The Omen (US - DVD R1)
Fox has sent over official details on the release of this Liev Schreiber horror film
Title: The Omen (IMDb)
Starring: Liev Schreiber
Released: 17th October 2006
SRP: $29.98
Further Details:
Fox Home Entertainment has announced the remake of The Omen which stars Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles and Mia Farrow. The film will be available to own from the 17th October, and should retail at around $29.98. The film itself will be presented in anamorphic widescreen, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 track. Extras will include a director commentary, a never before seen alternate ending, extended scenes, behind the scenes featurettes 'Omenisms', 'Abbey Road Sessions', and 'Revelations 666', and more. We've attached the artwork below, which is still subject to change:
News by Tom Woodward
Starring: Liev Schreiber
Released: 17th October 2006
SRP: $29.98
Further Details:
Fox Home Entertainment has announced the remake of The Omen which stars Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles and Mia Farrow. The film will be available to own from the 17th October, and should retail at around $29.98. The film itself will be presented in anamorphic widescreen, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 track. Extras will include a director commentary, a never before seen alternate ending, extended scenes, behind the scenes featurettes 'Omenisms', 'Abbey Road Sessions', and 'Revelations 666', and more. We've attached the artwork below, which is still subject to change:
Revised Artwork
Original Artwork
News by Tom Woodward
Advertisements
Existing Posts
Anonymous Anonymous wrote: PHUCK YOU FOX! *screaming*
Anyone noticed Fox mispelled Liev Schreiber's name?
Please Fox, I beg you to keep the original art! Please!
Mr. Schreiber won't be too happy with that...
Anyone noticed Fox mispelled Liev Schreiber's name?
Please Fox, I beg you to keep the original art! Please!
Mr. Schreiber won't be too happy with that...
They completely screw it up with reduing the cover!
Specially since their SPOILING scenes in it!
Fox isn't very smart with that appereantly.
Specially since their SPOILING scenes in it!
Fox isn't very smart with that appereantly.
"Hellish Alternate Ending"
Gawd....need I say more?
Gawd....need I say more?
Adrian wrote: RentFreak610 wrote: The new cover is MUCH better.
Who else thinks so?
I rarely comment on artwork, but whoever made the revised artwork should never work again. The original artwork was just that original. The revised artwork just seems very generic.
Yeah. New art seems very DTV-ish. Please Fox, keep the original art. Or are you gonna use it for an unwanted 2-disc?
Who else thinks so?
I rarely comment on artwork, but whoever made the revised artwork should never work again. The original artwork was just that original. The revised artwork just seems very generic.
Yeah. New art seems very DTV-ish. Please Fox, keep the original art. Or are you gonna use it for an unwanted 2-disc?
Actually the new artwork is better. Shame there is no DTS track.
Adrian wrote: In the remake, they were just aliens with no real meaning behind them.
That's not really true. I think someone already stated it, but the allegory for the aliens and their invasion was just changed from the communism scare of the '50s to more timely themes for 1978, such as conspiracy theories and paranoia about the government in the post-Vietnam era and the whole concept of the '70s as the 'Me Decade'.
That's not really true. I think someone already stated it, but the allegory for the aliens and their invasion was just changed from the communism scare of the '50s to more timely themes for 1978, such as conspiracy theories and paranoia about the government in the post-Vietnam era and the whole concept of the '70s as the 'Me Decade'.
FangsFirst wrote: Yes, I know that was what the original was about, I was more confused by your claims that they removed the allegory and "replaced it with real aliens"--that part makes no sense. In the original film, they *WERE* real aliens--they were only Communists allegorically. I meant simply that you can't replace the allegorical Communists with "real aliens," because that's what they were in the first place.
I think you explained to yourself. They weren't really aliens, but aliens standing in for Communists. (Yes, I know in the movie they are depicted as aliens, but that is the whole thrust of allegory anyway.) In the remake, they were just aliens with no real meaning behind them.
It's easy to call it a "communist fantasy" with hindsight. It sure did not seem that way in the 50s.
I think you explained to yourself. They weren't really aliens, but aliens standing in for Communists. (Yes, I know in the movie they are depicted as aliens, but that is the whole thrust of allegory anyway.) In the remake, they were just aliens with no real meaning behind them.
It's easy to call it a "communist fantasy" with hindsight. It sure did not seem that way in the 50s.
RentFreak610 wrote: The new cover is MUCH better.
