REVIEW: The Omen (2006)

Review contains MINOR SPOILERS.

The original “Omen” is definately the lesser of the “big studio devil movie” trilogy, even in the shadow of it’s classier (“Rosemary’s Baby”) and more visceral (“The Exorcist”) fellows. But it’s still a fine little movie, the kind of solid workmanlike effort one expects from a Richard Donner film. The new remake is slavishly faithful to the original, which at least shows a noble effort to keep things small and clever, but which creates a problem when an original film is so well remembered: This remake yields no surprises to call it’s own, no real scares of it’s own invention. It’s a copy, but with less arresting performances and direction.

Pity poor Liev Schieber, a gifted leading actor here stuck once more with the task of toplining a remake that no one will ever confuse with it’s classic, much as he was in the dreadful retelling of “The Manchurian Candidate.” St. Schrieber: Patron Saint of Wholly-Unnecessary Remakes. Schrieber picks up from Gregory Peck as Robert Thorn, a plucky fellow who’s apparently wise enough to become a U.S. Ambassador but not quite quick enough to realize that “sure, why not?” is the WRONG response when you’re wife miscarries and a creepy Italian priest calls you into the hospital basement and offers you a freshly-orphaned replacement.

The kid’s name is Damien, and unless you’ve not visited the planet Earth in any of the years since the original “Omen” came out that tells you the rest of the story. Seems Armageddon is on the way, according to a preposterously-silly opening scene depicting a Vatican power-point presentation that name-drops Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 as signs of the end times… and the Thorn’s excessively-moody tyke is The Antichrist.

The hook, as in the original, is that the saucer-eyed hellspawn will use his adoptive dad’s political contacts as a shortcut to global power-play, and as before this eventually seems like too much work: Seems Old Scratch has the situation pretty well in hand, able to send everything from psycho dogs to visions to lightning storms to Mia Farrow as a creep-tastic Governess to the aid of his boy… with all that at Hell’s disposal, isn’t riding the coattails of a mid-level dignitary kind of a long way between A and B?

The film is at it’s best recreating the “big” money-scenes of the original, though naturally they suffer a bit removed from the gutsy grit of the mid-70s. At it’s worst, it’s trying to hard to make up for worn material with cheap tricks: A series of nightmare sequences involving Julia Stiles as the rapidly-unraveling Mrs. Thorn are laughable attempts to ape “The Shining,” and topical references like the aforementioned 9/11 hat-tip and scenes of a dying Pope are dead on arrival. In the end, it’s not awful… it’s just not really much of anything.


P.S. Now that 6/6/06 is done with forever, can we PLEASE stop fussing over the damn number? Seriously, if I only ever impart ONE piece of real knowledge on this blog, let this be it: 666 isn’t a date. Or a birthmark. Or 1999 inverted. Or Hillary Clinton’s GPA solved for X. It’s a name. In the language the Book of Revelations was written in, all letters had corresponding numbers, so “his number was 666” just means that that will be the sum of the Antichrist’s “name” when all the letters are added up. Really, that’s it. Don’t tell me I never taught you anything.

2 thoughts on “REVIEW: The Omen (2006)

