yes 1976 all the way!
shareYou know I got to admit that the 2006 version has grown on me. But the music was far superior in the original. Why they did not make the music in the remake more evil and ominous is beyond me. In the sountrack there is track that was not included in the movie titled More Tantrums. You can hear some evil almost gutteral sounding chanting followed by some sounds similar to the original.
The scary clown doll is hiding under my bed.
Agreed, 76 version had Peck's arguably one of his best performances. Liev was awesome too though in the remake, Stiles wasn't that bad IMO but Pete Postlethwaite was amazing, he nearly stole the film to me.
"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit' me!" Hudson in Aliens.
The remake was good.
Great cast. Mia was amazing, Pete stole the flick...I even thought Liev did a great job. And we get to enjoy looking at Julia Stiles.
I much prefered the remake cast.
However the one big change between the two I didn't enjoy was they made Damien outright evil and in control in the remake. Kate being outright murdered instead of it being 'open' for instance.
Where as the original plays out more to allow the viewer to decide for themself.
Was Damien really the anti-christ?
I'd choose the original based purely on the fact it told the story 'better'.
Jesus died for our sins. As he's already dead...sin away.
my vote goes to 1976. that doesnt mean i didnt like the 2006 version.
--------------
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing.
1976, what is te question?? lol, the remake is a *beep* made just for the money
arraaaancá!, arraaaancá!!!
I watched the 1976 AFTER the 2006, I recognized all the significant lines before they were even said (e.g. "My son is dead, I don't know who's son I'm raising."), I honestly feel like in the original too much was thrown into one scene at a time.
And of course the 2006 one had a nice fresh feel, the 1976 was beautifully done for the time, but it hasn't aged well. Also, not that the 76 one wasn't creepy, but the 06 one felt more like a horror flick.
The mother's death was better in the remake as well, getting thrown out the window is so cliche.
1976 version had a few better death scenes like the mother and the photographer. 2005 was the priest and the nanny. The suicide nanny on both versions were fine. However, my gripe was that in the original book Robert and Katherine Thorn were actually younger in their early thirties. The 1976 version, they were a bit older, although the storyline and plot still worked very well and Lee Remick and Gregory Peck were outstanding. Leiv Schreiber and Julia Stiles did a good job too in the remake. the original was a rather normal tone with a developing more dark tone through the film. The remake was more it was scary already in the beginning and very tense and dark tone. It wasn't the same. Although, both are pretty good, the original wins.
share
1976: Some movies just don't need improving, if a filmmaker's plan of attack is to do a shot-to-shot word-by-word duplicate of a successful original, don't be surprised when they fail miseribly if we wanted to see the original we'd watch it, simple as that.
You killed Captain Clown, YOU KILLED CAPTAIN CLOWN-The Joker on Batman TAS
No doubt about it, 1976.The actors were weightier and more believable.You can't easily replace actors of the calibre of Gregory Peck, Lee Remick, David Warner, Billie Whitelaw and Patrick Troughton.It was nice to see Giovanni Lombardo Radice as Father Spiletto though.Of course, there was also Jerry Goldsmith's classic score.When it comes to The Omen the old saying definitely rings true for me, they certainly don't make 'em like they used to.
shareHas there EVER been a remake better than the original? I cannot think of one. However, the Omen remake is pretty damn good. I do enjoy a few things from 2006 that the earlier film lacked:
-The opening segment where it correlated armaggeddeon with Damien's birth
-actual clear shots of the graves. You could not tell it was a animal skeleton in the 1976 version.
Other than that, it was a decent remake. I've seen worse, as I'm sure yall have.
(If you read the book, like I did, then there is no need to see the remake; you already know these things)
Son, you can't polish a turd
I will disagree with you on one point. In the original when you see the skeleton of Damian's mother its quite clear it was not human. You could definitely tell it was a four legged beast.
The scary clown doll is hiding under my bed.
First thing you'll notice is that the 2006 remake has a WAY better direction. The scenery is also better, except for the Bishop's Park part, which I like better the 1976 one. The direction and scenery gave the movie a more horror-like spirit when compared to the 1976 one, which pends more to the suspense genre. The 2006 version also included some fright moments in Kathy's dreams and in the graveyard scene when the dogs attack Robert and the photographer, what was totally unexpected - I knew the dogs would attack, but not in such way.
The soundtrack in the 2006 one is very poor, and the original movie soundtrack was simply brilliant and remarkable.
However, the cast of the remake was very, very poor.
Gregory Peck was a way better Robert Thorn than Liev Schreiber. Schreiber's acting was, in my opinion, very inexpressive.
Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick was a great Damien - he played his role very well. Harvey Stephens, who was the first Damien, didn't act as well as Seamus, but he surely has a more diabolical expression, perfect for the character, which makes very hard choosing the better one.
Lee Remick was also a better Kathy than Julia Stiles. Remick seemed like a real mother, closer to her "son", and getting distant from him insofar the strange things happened; Stiles was distant from Damien since the very beginning.
Billie Whitelaw as Mrs. Baylock looked evil since the very beginning, letting it clear her intentions, while Mia Farrow, at first sight, inspired trust in her, requiring some time to get clear she was trying to do in the house, which is never as clear as in the original movie.
About the plot and script, which are basically the same except for Kathy's death, which was more realistic in the 2006 remake. Carbon copy, as Johnlindsey289 would say.
The remake started at Vaticano, trying to expose the comet part of the omen, which is, in my opinion, confusing and extremely unnecessary.
In the 2006 remake, when Father Brennan speaks with Robert Thorn for the first time, he reveals Damien's mother was a jackal. This extinguished all the suspense and surprise in the graveyard scene, what didn't happen in the original movie because the priest was interrupted before revealing that. Speaking in the graveyard scene, the jackal skeleton in the remake was very realistic and macabre, while the 1976 one shows more clearly that the skeleton wasn't human, but a four leg beast.
The hospital scene, when trying to find the encharged priest, in the original movie was very well constructed, while the 2006 movie summarized everything up, which was a horrible decision.
The monastery part in the remake was ridiculous when compared to the original one, which is very intense.
Both decapitation parts were lame, fake and forced, but if I had to choose one, I'd pick the 1976 one because it was better constructed.
Other irrelevant things I'd like to consider is that the first dog that appears in Damien's birthday party in the 2006 one inspired me lots of fear and it was a pity the other dogs weren't like the first one but copies from the dogs from the original movie. Besides that, the way the first nanny acts during the party was very shallow in the remake, but the speech and way she acts in the movie was deeper than the original.
2006 remake improved in the direction and scenery, but failed hard with the chosen cast and the rush to make things happen. If they wanted to make a good remake of the great 1976's movie, they should have, at least, developed more the plot and chosen the cast more carefully.
To sum up, 2006 one for great direction and that's all compared to the 1976 original one. If you don't mind if the movie isn't brilliantly directed, go with the The Omen (1976) all the way.
Most definitely by far the 1976 version ( that one had a very tense & creepy feel to it that the viewer never forgets ) . This version ( IMPO ) was good yet amusing to watch but it seemed to have a bit of a dark comedic feel about it at certain times ( was not sure if it was deliberate or not for this movie version ? ) . However if you do like that sort of movie type formula then this would be a good version to watch . Thanks rudypen1216 for your subject post .
shareI, for one, would like to thank amandaxcarolina for her insight. That was spot-on. I'm one of the few folks here who actually read long posts.
As a matter of fact, fdladenjnflanfdfjndfnhdhdgf.dnd/fjndfjndg/fzdnzdngfdz/ndzgfnjzd/fjdzn/bjdzngf/zdjnfg/zdjgfnblzdfgnzd/gfnzd/'gfbnzd/fg'nbfgbnf/bFnb/'sfnsflbnsdfbnfbnsf/bSFSKFNlsKFNs/'Fkns"?FkbsnFbjnsF?'bjsNF?bSKFnb/SL:Fknbs;fn'/hb;kjh'pifjp"SFIgjS"gjnshprknjf;hlkdnk/dn"F?bSFNJSFlJSFNlSNbSF?bknS?FbknSFbkSNFbsFnkbsFkbns':SJFjpsih'eatirs'oihjrsyp'oktpj'dtijs'yrjpihsthjitdhijp'hsringt'/adetgdelht'ktjnz'/hz'/hnjlng/hdegnjh/denhjzdejndz/zdenjhzd/ljgnhzd/fljznf/zdjnfbdzjnbdz/lbnjzdjdznbdzfjnb/dzndznjbdzndzf.
Also,
l/dsjvn/sdfkbndflkbndf:BKDF?:BKNDGF:Dnmjsr[hyonjprajtheapjbhndepgnmgflkgfnbkgdzjn/aedktjnGnbzdG?KNZDGdzgknZDGNKND:LKDZN:ZDMNDZMGD
Just kidding Amandaxcarolina. It's called humor (I did read it all)
Son, you can't polish a turd
1976. Tho' I do like Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles, a scene by scene remake was kinda pointless.
share2006 version
share