Who else thinks so?
I rarely comment on artwork, but whoever made the revised artwork should never work again. The original artwork was just that original. The revised artwork just seems very generic.
Who else thinks so?
I rarely comment on artwork, but whoever made the revised artwork should never work again. The original artwork was just that original. The revised artwork just seems very generic.
The new cover is MUCH better.
Who else thinks so?
Who else thinks so?
Adrian wrote: Uhm, you do realize that the allegory of the original 50s version was the threat of Communism? That was an idea trapped in the 50s and could not really be used in the late 70s. So yes, they had to remove the allegory that the Communists were taking over people that you knew and that you could never be sure who was a communist and who wasn't.
Yes, I know that was what the original was about, I was more confused by your claims that they removed the allegory and "replaced it with real aliens"--that part makes no sense. In the original film, they *WERE* real aliens--they were only Communists allegorically. I meant simply that you can't replace the allegorical Communists with "real aliens," because that's what they were in the first place.
Beyond that, it wasn't as if it was the Dawn of the Dead remake--it DID still have something to say, just something different from silly paranoid Communist fantasies.
Yes, I know that was what the original was about, I was more confused by your claims that they removed the allegory and "replaced it with real aliens"--that part makes no sense. In the original film, they *WERE* real aliens--they were only Communists allegorically. I meant simply that you can't replace the allegorical Communists with "real aliens," because that's what they were in the first place.
Beyond that, it wasn't as if it was the Dawn of the Dead remake--it DID still have something to say, just something different from silly paranoid Communist fantasies.
Steven Carrier wrote: dont listen to the stupid people ou there. this is a really good movie.
And you'd be our resident braintrust, right?
And you'd be our resident braintrust, right?
God, that art is a catastrophe.
INTERNATIONAL ART, PLEASE!!!
INTERNATIONAL ART, PLEASE!!!
Aaron Schneiderman wrote: This film was as necessary as Gus Van Sant's "Psycho." Remakes are a tough call. Sometimes they are terrific like John Carpenter's "The Thing." And well, sometimes they are Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes."
And sometimes they are as horrifically bad as "The Fog".
And sometimes they are as horrifically bad as "The Fog".
The original artwork was so nice, and simple. This new one makes it look like some lousy (Well the movie was, I fell asleep 3/4 through), stupid action movie.
FangsFirst wrote:
Removed the allegory? Huh?
Just because they're real aliens doesn't remove the allegory. In fact the nature of allegory means you DO have something other than what you're actually talking about...
Though, admittedly, it's more a vehicle for exploration of a social issue than an allegory, per se, in that it addresses the 'self help' gurus and mistrust of the government through their actions, reactions and inactions as the invasion occurs.
Uhm, you do realize that the allegory of the original 50s version was the threat of Communism? That was an idea trapped in the 50s and could not really be used in the late 70s. So yes, they had to remove the allegory that the Communists were taking over people that you knew and that you could never be sure who was a communist and who wasn't.
Removed the allegory? Huh?
Just because they're real aliens doesn't remove the allegory. In fact the nature of allegory means you DO have something other than what you're actually talking about...
Though, admittedly, it's more a vehicle for exploration of a social issue than an allegory, per se, in that it addresses the 'self help' gurus and mistrust of the government through their actions, reactions and inactions as the invasion occurs.
Uhm, you do realize that the allegory of the original 50s version was the threat of Communism? That was an idea trapped in the 50s and could not really be used in the late 70s. So yes, they had to remove the allegory that the Communists were taking over people that you knew and that you could never be sure who was a communist and who wasn't.
God that's a bad cover. Makes it looks like some direct to video movie.
Adrian wrote: The funny thing is that is how I pretty much feel about Donald Sutherland's Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It seemed too close to the original and I just really didn't enjoy it. It took out the underlying allegory and replaced it with real aliens. That seemed to be about it.
Removed the allegory? Huh?
Just because they're real aliens doesn't remove the allegory. In fact the nature of allegory means you DO have something other than what you're actually talking about...
Though, admittedly, it's more a vehicle for exploration of a social issue than an allegory, per se, in that it addresses the 'self help' gurus and mistrust of the government through their actions, reactions and inactions as the invasion occurs.
Removed the allegory? Huh?
Just because they're real aliens doesn't remove the allegory. In fact the nature of allegory means you DO have something other than what you're actually talking about...
