"Omen" triumphs

email this story
read comments (25)
post a comment

Another surprisingly good opening on top of the $38 million earned last weekend by The Break-Up: John Moore's The Omen , which was critically trashed and wasn't expected to do more than $7 million or so on its demonic Tuesday opener (the 6.6.06 date being the whole reason it was made in the first place), took in $12.5 million yesterday. I saw it last night at the AMC 15 in Century City in a 280-seat house...maybe 30 or 35 seats unfilled. I studied the faces as best I could in the dark, but it seemed to be overwhelmingly an under-25 crowd . I saw maybe two or three couples in their late 20s and early 30s. It's not a bad film, this thing. If you can get past the fact that it's nearly a scene-by-scene re-do of the Richard Donner original, and if Liev Schreiber's really weird nose and cheekbones aren't too much of a bother, it's a reasonably satisfying thriller that's way above the level of stuff like Hostel. I said to myself about two-thirds of the way through, "This is better than the original." It's not looking for voltage from cheap or vulgar shock tricks, for the most part. It`delivers at least three good shock moments. (Maybe four.) The hell with Schreiber's nose -- he's a superb actor with one of the great baritone voices in movies today. Julia Styles holds her own nicely, and Mia Farrow is eerily fine as little creep Damien's evil nanny (plus she has a great death scene). The high-grade supporting cast, David Thewlis and Pete Postelthwaite especially -- give it a classy veneer. And I couldn't help but admire the craft in Jonathan Sela's photography and Marco Beltrami's newly scored music on top of Jerry goldsmith's classic "Ave Santani" , which I loved hearing loud and strong from the big-screen speakers. The only element I didn't like was Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick as Damien. Like Donner before him, Moore doesn't seem to understand that it's ten times more creepy for a supposedly demonic monster to look like a wholesome, free-spirited, upbeat atttitude kid -- with just a hint of ugliness flickering somewhere deep in his eyes. Davey-Fitzpatrick, wearing a total of one expression through the entire film, is a dull little demon.

<< previous | next >>Cruise's Meltdown (Again)

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 7, 2006 at 9:20 AM

comment #1

delbomber says ...

I like Schreiber and think he brings gravitas to just about any role he plays...I would like to see him in more serious roles, whether starring or supporting.

I haven't seen the movie in ages, but I remember the re-animated version of the child in 'Pet Sematary' to be quite spooky...or I may just be associating him with the utterly creepy meningitis-afflicted sister Zelda.

Posted by delbomber at June 7, 2006 10:34 AM

comment #2

JD says ...

I think Jeff's disdain for horror films mirrors that of whoever wrote the horror article in this week's issue of Entertainment Weekly. He doesn't associate quality horror filmmaking with the the horror elements in these films, he associates it exclusively with the non-horror elements. In other words, Jeff's perfect horror film is Mary Poppins, a film with no horror content whatsoever. He wants glossy, familiar horror films that contain no challenging, subversive or disreputable content and basically represent the establishment (ie. any blandly conventional thriller). This is the fundamental problem with Hollywood horror films: they're designed to appeal to people who don't like horror.

Horror is much more interesting as a fringe genre than it is as a mainstream genre. That's one of the reasons low budget films like Cabin Fever, Hostel, and The Devil's Rejects have made such a strong impression on horror fans. They've taken most of the Hollywood tendencies out of mainstream horror and added a fresh coat of much-needed disreputability to the genre. The aging critical establishment's dismissive, naive attitude toward horror suggests that they're oblivious to all of this. They can't distinguish good horror films from bad horror films because they don't even understand the intention of the genre. In any case, I can't see a real horror fan preferring The Omen re-make to Hostel.

Posted by JD at June 7, 2006 10:43 AM

comment #3

Rich says ...

I think one of Jeff's issues (and one of mine) is that horror has been largely supplanted over the last few years by the subgenre of "torture" films, such as Saw, Hostel, Wolf Creek, etc. Suggestion has been supplanted by a kind of "Fear Factor" can-you-take-it mentality.

These types of films have been around forever, but it's only recently that they have become the dominant form of horror entertainment. A shot-for-shot remake of The Omen would harken to an earlier time, where scenes like David Warner's decapitation were actually considered needlessly graphic.

It's really more a matter of taste than anything else. There are enough "real" horror fans to embrace all of these films. So I wouldn't mind more filmmakers eschewing obvious shocks in lieu of inventive and unexpected scares.

Posted by Rich at June 7, 2006 11:27 AM

comment #4

JD says ...

I don't take issue with suggestiveness (in fact, The Haunting, The Shining, and Rosemary's Baby are three of my favorite horror films), I take issue with a general watering-down of the genre. I think we can all agree that, if there's one thing recent Hollywood horror films lack, it's suggestiveness. Neither suggestive nor confrontational, they occupy a bland middleground that's completely conventional and uninteresting.

