Damien the Antichrist, now thirteen years old, finally learns of his destiny under the guidance of an unholy disciple of Satan. Meanwhile dark forces begin to eliminate all those who suspect the child's true identity.
When the Vatican observatory priest sees the appearance of a comet, the Church is sure that it confirms the eve of the Armageddon. Meanwhile, the USA President's godson Robert Thorn is informed in the maternity in Rome by Father Spiletto that his wife Katherine has just lost her baby and she had troubles with her uterus and would not have another pregnancy. Spiletto suggests Robert that another just born child that lost his mother could be the substituted for his son, and Robert accepts the child and gives the name of Damien. Robert is promoted to ambassador in London after a tragic accident. When Damien's nanny commits suicide in his birthday party, a substitute, Mrs. Baylock, comes to work and live with the family. Along the years, Katherine realizes that Damien is evil, while Robert is contacted by Father Brennan, who tells him that Damien is the son of devil. When the priest dies in a bizarre accident, the photographer Keith Jennings shows evidences to Robert that the boy is the ... Written by
Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
At 44min 20secs, the meeting under the "Orange Yard W1" bridge was filmed on the North side of the Charles Bridge in Pague. Exact address for the camera location is 7 Na Kampe, Prague. Llooking to the South. See more »
When the photographer shows Ambassador Thorn the newspaper account of the priest's death, the headline has a grammatical error. It reads: "Freak accident during yesterdays unseasonal storm". "Yesterdays" should be "yesterday's". See more »
Recommended For Those Who Haven't Seen The Original
For those who never saw the original, this is a good movie. It's intense, nicely photographed with excellent surround sound, and capably acted.
For those of us who watched the original in 1976, the one that starred Gregory Peck and Lee Remick, we have to ask, "What is the point of watching this?" For us - at least most of us - the original is superior, but not by a wide margin, to be fair. I have no problem with remakes if they are not cheaply presented and I was entertained by this presentation even though I knew the story.
As an admirer of the '76 movie, my main objection to this was the casting, and mainly with two women: Julia Stiles as "Katherine Thorn" and Mia Farrow as "Mrs. Baylock." Stiles is a competent actress but she has a face that could pass for 15 or 16. At least Lee Remick looked the part: the wife of a mid-30s American diplomat. Farrow has the same problem in here: too soft (and pretty) a face and voice to be playing an evil nurse. Perhaps Mia has a fondness for films about the devil, dating back to "Rosemary's Baby in 1968, but she was totally miscast. Billie Whitelaw, in the original version, oozed evil in her role, and was genuinely frightening, something Farrow didn't come close to being in here.
Liev Schreiber, meanwhile, had the unenviable task of supplanting Gregory Peck. Schreiber can't be faulted for not having Peck's film presence, but his character in here is such a downer that he almost has an evil countenance himself. I don't remember Peck playing this character so unsympathetically. Stiles, too, has a character that wasn't as pleasing as Remick's.
This film seems to emphasize the couple's lack of spiritualness more so than the previous film. I may be wrong, but I don't remember Peck going to these lengths to give his bias against religion, nor do I recall Remick wanting an abortion, nor do I remember the priest saying "I'll see you in hell, Mr. Thorn." Perhaps they did, and I just don't recall. No priest, by the way, would act like that, except in the movies, nor would any cleric look and act as goofy as the ones in here.
In both films, the theology is laughable - pure Hollywood, and the priests in here are, too, being clueless about what "grace" and "the cross" are all about. Filmmakers generally won't deal with those topics, but they do a good job in making a case for Satan, I'll give them that. You saw a similar instance of this in "The Exorcist."
As for the other characters, the young boy - who has no dialog - is similar to the boy in the original but a little less evil-looking and David Thewlis in this movie did an excellent job as the photographer, as did David Warner in the first movie. Overall, I thought the first film was creepier than this one, but since I was already familiar with the story prior to watching this, a comparison may be unfair.
It was interesting to see this with the updated technology both off (digital surround sound, etc.) and on the screen (laptop computers, cell phones, etc.) but the story is still similar enough that owning both of these films is questionable. Given the choice, I would stick with the 1976 film, but - I repeat: if you've never seen "The Omen," this movie is recommended. It's entertaining, that's for sure.
30 of 49 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?