 | 映画原題: The Omen [ 映画邦題: ザ・オーメン] : 話題注目作劇場公開映画 |  | |  |  | |  | The Omen : Hollywood Cinema Director : シネマ作品監督紹介 | | The Omen : Actor [CAST・CREW] : アクター・アクトレス(男優・女優・声優)&ミュージシャン・アーティスト紹介 | | The Omen : 現地ハリウッド市民の評価 : 英語批評版 : Native Evaluation |  |  |  |  |  (Too) Faithful to the Original (?) / 2006-06-18
The Omen is about a United States Ambassador who slowly comes to realize that his "son," Damien, is actually the Anti-Christ. It is a remake of a 1976 classic by the same name.
It is a very faithful remake.
Maybe... too faithful. Allow me to explain.
Films are more than plotlines, characters and dialogue. Like literature, they also have mood, tone and style. Again, like literature, there are certain time periods that have certain defining characteristics--Victorian literature feels distinct from literature produced during the Harlem Renaissance. With cinema, 70s movies feel different than 60s movies or 80s movies. They come from different cultures, different times, with different fears, hopes and beliefs.
Taking a film from the 70s, like the Omen, and remaking it as faithfully as they have here, feels odd, watching it in a theater in 2006. It doesn't feel like a modern movie. It feels like a 70s movie because, in a lot of ways, it is. This is not to say that it is a bad film--many 70s movies were quite good, and the Omen is a pretty good film in any era. However, it rings slightly off to the modern ear; it arose from a culture and a society that has subsequently moved on. Stephen King, in his excellent Danse Macabre, argued that the evil in horror usually is a manifestation of what the culture currently finds frightening. In the 50s, we were worried about nuclear annihilation, and so most of our horror film threats were either from the skies or the results of science/radiation. A giant bug movie, made today, feels strange (unless it is a throwback parody, like Eight Legged Freaks). This movie, in recapturing a 70s film, is fighting against things that no longer frighten us in quite the same ways.
The teenagers in the theater I saw the Omen in didn't need the academic explanation--they knew it was dated, too, and sniggered more often than screamed.
Technically, this is a very good film. The acting is all fine, and the filming, direction, lighting, effects, etc., all serve their purposes. The stunt casting of Mia Farrow (who played Rosemary--mother of the Anti-Christ--in Rosemary's Baby, another 70s film) was genius, and she does not disappoint. She plays creepy to the hilt.
All in all, this is a good movie and an incredibly faithful remake of a famous 70s film. The biggest drawback, perhaps, is that, by being so very faithful to the original, we've resulted with a movie that is slightly out of step with our current culture and rings slightly false to the modern ear. If you've never seen the original 70s movie, no need--for all intents and purposes, they've recreated it for you, here. |  |  |  |  | | | | | | | |  A satisfying movie to see on 06/06/06.. / 2006-06-18
I went and watched this movie at 12:00 AM on 06/06/06 and was more than satisfied. As other reviews say, it is lacking in the psychological horror area.. but it excels as a jumpy scary movie, which are more fun to see in my opinion. Even still, this is the main reason I only give it 4 stars. I would also like to mention that I did not see the original. I am not judging this movie as a remake and didn't even take it into consideration in this review.
666) Despite other reviews, however, I feel that Mia Farrow's performance as the "evil nanny" was the worst of the characters. She just felt out of place and didn't strike me as creepy or evil.. Instead, she just seemed.. not right in the head.
666) Looking back, I do see a couple flaws in Robert Thorne's(Liev Schreiber) character -- but I didn't notice as I watched the movie, so I am not too bothered by it. His character is pretty dull for being such a leading role and, might I mention, he is quite flaky.
666) I liked Kate Thorne's(Julia Styles) character and thought it seemed realistic enough given what was going on around her. Her son is the antichrist for god's sake!
666) I thought Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick did a VERY nice job playing Damien. I think the character could have been better, but that is probably not his fault and more the director's. I know a lot of reviews complain about his character, but they are expecting him to be scarier than I think he was meant to be. He looks angry in most scenes where he probably should have been creepy and scary.. which makes his character different. Not bad.. just different.
I was adequately scared and had fun watching this movie. I will atleast rent it when it comes out.. maybe even buy it.
Recommended. Four stars. | | | | | | | | | | | | A Remake Well Worth Seeing / 2006-06-18
I've always been a huge fan of the original film. Just loved everything about it. The story, the direction, the actors, the Academy Award-winning score by Jerry Goldsmith.
So I was very skeptical when I heard they were going to remake it.
I just saw THE OMEN (2006) and I really liked it!
If Goldsmith's "black mass" soundtrack had been included, I probably would've given this version five stars. But maybe it wouldn't have worked as well as it does. This version does establish its own rythym and timing.
This version stays faithful to the basic story (they even brought back David Seltzer, the original screenwriter, to update this one). I still wonder whether the scenes in the Vatican of the Catholic hierarchy putting the pieces and prophecies together was a good idea, but we live in a time where people can't get enough of secret meetings and conspiracy theories.
