The Omen 1976 vs. The Omen 2006

The original is one of the best horror movies around. You can't get a better atmosphere than what the score and scenery set up in that - just well made all around. Acting was brilliant and honestly the only shortcomings I feel are in some of the writing, which is replicated in the remake anyways:

- Robert Thorn going completely 180 on Damien - from saying he needs to die to calling him an innocent child. He should have simply had misgiving of killing him himself, i.e. "I know it needs to be done, but I just can't stab a child" or something of that nature.

- His wife in the hospital, having previously been scared that Damien's going to kill her, acting normal when Robert is trying to get her to gtfo of there. Just seems off.

- The reporter shows no sort of emotion throughout the entire film until the end. Just seems like a normal person going through this with the apparent sign that he's inevitably going to die would be as emotionally involved as Robert Thorn.

Besides those things and maybe the verbiage of some lines being a little unrealistic, I find nothing wrong with it.

In the new one, every scene that's a notable scene in the original is worse. Every death or near death scene is simply worse shot, not built up well, sans creepiness like in the original and just typical horror death scenes vs. the iconic scenes in the first.

Julia Stiles just does not work for this. Liev Schreiber makes about as stoic of a perfomance compared to Peck as is possible. The nanny is only slightly worse but is worse enough to make a difference. The boy in his isn't innocent looking at all like in the original, which is maybe by design...if it was a typical horror movie and he's supposed to be a creepy child, great, but the concept of the film is supposed to be that from an outside observer, Robert Thorn has gone nuts. That kid just does not look remotely innocent or like he MIGHT not be the devil's son.

About the only comparable performance is the reporter, but per what I said above, that's the one thing they COULD have improved upon. One of the few positives I can say is they added cussing, which is realistic. But even the cussing is stoicly done, almost like token throwing it in there.

The list just goes on and on.

The burn-victim priest is much more believable in the original vs. in this being typical horror creep.

They bastardized the bike scene - in the original it's Damien playing, the nanny essentially sending him off outside his room, but it still feeling like he might have innocently run into mommy's step stool - in this it's almost like the nanny is telling him to run the scooter into mommy and Damien's like "yea, good idea nan!"

The Cervet scene with the dogs is about the only one well-done, but again it fails to live up to the original, which for what it's worth was flawlessly built up and executed.

Ironically the one added death scene might be the best executed one. So I'll give it that.

If I never saw the original, I'd say the remake is an okay horror flick. So you might think why all the negativity about the new one if it's "okay"? Well when you are doing a remake and have a nearly perfectly done movie to work off of, at the very least you should get a fair amount of the same things right. The new one has no soul at all, and while in the original you can sympathize with Robert Thorn the whole way through, it's easy to stop caring in this new one and see him as just another guy that's going to die.

Oh, 1976. There isn't even a question about it. Shall I count the ways?
1) Jerry Goldsmith
2) Gilbert Taylor's chillingly atmospheric cinematography
3) Solid direction by mega-pro Donner, while the '06 version was directed by the guy who made A Good Day to Die Hard. Need I say more?
4) Peck and Remick made not only a more interesting couple but a more emotionally resonant one -- one could believe their struggles at trying to have a child at their age.
5) Jerry Goldsmith
6) Liev Schreiber was laughably stone-faced. Gregory Peck could have his wooden moments as well, but there was a nobility in his wooden-ness, like a mighty redwood. Schreiber's wooden is like a dead sapling.
7) The decapitation scene. Brilliantly conceived and shot in the original, not so much in the remake.
8) Billie Whitelaw's nanny was a much more compelling characterization (though I do like Farrow's maniacal expression in the scene where she's outside the car trying to kill Robert).
...oh, and did I happen to mention Jerry Goldsmith?

There are only two elements in the remake that come close to matching the original. One is David Thewlis. The other is the scene in the cemetery. Otherwise, an absolutely needless and pointless endeavor. Why remake a movie that's already good to begin with? Why not remake the BAD ones??

[deleted]

1976 - better acting, better cinematography and the score was miles ahead.