's power to humiliate school bullies and stuffy teachers. Notes: - Following the pattern of having heavyweight actors lend some seriousness, William Holden and Lee Grant take over for Gregory Peck and Lee Remick from the first film.
- Holden turned down the role in the previous film.
- Lance Henriksen fan club!
- Elizabeth Shephard dies by a combination of crow and semi-truck. Last seen as the title character in The Tomb of Ligeia (1964).
- The unaccountably suspicious Aunt Marion is played by Sylvia Sidney, last seen in Fury (1936) only 42 years earlier.
- Mike Hodges was the original director. He was fired but some of his scenes remain. The producer said "different visions" but from the commentary track the biggest complaint was that he worked too slowly.
- Jerry Goldsmith returns.
- Photographed by Bill Butler -- The Conversation (1974), Jaws (1975).
Available on Blu-ray. My thumbnails are from the Shout Factory disc, which has two commentary tracks: - A happy conversation with producer Harvey Bernhard. He points out that Christians who get a lot out of Revelations are a big part of the audience for this series, even though the films are not particularly devout.
- Erratic, disorganized thoughts by a Shout Factory consultant.
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Oct 23, 2020 20:25:14 GMT
Omen III: The Final Conflict (1981), directed by Graham Baker. Aka The Final Conflict. The previous film ended with the burning of the Field Museum in Chicago. Decades later a construction crew excavating beneath the ruins unearths the Seven Daggers of Meggido, which according to no one ever are the only way the Antichrist can be killed. Damien Thorn is now rich, powerful and fully aware of his identity as the Son of Satan. He can speak openly with his close flunkies and commands a secret army of devotees: doctors, nurses, priests, boy scouts. He knows that Jesus will be soon be born again and is obsessed with finding and killing the infant "Nazarene". Sam Neill is not a bad choice for the lead. He has that naughty little boy aspect that can be selfish and cruel. This was just after his breakout in My Brilliant Career (1981). He can't save the ridiculous rants written for him by someone who didn't think about the words. He complains about life in "the flaccid bosom of Christ". Can a bosom be flaccid? Of birth as being "vomited from a wound". Without a stomach I don't think a wound can vomit. Older Bible films were content with dancing girls. Here we have forcible sodomy. During hot sex he rolls her over and rams it up her backside. "Life is pain" is his response to her objections. The director is curiously silent in the commentary track during this passage. Sam Neill and Lisa Harrow became a couple. The plot structure is a shambles. The opponents of the Antichrist are incompetent assassin-priests. The infant Jesus subplot is a red herring and never even happens. The defeat of Damien is done through revenge and frenzied bloodlust, the same means as the satanists themselves use. Where are the Christian ends and means? In the final moments the Second Coming of Christ is revealed in a Ben Hur (1959) climax, but this comes out of nowhere. Nothing in the film supports it. Compare this with someone who knows how to craft a mythology with an integral moral vision. Tolkien's Middle Earth is saved because 80 years earlier Bilbo showed mercy when he first got the Ring from Gollum: Notes: - Rossano Brazzi -- The Barefoot Contessa (1954) -- is the leader and last of the priest assassins. Working out the character with the director he said: "He is a good man, yes? A priest with balls".
- It made me laugh: Damien's flunky says "My wife has just gone into labor! Can I borrow your car?" And he gets the Antichrist's keys.
- Following precedent, Damien decides to kill the infant Messiah by murdering every newborn child in England. The Omen inventive death game moves on to babies, rare in horror films and of questionable entertainment value.
- Jerry Goldsmith returns yet again with a somewhat livelier score than for the middle film. His music provides a unifying structure for the series.