My real argument is that, in recent years, low budget horror has always been more potent than Hollywood horror. And this includes suggestive horror. In fact, I'd argue that the most suggestive (and BEST) horror film of the last decade is probably Session 9, an overlooked achievement that puts most studio horror films to shame. It really is this decade's answer to The Shining.

Posted by JD at June 7, 2006 12:10 PM

comment #5

Michael Adams says ...

Regarding Liev Schreiber's appearance: Following a performance of Pinter's Betrayal on Broadway a few years back, the cast answered questions from the audience only for one person to proclaim that he did not believe Juliette Binoche would have an affair with Schreiber because Liev isn't handsome enough. Liev handled the situation well, laughing along with the rest of us. Meanwhile, he's sleeping with Naomi Watts, and what's that geezer doing?

Posted by Michael Adams at June 7, 2006 12:36 PM

comment #6

Rich says ...

JD,

Point taken. Of course, you could argue that low budget horror has always been more potent than the Hollywood variety: Night of the Living Dead, Suspiria, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Nightmare on Elm Street, Hellraiser, Carnival of Souls, Dementia 13 and anything by Hershel Gordon Lewis (which are not all that scary but certainly don't have the patina of "respectability").

Posted by Rich at June 7, 2006 12:46 PM

comment #7

Colin says ...

"Session 9" is definitely an underrated, and underseen horror film. Then again, you could probably say that about all Brad Anderson's movies. "Next Stop, Wonderland" is a cool, little romantic comedy, "Happy Accidents" is a fascinating little sci-fi romantic comedy, and "The Machinist" is also a very cool little horror flick.

Posted by Colin at June 7, 2006 12:48 PM

comment #8

Kate Cruise says ...

I completely agree with JD.

Wells: "it's a reasonably satisfying thriller that's way above the level of stuff like Hostel."

Wells sees The Omen as a thriller. It's useless to compare it to Hostel - an "R" rated, balls-out horror movie that clearly aspires to be more than a broadly appealing, "thrill ride" for 14 year olds. And succeeds.

Wells: "It's not looking for voltage from cheap or vulgar shock tricks"

Ya - it's looking for 'voltage' from the notoriety of the original movie, and the (oh so scary) 6/6/6/ release date.

Saying that the Omen remake is 'way above' stuff like Hostel is just silly. What's next, you're going to tell us that the "When a Stranger Calls" remake is way above the level of stuff like "The Devil's Rejects"?

Posted by Kate Cruise at June 7, 2006 12:57 PM

comment #9

David Harper says ...

I love Horror films and I am a fan of Eli Roth (at least Cabin Fever) but seriously now, these new generation of Horror films have been absolute trash, starting with The Devil's Rejects and ending with Hostel (Not to mention Silent Hill and the rest of the glossy thriller/horrors that have been coming out too). Personally, I found nothing quality about either of them and honestly they feel more as grabs at pure shock value than anything. I found The Hills Have Eyes to be the best Horror movie this year and I would much prefer the genre head in that direction, but I suppose that may just depend on who connects with what.

Posted by David Harper at June 7, 2006 1:13 PM

comment #10

Almir Tovar says ...

Well, I watched yesterday, 14hrs here in Brasil - I believe itÂ´s like 3 hours difference to NY?! iÂ´m too lazy to check - and the screening was filled with teens (really filled, practically a full session). Annoying ones, to make it even worst - chatting, answering cell phones, being...well...teens. The screening was interrupted 3 times, two because of techinical problems with the film and/or projector, and once so doctors could rescue a teenager that fainted during the session. So, it was a hellish time, for starters.

Posted by Almir Tovar at June 7, 2006 1:18 PM

comment #11

Almir Tovar says ...

Now, the flick did really grasp the audience attention - sseing that probably none of those guys has seen the original - and they appeared pretty well humored on the way out.
I wasnÂ´t. It is lame in the same way 98Â´s Psycho was: why do something again, if it is, well, almost the same, except with less talent?! Oh, of course: for the bucks.
I even like Liev, but he is just ok in the role. Julia doesn't even have such a participation, it could be almost anyone (someone told me Weisz was the first choice - a better one, i would say, a bit older...the youngness of the couple gets in the way, at times, specially Stiles). The supporting was top line actors in some bad moments: iÂ´ve seen three movies in a roll with Gmabon, and he is better in Layer Cake AND in Life Acquatic. Pete is overacting, made me pretty irritated. And Mia is convincing, but not much else. Thewlis, actually, is the best part of the movie, though this remake, changing so little, does changes the originalÂ´s photographer most chilling scene, making it a 'final destination' joke of it - exactly the scene i like best of that 76Â´s flick.
So...well...is it a problema with having seen the previous one? yeah, probably. The new audience will enjoy this, but i simply couldnÂ´t. Too bad.