Though, admittedly, it's more a vehicle for exploration of a social issue than an allegory, per se, in that it addresses the 'self help' gurus and mistrust of the government through their actions, reactions and inactions as the invasion occurs.
Oh NOOOOO!!!!! Why change something that already works? 
I actually prefer the revised artwork. The whole plain and simple thing didn't work for me on the original cover.
That is some horrible new artwork. What's wrong with keep it simple?
The original artwork is much better.
Wow. The art revision...there are no words for how utterly awful it is.
yeah the new art is really bad...I thought the original artwork was great. In terms of Invasion of the Body Snachers, I only saw the original from the '50s and the '93 version and truthfully that remake was actually good with only slightly lousy special effects. I thought that was different enough that yeah it was a remake but was alright to keep the basic premise and expand and add your own ideas.
PHUCK YOU FOX! *screaming*
Anyone noticed Fox mispelled Liev Schreiber's name?
Please Fox, I beg you to keep the original art! Please!
Anyone noticed Fox mispelled Liev Schreiber's name?
Please Fox, I beg you to keep the original art! Please!
horrible cover. I like the original. damn you fox.
awesome artwork!
man why did they changed it???
now they ruined it!!!
i liked the red art work better!!!
and this art work just SUCKS!!!!
now they ruined it!!!
i liked the red art work better!!!
and this art work just SUCKS!!!!
Do as the monkeys would and fling pooh at it!
Updated artwork added...
Yuck, that new cover is awful, it looks like a bad horror remake made to appeal to modern day teenagers.......Whoops.....
Invasion was also re-done in '93 as "Body Snatchers" with the girl from Scent of a Woman.
I will never see this movie.
FangsFirst wrote: Point being: Remaking a movie with the same movie is inherently pointless (the Omen) but to change it wouldn't serve much purpose unless you add some philosophical bent or...SOMETHING.
(and Invasion was remade in 78, just so's ya know)
The funny thing is that is how I pretty much feel about Donald Sutherland's Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It seemed too close to the original and I just really didn't enjoy it. It took out the underlying allegory and replaced it with real aliens. That seemed to be about it.
The Omen might have been an unnecessary remake, but it was still quite an enjoyable film. I'm glad they kept the tone and didn't go for a typical slasher/gore film that has permeated horror these days. Plus, it had a nice gimmick with the release date of 06/06/06.
(and Invasion was remade in 78, just so's ya know)
The funny thing is that is how I pretty much feel about Donald Sutherland's Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It seemed too close to the original and I just really didn't enjoy it. It took out the underlying allegory and replaced it with real aliens. That seemed to be about it.
The Omen might have been an unnecessary remake, but it was still quite an enjoyable film. I'm glad they kept the tone and didn't go for a typical slasher/gore film that has permeated horror these days. Plus, it had a nice gimmick with the release date of 06/06/06.
Adrian wrote: Anonymous Anonymous wrote: I know The Fly , Invasion, and The Blob are in the pipeline. But The Maltese Falcon? WTF?
I believe his point was of previous remakes that were good movies. These are normal movies that people point when talking about good remakes. The Maltese Falcon (the one with Bogart) was the third filming of the book.
You've got it, I was referring to existing quality remakes.
Quote: However, an equal number of people would have been upset if it had deviated too much.
And honestly, I'd be one of them, too. It was just completely unnecessary. The Thing's remake brought it closer to the source material. The Fly was a more philosophical examination (as Cronenberg pretty much always is) of what was previously intended as plain ol' horror film.
That sort of thing.
There's no reason to remake the Omen though, or Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or Evil Dead. The effects of the Omen are few enough that they don't need to be 'updated' (the only legitimate reason I could see for remaking Dawn of the Dead, but that eliminated the intelligence...).
TCM's 'character' is built from its low budget. Remaking it with a big budget ruins the whole damn point. Same with Evil Dead.
Point being: Remaking a movie with the same movie is inherently pointless (the Omen) but to change it wouldn't serve much purpose unless you add some philosophical bent or...SOMETHING.
(and Invasion was remade in 78, just so's ya know)
Though honestly I just hate the modern aesthetic in general for film, and feel it only works on new films. This weird ridiculous clarity and sterilized feel to everything (and not in a Kubrick way). The way colour filters are built into like every scene in a movie. Blech.
Anyway, uh, sorry. Rant over.
I believe his point was of previous remakes that were good movies. These are normal movies that people point when talking about good remakes. The Maltese Falcon (the one with Bogart) was the third filming of the book.