Available on Blu-ray. My disc is not the later Shout Factory version. It has one commentary track: sparse and somewhat dry reflections by the director.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Oct 23, 2020 22:22:02 GMT
I actually prefer the second. For me, the original is a fairly standard evil little kid movie. The second is about that kid as a somewhat average teenager realizing he's the antichrist, which is a far more compelling story imo. The third is only worth watching if you're a fan of Sam Neill chewing scenery like bubblegum. I don't think I've seen 4. I heard the remake took the Psycho 1998 route of being shot for shot so I skipped. The remake is not shot for shot in the way Psycho (1998) is, but it is very similar. The main differences are the tone is way more in your face dread and the child performance is very self-aware and cringe-y. I actually think the remake has parts that are more effective than the original and I actually prefer Liev Schreiber's performance to Gregory Peck's performance. Peck has always felt somewhat out of place in the original for me. The original is better, but I don't hate the remake by any means. Roger Ebert famously preferred the remake. Roger Ebert preferred the 2006 version? Uggghhh.... that movie was terrible. Julia Stiles was so easy to hate it made everything out of whack. Everything that Lee Remick was, JS was not. The kill scenes were really terrible, too. I know it's all subjective, but once in a while, Ebert's judgment seemed really off.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 23, 2020 22:27:53 GMT
The remake is not shot for shot in the way Psycho (1998) is, but it is very similar. The main differences are the tone is way more in your face dread and the child performance is very self-aware and cringe-y. I actually think the remake has parts that are more effective than the original and I actually prefer Liev Schreiber's performance to Gregory Peck's performance. Peck has always felt somewhat out of place in the original for me. The original is better, but I don't hate the remake by any means. Roger Ebert famously preferred the remake. Roger Ebert preferred the 2006 version? Uggghhh.... that movie was terrible. Julia Stiles was so easy to hate it made everything out of whack. Everything that Lee Remick was, JS was not. The kill scenes were really terrible, too. I know it's all subjective, but once in a while, Ebert's judgment seemed really off. Eh, they aren't that far apart for me either. I agree with some of what you say and the remake is a worse movie, but I am not a fan of the original either.
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Oct 23, 2020 22:29:52 GMT
Anyone remember when the Medved Brothers placed the original in their book THE FIFTY WORST FILMS OF ALL TIME?
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 💀🎃👻 on Oct 24, 2020 14:22:57 GMT
Little Damien today, Harvey Stephens.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Oct 25, 2020 3:53:40 GMT
I re-watched it last night after a 17 year hiatus. My brother wanted to see it. It's a good thriller with a strong 70s vibe. The clothes are hilarious. A very old-fashioned horror film of the type popular during an era characterized by an insatiable appetite for religious themed horror movies. As a non-religious person, I don't find it remotely scary and I probably don't like it as much as I did when I was in my teens either, but it's a good film from a director who would go on to do even greater things.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Oct 25, 2020 4:13:07 GMT
Filmmaker Wes Craven rapidly deconstructs 'The Omen' (1976_) [SPOILERS]
Part 1
Part 2
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Oct 26, 2020 2:14:23 GMT
I like supernatural films (The Haunting, The Innocents, The Uninvited) but I'm not a big fan of "devil possession" movies. With a few exceptions (Night of the Demon, Burn, Witch, Burn, The Exorcist) they never really involve me. The Omen is a cut above most, expensive to look at, well acted and with a superior script, although I could do without the graphic death scenes.
I was manager of a theatre in the '70's and we booked The Omen. It was one of those great old cathedral type houses built in the 1920's. At the end of the last show, around 11PM, I walked backstage to draw the Grand Curtain closed (remember them?) and couldn't help getting chills every night listening to Ave Satani in the dark behind the screen. After that, I had to walk back through the now empty theatre to shut off all the lights. For one who was never afraid of the dark, even as a kid, I still get a clammy feeling and a flashback to those nights every time I see the movie.
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Oct 26, 2020 16:12:59 GMT
The Omen (1976), directed by Richard Donner. Some thoughts on demoniacal horror movies. I care for only one small sub-genre, best represented by some of the episodes of Chris Carter's Millennium TV series with Lance Henricksen. In a lot of fiction (and rock music album covers) "evil" is represented as majestic and alluring, which of course it must be to be seductive. In the series evil is never any of those things, it is just... sad. The tragic, elegiac, autumnal tone to this treatment is appealing in a different way. I don't know if many movies take this approach; Fallen (1998) with Denzel Washington might be one. I love Millennium. Lance Henriksen was marvellous as Frank Black.
|
|
maxwellperfect
Junior Member
@maxwellperfect
Posts: 3,966
Likes: 1,684
|
Post by maxwellperfect on Oct 27, 2020 3:55:16 GMT
I remember reading the novelization of 'Omen 2.' Pretty sure I watched 2 and 3 (and the remake) but don't remember that much about any of them, which is probably not a good thing.
|
|