Posted by Almir Tovar at June 7, 2006 1:24 PM

comment #12

JT Money says ...

David, David...

Both Hostel and Rejects are WAY tamer, more tasteful, and are far less shock exploiting than The Hills Have Eyes 2K6. The Hills' R cut is still much more gratuitous than Rejects' and Hostel's uncut versions -- and it's likely that mutated freaks are more MPAA friendly than non-mutated freaks, but that's a whole other subject. While Hills was completely tolerable and even somewhat inspired (like High Tension), it was a dissapointing display of style over substance filmmaking. Come to think of it, Hills 2K6 was more like a gratuitous action film than a genuine horror film -- definitely not in the vein of the original, which I'm starting to suspect you haven't seen.

Posted by JT Money at June 7, 2006 2:26 PM

comment #13

David says ...

I like a good atmospheric horror film. Restraint is harder to do, but when done correctly you can create what I think is the essential element of horror: dread, i.e. the thing you cannot see. You can show people dying in interesting ways, but if that's the main focus I just don't care. My physiological response isn't terror, but mild nausea. I can get that for free when I have the flu. Why pay for it?

I think a lot of what masquerades as horror nowdays is that whole "Fear Factor" thing, as one poster said. I would amend that to add that today's horror films are made as a Grand Guginol for the "Jackass" generation... Cinema as an endurance test... You and your buddies get together and see if you can stomach it. By these standards, "Glitter" is the most underappreciated horror film ever.

Posted by David at June 7, 2006 3:14 PM

comment #14

Daniel Zelter says ...

Making less money than the 1976 original, especially when you account for inflation, isn't really a success. Also, low-budget films suck as much as big-budget films. Case in point: The Blair Witch Project.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at June 7, 2006 3:33 PM

comment #15

JD says ...

David, I think you're taking too much of a retroactive look at these films. For me, the strength of a film like Hostel or The Devil's Rejects is something similar to dread: anticipation. Obviously, when looking back on these films, it's hard to recall this aspect of the experience but, while watching them, there's an impressive sense of "what's going to happen next" or "what am I getting myself into?"

These particular films are also interesting in how they re-work horror conventions, but you have to be familiar with the precedents -- Takashi Miike and Chan Wook Park in Hostel, the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre films and Last House on the Left in The Devil's Rejects -- to appreciate their innovations. And don't forget that these films are deliberately causing you to experience unpleasant emotions. That's not a mistake. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's a deliberate choice.

These films also have a great deal of political resonance, particularly The Devil's Rejects, which revolves around a vengeful bad guys vs. bad guys cycle of violence that nicely mirrors the current war on terrorism. It's fascinating and distrubing to realize that your sympathies have been aligned with a group of cold-blooded killers (echoes of A Clockwork Orange, the Bush administration, etc.) and these maniacs may actually reflect what we value as a society. Again, this is unpleasant, but that's an important function of horror: reminding the audience of the dangers and shortcomings of the world we live in and providing a structure in which we can deal with these issues viscerally, rather than intellectually.

Posted by JD at June 7, 2006 5:00 PM

comment #16

LOTGA says ...

I posted earlier in one of Jeff's previous posts, regarding The Omen selling out both evening shows at the theatre I manage and also at others (as told to me by friends in the company). I went in tonight to see the film for myself and the cinema wasn't even half full, and the second evening show idn't do much better. I'm waiting to hear back from others, but it appears as though The Omen's $12.5 mill haul from last night was kind of a fluke and that it was the novilty of the release date that brought in the crowds. Regardless, I'll take Donner anyday. It's not a bad flick, but far from great.

Posted by LOTGA at June 7, 2006 6:13 PM

comment #17

Dubbs says ...

Jeff writing off Hostel outright is unfair. Eli Roth is an extremely articulate guy (just listen to him on Elvis Mitchell's The Treatment), who understands inside and out the raw ingredients that go into the type of horror films he's emulating/expanding upon. He also grasps the need for subtly and restraint when appropriating cultural currency into his films. Few things are more relevant than torture these days, especially torture involving distinctions of class, age, gender, and nationality, which Roth effortlessly builds into Hostel. He doesn't take a Hills Have Eyes-remake approach of trying to earn "intelligence points" by shoving simplified, obvious themes of family, unity, and American patriotism into the viewer's face, but instead introduces ideas into his story through a veil of tits, ass, and everything else that makes horror film a subversive, base, don't-give-a-shit genre in the first place. Is Roth's film a direct mirror reflection of the current political climate of American foreign policy or Eastern European politics? No, but that doesn't mean Roth doesn't know what he's doing. One of horror's greatest strengths is to hold a broken mirror up to society, reflecting urges and ugliness that are difficult to articulate in more so-called "refined" genres. Directors like Roth and Zombie get it: they mix the high with the low, rather than shooting for the cookie cutter middle.