You've got it, I was referring to existing quality remakes.
Quote: However, an equal number of people would have been upset if it had deviated too much.
And honestly, I'd be one of them, too. It was just completely unnecessary. The Thing's remake brought it closer to the source material. The Fly was a more philosophical examination (as Cronenberg pretty much always is) of what was previously intended as plain ol' horror film.
That sort of thing.
There's no reason to remake the Omen though, or Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or Evil Dead. The effects of the Omen are few enough that they don't need to be 'updated' (the only legitimate reason I could see for remaking Dawn of the Dead, but that eliminated the intelligence...).
TCM's 'character' is built from its low budget. Remaking it with a big budget ruins the whole damn point. Same with Evil Dead.
Point being: Remaking a movie with the same movie is inherently pointless (the Omen) but to change it wouldn't serve much purpose unless you add some philosophical bent or...SOMETHING.
(and Invasion was remade in 78, just so's ya know)
Though honestly I just hate the modern aesthetic in general for film, and feel it only works on new films. This weird ridiculous clarity and sterilized feel to everything (and not in a Kubrick way). The way colour filters are built into like every scene in a movie. Blech.
Anyway, uh, sorry. Rant over.
Adrian wrote: Anonymous Anonymous wrote: To everyone,
Invasion is due in February. Olivier Assayas directed that one.
I think you mean Oliver Hirschbiegel. Seems to be called The Visiting
My bad!
The "Saw" guys were offered to do the "Blob" redo at Paramount but turned it down. After seeing "I, Robot", I think Proyas can pull a new version of "The Fly" on a small budget.
Invasion is due in February. Olivier Assayas directed that one.
I think you mean Oliver Hirschbiegel. Seems to be called The Visiting
My bad!
The "Saw" guys were offered to do the "Blob" redo at Paramount but turned it down. After seeing "I, Robot", I think Proyas can pull a new version of "The Fly" on a small budget.
Anonymous Anonymous wrote: To everyone,
Invasion is due in February. Olivier Assayas directed that one.
I think you mean Oliver Hirschbiegel. Seems to be calle The Visiting
Invasion is due in February. Olivier Assayas directed that one.
I think you mean Oliver Hirschbiegel. Seems to be calle The Visiting
I enjoyed this movie, was fun a time. I've seen MANY worse remakes. It was much better then alot of other movies that came out in the last year.
I'm sorry I spent the money to see this at the theatre. Complete waste of time. I'll gladly stick to the original.
Have you noticed that the worst movies get the best covers most of the time.
Nah - pointless remake of a great origianal that you should see....
To everyone,
Invasion is due in February. Olivier Assayas directed that one.
From what I understand, a redo of The Blob is in the works at Paramount w/Brad Silbering directing and Alex Proyas is prepping a Fly redo at Fox Searchlight.
Let's hope Viggo Mortensen was joking when he said that GVS was considering a punk version of "Psycho."
Invasion is due in February. Olivier Assayas directed that one.
From what I understand, a redo of The Blob is in the works at Paramount w/Brad Silbering directing and Alex Proyas is prepping a Fly redo at Fox Searchlight.
Let's hope Viggo Mortensen was joking when he said that GVS was considering a punk version of "Psycho."
Anonymous Anonymous wrote: I know The Fly , Invasion, and The Blob are in the pipeline. But The Maltese Falcon? WTF?
I believe his point was of previous remakes that were good movies. These are normal movies that people point when talking about good remakes. The Maltese Falcon (the one with Bogart) was the third filming of the book.
I thought this was a rather enjoyable movie. It kept me entertained. Was it to true to the orignal version? Probably. However, an equal number of people would have been upset if it had deviated too much.
I believe his point was of previous remakes that were good movies. These are normal movies that people point when talking about good remakes. The Maltese Falcon (the one with Bogart) was the third filming of the book.
I thought this was a rather enjoyable movie. It kept me entertained. Was it to true to the orignal version? Probably. However, an equal number of people would have been upset if it had deviated too much.
thecory wrote: Anonymous Anonymous wrote: FangsFirst wrote: Eugene Mlodik wrote: [quote=Dustin wrote]Bah. Total c**p.
Gives remakes a bad name.
Weird, I thought remakes give remakes a bad name.
The Thing. The Fly. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The Maltese Falcon. The Blob.
quote]
I know The Fly , Invasion, and The Blob are in the pipeline. But The Maltese Falcon? WTF?