The dream sequences make for good jolts. The second half of the film moves along very quickly. The casting is excellent. I'll be picking this movie up on DVD and putting it on the shelf right next to the beloved 1976 classic.
But perhaps the scariest part of THE OMEN is not so much what happens in the film, but the realization that the world is actually better prepared for the appearance of someone as terrible and frightening as the Antichrist. | | | | | | | | | | | |  Which Camp Are You In? / 2006-06-17
There are a couple of "fan camps" with regards to this film. First we have those that absolutely loved the original 1976 theatrical release starring Gregory Peck, Lee Remick, and Harvey Stephens (Damien) but despise this remake. Then there are those that haven't seen the `76 version but have watched this one and found it adequate. And finally there are those who've watched both versions and like this one better than the original. So where do I stand?
I'm firmly in the first group. Although I didn't think the `76 version was flawless, it did have some stellar acting, a great deal of psychological horror, and an interesting story. I'd never really thought about a remake. But oh Hollyweird has. That seems to be their bread-n-butter lately. From WAR OF THE WORLDS to KING KONG, everything is being "updated".
But what about this film...
Well, it has its moments but the flaws are glaring. Relying more on the sudden heart-pounding noise or attack, this version shied away from the psychological and went visceral. Not necessarily a bad thing; it just depends on your expectations. Personally, I was looking for the psych aspects but was woefully disappointed.
Watching Mia Farrow was probably the most rewarding. She actually creeped me out. Being Damien's nanny and protector, she took her character all the way to the edge and left me hanging there, wondering if she'd push me over. But her acting was really the only adequate performance. Liev Schreiber (Robert Thorn) played as wooden a role as I've seen from him. By comparison, his performance in (again, another remake) THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE was much more believable. Julia Styles is equally a sapling as Mrs. Thorn. And the worst acting came, unfortunately, from Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick (Damien). I don't like bashing child actors as I feel much of what they do isn't their fault; they simply follow direction. So to be more specific, the directing of Fitzpatrick was atrocious. Mostly he just stands there, staring at the camera, trying to put a mean scowl on his face ...and failing miserably.
Being in the medical field, I also MUST comment on two specific events that were obviously not researched. First is the trailer we've all seen with Damien's first nanny standing on a roof with rope looped around her neck yelling, "Damien! Look at me! It's all for you, Damien!" then jumping. Realistically her head would've come off, not just her shoes. The second is the hospital scene where Mia Farrow goes in to see Julia Styles and injects her intravenous line with a smidgin of air from a syringe. It would take huge syringes full of air to do any sort of damage and even then the effects would take a very long time before anything life-threatening came about.
My biggest complaint, though, has to come from the poor script. Perhaps they were trying to appeal to multiple groups of movie-goers by putting in grotesque scenes with only a dash of the psychological. I don't know. But, for whatever reason, they decided to travel this route and I found it a terrible way to go. Neither worked and seemed to negate the other. | | | | | | | | | | | | Average movie -- below average remake. / 2006-06-17
When one considers this movie in isolation, it isn't particulaly bad. But it's merit must be judged and compared against the original since it literally is a scene by scene recreation of the 1976 Omen.
Other than the fact that the newer film benefits from a superior film stock, the movie is inferior in almost all other
respects.
The original casting was spot on and much more convincing than in the remake(The noble presence of Gregory Peck and Lee Remick simply are more convicing as the ambassador and his wife over Liev Schrieber and the Julia Stiles).
Secondly, I appreciated the fact that Harvey Stephens (Damien) in the 1976 version was presented as a "normal boy" and that the freak "accidents" could be also be construed as simply coincidences rather than satanic in nature. That ambiguity added a certain level of sophistication in reading of the story in the original movie. In this remake, Damien is presented more as an "evil figure" as suggested by the overtly weird "stares" and glances.
Most notable dissappointing aspect of this remake is the totally lacklustre musical score.
The original Jerry Goldsmith soundtrack, arguably was the main reason the original movie was so successful - for which Goldsmith won an Oscar.
| | | | | | | | 
ご利用のウェブブラウザがFirefoxの場合、ここに新たな映画情報が表示されます。 もし、どんな情報が表示されているか知りたい方は下のバーナーから、Google ツールバーを搭載したFirefoxをダウンロードし、インストールして見て下さい。 インターネット・エクスプローラ：Internet Explorer（IE）より、インタネット・ウイルスやアドウェアやスパイウェア等の セキュリティ面でIEより安全で、ポップアップ広告をブロックする機能、RSSフィードが読み込める機能や、ページ検索のハイライト機能、GoogleやAmazonなどの検索機能が利用できる統合検索機能などが備わっている インターネットブラウザＦｉｒｅｆｏｘを使用することを推奨します。 サイトとウェブ・ブラウザについて：このウェブサイトはWebブラウザFirefoxによって最適化されています。
| |
![The Omen [Original Motion Picture Soundtrack]](http://rcm-images.amazon.com/images/P/B000FILWQ8.09._THUMBZZZ_.jpg)