Posted by Dubbs at June 7, 2006 8:41 PM

comment #18

David Harper says ...

I think one of the main reasons I found Hills Have Eyes 2K6 to be more my cup of tea was due to the fact that I felt a connection to the situation through the lead played by Aaron Stamford. I felt no choice but to pull for him, and I felt a strange sense of vengeance and gratification. Hostel I definitely felt that sense of dread, but the first half just felt so subpar and disconnected that it really hurt the second half that was pretty quality horror - it definitely started building the dread/anticipation when they made it to Bratislava, but the first half was just wasted in my opinion. The Devil's Rejects I just did not connect with at all. I sat down to watch it 3 different times and I only lasted about 40 minutes, 30 minutes and 30 minutes again. I have watched some of Takashi Miike's work and the original Texas Chainsaw, but I just didn't feel innovation, I felt disconnect while Hills Have Eyes I feel an intense connection. I am aware that it is full of the same shock value type Horror that I was referring to the other two on, it just was a difference in preference in this situation I suppose.

Posted by David Harper at June 8, 2006 12:46 AM

comment #19

jason says ...

THE OMEN was fierce...I went in expecting to hate it due to all the negative reviews over at Ain't it so Fierce News,, but the sold out audiences ate it up, not to sound bitchy or racist, but most horror movie openings are all about the "GHETTO CROWD" meaning, talk backs to the screen, crying 3 year olds, MY GOD one night I sat behind a family who brought 3 little SHILOW's to the HILLS HAVE EYES... but not one person said a word during the OMEN except for the large gay boys who sat behind me and laughed everytime Damien gave one of his bitchy Nicole Ritchie " i am not skinny just cracked out" LOOKS... then when Mia Farrow showed up on screen during the nanny interview, they all laughed out loud and hooted..those damn gays! ( I AM GAY SO EAT ME ) they also laughed during the DEVIL WEARS PRADA trailer which bugs me in a good way...
THE OMEN is a hit, it captures, yes it doesn't bring anything new to the table but for 2 hours, I was entertained even though I had to pee

Posted by jason at June 8, 2006 2:47 AM

comment #20

Todd says ...

I love Session 9; scary and creepy as hell, and that's not because David Caruso stars in it.

Posted by Todd at June 8, 2006 3:34 AM

comment #21

Bob says ...

Saw it. This flick is basically vapor, not good but not even bad enough to be interesting. The kid doesn't work (no fault of his own, poor direction) and the stabs at "Shining"-ripoff territory (Stiles' bathtub dream) play like the worst film school artiface.

That said, I knew they had a hit from the opening scene on. Forget Christians/non-Christians, Americans PERIOD are suckers for Escatology ("end-times" theorizing) and the cheesy Vatican power-point scene will have most audiences hooked right away.

It's not just the Fundies, a majority is knee-jerk scared of "the devil" (as in the idea of a singular/personifiable "source" for all evil) whether they think they believe in that stuff or not; and if you open your movie straight-faced with a roomful of Priests nodding along gravely while one of them lays out in rational-sounding gobbleygook that Katrina, 911, etc are signs that "it's go time!"... you're going to touch a nerve with a big chunk of the audience, "religious" or not.

Posted by Bob at June 8, 2006 10:44 AM

comment #22

Jose says ...

Hostel sucked, Hostel is not a horror movie, it is a torture movie, and your saying it is good because it pushes the genre? For what reasons was the movie made but to have excessive gore and non sense violence and death, how great of a movie is it compared to other horror movies that stand the test of time. Hostel uses blood and death and calls itself a horror film, from what I saw, it definitely didnt challenge me, it tried to scare me by pushing me to almost watching a snuff film, and it badly tries to turn itself into a revenge flick in the third act. Your taste for horror movies is exactly why horror films are entering the dumpster, you thinking a good horror film now adays is the one pushing the limit, having the R rated gore and violence, you JD are a silly goose.

Try to sound all cool just because you've saw some indie underseen underappreciated horror film, here is speaking outta my butt, I dont care, fact is it dont make you a better horror film judge.
Also Wolf Creek sucked too.
The only good horror film to come out as of late is The Devils Reject, I wouldnt consider that a horror.

Posted by Jose at June 8, 2006 8:35 PM

comment #23

JJ says ...

Jose, your ignorance is astounding.

Posted by JJ at June 9, 2006 7:53 AM

comment #24

Drink More Beer says ...

If torture isn't horror, then what is it? There are different kinds of horror movies just as there are different kinds of comedies, dramas... Saying that Hostel is not a horror movie is like saying that American Pie is not a comedy because it's different than Duck Soup.

Posted by Drink More Beer at June 9, 2006 2:25 PM