They were already remade ass. The Fly in 87 I think, The Blob in 88 and I can't remember when Invasion was redone.
Actually, The Fly is up for another remake from what I understand.
yea, I heard about a another remake of The Fly, but I dont think its happening anymore thank god. but invasion of the body snatchers is coming out, but it has a different name and its with Nicole Kidman.
Gives remakes a bad name.
Weird, I thought remakes give remakes a bad name.
The Thing. The Fly. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The Maltese Falcon. The Blob.
quote]
I know The Fly , Invasion, and The Blob are in the pipeline. But The Maltese Falcon? WTF?
They were already remade ass. The Fly in 87 I think, The Blob in 88 and I can't remember when Invasion was redone.
Actually, The Fly is up for another remake from what I understand.
yea, I heard about a another remake of The Fly, but I dont think its happening anymore thank god. but invasion of the body snatchers is coming out, but it has a different name and its with Nicole Kidman.
Anonymous Anonymous wrote: FangsFirst wrote: Eugene Mlodik wrote: [quote=Dustin wrote]Bah. Total c**p.
Gives remakes a bad name.
Weird, I thought remakes give remakes a bad name.
The Thing. The Fly. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The Maltese Falcon. The Blob.
quote]
I know The Fly , Invasion, and The Blob are in the pipeline. But The Maltese Falcon? WTF?
They were already remade ass. The Fly in 87 I think, The Blob in 88 and I can't remember when Invasion was redone.
Actually, The Fly is up for another remake from what I understand.
Gives remakes a bad name.
Weird, I thought remakes give remakes a bad name.
The Thing. The Fly. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The Maltese Falcon. The Blob.
quote]
I know The Fly , Invasion, and The Blob are in the pipeline. But The Maltese Falcon? WTF?
They were already remade ass. The Fly in 87 I think, The Blob in 88 and I can't remember when Invasion was redone.
Actually, The Fly is up for another remake from what I understand.
Aaron Schneiderman wrote: This film was as necessary as Gus Van Sant's "Psycho."
I heard that GVS might redo "Psycho" again! I hope not!
I heard that GVS might redo "Psycho" again! I hope not!
FangsFirst wrote: Eugene Mlodik wrote: [quote=Dustin wrote]Bah. Total c**p.
Gives remakes a bad name.
Weird, I thought remakes give remakes a bad name.
The Thing. The Fly. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The Maltese Falcon. The Blob.
quote]
I know The Fly , Invasion, and The Blob are in the pipeline. But The Maltese Falcon? WTF?
Gives remakes a bad name.
Weird, I thought remakes give remakes a bad name.
The Thing. The Fly. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The Maltese Falcon. The Blob.
quote]
I know The Fly , Invasion, and The Blob are in the pipeline. But The Maltese Falcon? WTF?
Pointless remake that did not need to be made. Want to improve on something...try remaking The Final Conflict....that was god-awful.
I enjoyed this film, and I have seen the original.
Just feels more modern and mature somehow.
You'd think screeching choirs would work today - but I would've been fully satisfied with Gregorian's edition of "Ave Satani" over the opening or end credits.
Should be an extended cut though - where's the (beautiful) shot of the jackal mother figure holding Damien in the bathroom (for example)?
If it flashes by in a dream sequence, I must've missed it.
Definitely buying it on September 27th (Scandinavia), doubt
we'll get any other extras (or sadly any DTS audio).
Just feels more modern and mature somehow.
You'd think screeching choirs would work today - but I would've been fully satisfied with Gregorian's edition of "Ave Satani" over the opening or end credits.
Should be an extended cut though - where's the (beautiful) shot of the jackal mother figure holding Damien in the bathroom (for example)?
If it flashes by in a dream sequence, I must've missed it.
Definitely buying it on September 27th (Scandinavia), doubt
we'll get any other extras (or sadly any DTS audio).
Pretty much equal with the original, depending on your tastes in scores. Goldsmith's was very well done, but still, I felt it was a little over-the-top at times (same with Gregory Peck's performance).
-NJM
-NJM
zoolerscom wrote: The police stationed out front (i assume for his protection 'cause he's the U.S. ambassador) immediately give chase. Right before Liev goes to stab Damien,instead of the normal cops break in and shoot him like the original, its a frigging SWAT team. Does London even have a SWAT team? If so, are they also called a SWAT team like in the US?? and if so, could they actually get suited up and get to thatexact location that fricking quickly???? I burst out laughing when I saw them running up the church stairs. I don't know what's funnier: that, or the fact that none of the 4 people I went with to see this movie knew it was a remake..... yeah, THATS sad.
I noticed that too. And what actually bothered me the most were the laserbeams in that scene.
Did anyone who liked this version see the original?
I noticed that too. And what actually bothered me the most were the laserbeams in that scene.
Did anyone who liked this version see the original?
stupid movie, though i'm glad they stuck with the poster art. I actually like the poster art a little more, because the picture and text were sort of small, with plain deep red covering the rest of it.
Didn't see the movie, but I love the original, so I'll at least rent this.
I like th artwork--except for "6-6-06" down the spine. Just trying to remind people there was a point to the remake?
I like th artwork--except for "6-6-06" down the spine. Just trying to remind people there was a point to the remake?
I'll probably see this. All of the people in my class were passing around a note in Maths promoting the movie, saying "The OMEN 6/6/06". And then everyone was planning to go see it on the day, but no on did. I would've loved to go see this on the release date, but being a school night.....................
I love the cover art though. I'll probably rent this, or get my sister to get it for me.
-James
I love the cover art though. I'll probably rent this, or get my sister to get it for me.
-James
A pretty good remake, will rent.
what's wrong with this movie??
i liked it!!!
it was fun!!!
and i'll get the DVD on October 17!!!
i liked it!!!
it was fun!!!
and i'll get the DVD on October 17!!!
I would have preferred they add a DTS track as the audio for this is phenomenal.
Also, I'm not that big a fan of the US artwork. I would've gone with the creepy international art with Damien swinging and the Rotweiller standing guard.
Also, I'm not that big a fan of the US artwork. I would've gone with the creepy international art with Damien swinging and the Rotweiller standing guard.
dont listen to the stupid people ou there. this is a really good movie. its basically the same as the old one, but the old one was great and so is this. it also adds more charecter development and more scares. I actually enjoyed it more. lol, really I did. if you love the first one, go see this! I cant wait to get it. I also like the cover.
This film was as necessary as Gus Van Sant's "Psycho." Remakes are a tough call. Sometimes they are terrific like John Carpenter's "The Thing." And well, sometimes they are Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes."
Eugene Mlodik wrote: Dustin wrote: Bah. Total c**p.
Gives remakes a bad name.
Weird, I thought remakes give remakes a bad name.
The Thing. The Fly. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The Maltese Falcon. The Blob.
Really, it's just the 2000s remakes that give remakes a bad name from what I've been able to gather.
Though admittedly I never watched this, the trailer was enough to put me off it about halfway through. This "kids who don't get enough sleep are evil" idiocy really needs to stop. As does the addition of SWAT teams with laser sights.
And this gross ultra-clean, clear bright and shiny ultra-colour filtered filming...and the ham-fisted visual presentation related to it--like that bizarre promo of Newmien (I shan't call him Damien!) between a noose's shadow and an IV cart. Or something like that. Just...ugh.
Gives remakes a bad name.
Weird, I thought remakes give remakes a bad name.
The Thing. The Fly. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The Maltese Falcon. The Blob.
Really, it's just the 2000s remakes that give remakes a bad name from what I've been able to gather.
Though admittedly I never watched this, the trailer was enough to put me off it about halfway through. This "kids who don't get enough sleep are evil" idiocy really needs to stop. As does the addition of SWAT teams with laser sights.
And this gross ultra-clean, clear bright and shiny ultra-colour filtered filming...and the ham-fisted visual presentation related to it--like that bizarre promo of Newmien (I shan't call him Damien!) between a noose's shadow and an IV cart. Or something like that. Just...ugh.
I'dlike to thank 20th Century Fox for putting out 2 of the worst movies of the year (The Omen and X-Men 3)....wouldn't you know it? They're both a remake AND a sequel! *shock!*gasp!*awe!*... honestly, this movie was beyond bad. I personal favorite example of the awesome badness (slight spoiler if you havn't seen this or the original and are,for some god-awful reason, planning on actually renting/buying this). When Liev Schrieber takes Damien to the church to kill him, he crashes through his mansion's front gates. The police stationed out front (i assume for his protection 'cause he's the U.S. ambassador) immediately give chase. Right before Liev goes to stab Damien,instead of the normal cops break in and shoot him like the original, its a frigging SWAT team. Does London even have a SWAT team? If so, are they also called a SWAT team like in the US?? and if so, could they actually get suited up and get to thatexact location that fricking quickly???? I burst out laughing when I saw them running up the church stairs. I don't know what's funnier: that, or the fact that none of the 4 people I went with to see this movie knew it was a remake..... yeah, THATS sad.
My vote for the WORST movie of 06. Totally pointless. Julia Stiles is obviously sleeping with someone to have gotten in this movie....totally miscast.
Eugene Mlodik wrote: Dustin wrote: Bah. Total c**p.
Gives remakes a bad name.
Weird, I thought remakes give remakes a bad name. Seriously, one of the worst films of the year! And what was up with the pretentious idea od using red whenever someone was about to kick off his/her stilletto boots?
Honestly, does Moore think he's Shyamalan or something? Maybe in the director's cut he used oranges, lol (For those who don't know, Coppola used oranges in The Godfather to prelude a character's death)
Gives remakes a bad name.
Weird, I thought remakes give remakes a bad name. Seriously, one of the worst films of the year! And what was up with the pretentious idea od using red whenever someone was about to kick off his/her stilletto boots?
Honestly, does Moore think he's Shyamalan or something? Maybe in the director's cut he used oranges, lol (For those who don't know, Coppola used oranges in The Godfather to prelude a character's death)
Awesome cover, hope Fox doesn't go back and redo it. I went to go see this opening day (just for that badass looking ticket stub, what with the 6-6-06) and the theater was packed, with a line wrapped around outside. Unfortunately, I never got to see it as a result, but I hear it's so similar to the original to not even bother with it. I need to get around to seeing the original one day. (Oh, and I did get that ticket stub in the end from a friend, so the gimmick did work, albeit slightly....)
great cover, acceptable film (not greatest in any way)
Like the artwork.
This was simply a release date gimmick that needed a movie..
Dustin wrote: Bah. Total c**p.
Gives remakes a bad name.
Weird, I thought remakes give remakes a bad name. Seriously, one of the worst films of the year! And what was up with the pretentious idea od using red whenever someone was about to kick off his/her stilletto boots?
Gives remakes a bad name.
Weird, I thought remakes give remakes a bad name. Seriously, one of the worst films of the year! And what was up with the pretentious idea od using red whenever someone was about to kick off his/her stilletto boots?
Bah. Total c**p.
Gives remakes a bad name.
Gives remakes a bad name.
Shawn Fitzgerald wrote: Unless that alternate ending is a pie fight, I'll skip this as well.
Nice.
The artwork is very nice. It was pretty much shot by shot, but it was enjoyable enough to have seen it on 06/06/06. I went with a friend who never knew the original existed, so it was good for those people. There were subtle changes which enhanced it I believe. Spoiler For example, the casting of Mia Farrow as the nanny. In the original, it was so blatantly obvious she was evil because she looked it, but Farrow had a Mary Poppins air about her. Also a more believable decapitation scene. It's worth at least a rental if you haven't seen it already.
Nice.
The artwork is very nice. It was pretty much shot by shot, but it was enjoyable enough to have seen it on 06/06/06. I went with a friend who never knew the original existed, so it was good for those people. There were subtle changes which enhanced it I believe. Spoiler For example, the casting of Mia Farrow as the nanny. In the original, it was so blatantly obvious she was evil because she looked it, but Farrow had a Mary Poppins air about her. Also a more believable decapitation scene. It's worth at least a rental if you haven't seen it already.
Love the red box. Can't wait to get this
Unless that alternate ending is a pie fight, I'll skip this as well.
Meh. I'll skip this... I heard that this was a pointless shot-by-shot remake of Richard Donner's "The Omen" anyway.
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Award Winning
Garth Marenghi's Darkplace
UK - DVD R2
Special Forces
UK - BD RB
King Kong: Deluxe Extended Edition
UK - DVD R2
Epic (2D)
US - BD RA
Sessions, The
US - BD RA
Past Reviews
From Up on Poppy Hill
UK - BD RB
Infernal Affairs II
US - DVD R1
24: Season Two
AU - DVD R4
Thirst
UK - BD RB
Yes - Fragile
HK - DVD
Hot Interviews
Most Talked About
The Fault in Our Stars
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Godzilla
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Disney Animation
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
WB October 2/3/4 Film Collections
US - BD RA
Batman
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