  1. Seven Star Hand says:

    Hello Bob and all,Here are some additional insights on the true meaning and purpose of 666. Hope this helps clarify many age-old mysteries…<>Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door, listen for the key. Be Aware! Scoffing causes blindness…<>By the way, symbology is intended to encode and convey very specific and ultimately verifiable information. One aspect of symbology is numeric symbolism. On the other hand, mysticism and numerology are mumbo jumbo based partially on misunderstood ancient symbology and purposeful efforts to obscure what little is known…666 is a numeric symbol that purposely marks the Vatican/Papacy throughout history, not any single individual. The number 666 is put forth in verse 13:18 in the Book of Revelation and of course, 6+6+6 equals 18, directly matching the verse number and helping to disprove any 616 assertions. The following information on triangular numbers further disproves attempts to hide the truth.Revelation 13:18Here is wisdom. Let him that has understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.Men, women, and beasts symbolize organizations and groups of people in all symbolically sealed Hebrew prophecies and Revelation never mentions the so-called antiChrist. 666 is the most famous of all triangular numbers, being the sum of the whole numbers from 1 through 36. Triangular numbers were very important to Greek Pythogoreans and Hebrew wisdom groups purposely used them as pivotal symbolism pointing to Greco-Romans.Likewise, John 21:11, which speaks of Peter, the supposed first Pope, has the number 21 in its chapter and verse number. 21 is also a triangular number that is the sum of all whole numbers from 1-6, thereby forming a triangle with three 6 point sides, hence a triangular 666.John 21:11Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land (earth) full of great fishes, a hundred and fifty and three (153); and for all there were so many, yet the net was not broken.Additionally, 153 is a triangular number that is the sum of the whole numbers 1 through 17. Also the verse number is 11 and the sum of all whole numbers from 1 through 11 equals 66 and 17-11 equals 6. Why are 11 and 17 important in this verse talking about Peter and 666? The Second Temple period of ancient Israel was during the 11th 360-year cycle on the Hebrew calendar and the 21st century is the beginning of the 17th cycle, which began in Hebrew year 5761, which was Christian year 2001. Thereby, John 21:11 purposely links Peter, the Papacy, 666, and the 11th through 17th cycles on the Hebrew calendar. Notice also that the prophecies of St. Malachy say that the Papacy will end shortly, which will be during the 21st century and 17th cycle? <>Here is Wisdom!! <>Also read the following article – < HREF="" REL="nofollow">Verifiable proof that “Armageddon” has begun<>For more stunning confirmation of this information, download my < HREF="" REL="nofollow">FREE EBook<> and read through the symbol glossary for 1776, 666, 153, 66, 36, 21, 18, net, triangle, and triangular number and their related references. <><>Be prepared to be shocked and amazed.<><>There is a foolproof way to verify the truth and expose centuries-old religious deceptions. It also proves why we can no longer let the Vatican tell us what to think about ancient history or much else. It is the common thread connecting why the ancient Hebrews, Yahad/Essene, Jews, Gnostics, Cathars, Templars, Dead Sea Scrolls, DaVinci Code, and others have been targets of Rome’s ire and evil machinations. The Vatican and its secret society cohorts don’t want you to understand that the ancient Hebrew symbology in all of these texts purposely encodes and exposes the truth about them. Furthermore, the structure of ancient wisdom symbology verifiably encodes the rules to decode messages built with it. <>This is what they most fear you will discover.<> If the Bible represented the <>literal<> truth or even accurate history, there would be no need for faith in the assertions of deceptive and duplicitous clergy and their ilk. It is undeniable the New Testament is awash with ancient Hebrew symbolism and allegory. The same is evidenced in the Old Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic texts, biblical apocrypha, Quran, DaVinci Code, and other related sources. All ancient religious, mystical, and wisdom texts have been shrouded in mystery for millennia for one primary reason: The ability to understand their widely evidenced symbology was lost in antiquity. How do we finally solve these ages-old mysteries? To recast an often-used political adage: < HREF="" REL="nofollow">It’s [the] symbology, stupid!<>It is beyond amazing that the Vatican still tries to insist the Gospels are the <>literal<> truth. Every miracle purported for Jesus has multiple direct symbolic parallels in the Old Testament, Apocalypse, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other symbolic narratives and traditions. Recasting the symbolism of earlier Hebrew texts as literal events in the New Testament is one of the central deceptions associated with Christianity. This is part of the secret knowledge held by the ancient Gnostics, Templars, Cathars, and others, which is presented with dramatic effect in the DaVinci Code. None of these narratives or stories were ever intended as the <>literal<> truth. This fact is the key to unraveling many ages-old mysteries and exposing the truth about the Vatican’s long-term deceptions.It’s no wonder the Vatican fears the truth more than anything else. As further proof of these assertions, seek to understand the symbolic significance of my name (Seven Star Hand) and you will have proof beyond disproof that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have long been duped by the great deceivers I warned humanity about over the millennia. What then is the purpose of “faith” but to keep good people from seeking to understand the truth? <>Now comes justice, hot on its heels… (symbolism…)<><><>Not only do I talk the talk, I walk the walk…<><><><>Here is Wisdom!!<><>< HREF="" REL="nofollow">Revelations from the Apocalypse <>Peace…


  2. mr menendez says:

    well, he’s certainly an interesting fella’.i can see some of his points. i was just going to comment that 666 is the number of man, in numerology, but now it seems kinda, instead, i think i’ll just pontificate that i’m sick and tired of doa creativity in hollywood. everything is a remake or a sequal (or prequal.. damn you star wars), or an adaptation from a book, video game, comic, or tv show.don’t get me wrong, i love sin city and v for vendetta and serenity, king kong, and lotr. it’s nice to see a good comic or book or tv show get made into a movie and wonderful if it’s a good movie. but, can we not come up with something that’s daring and original? is everyone so afraid of trying something new that we have to have saw 3? there was a time when we scoffed at a movie having a 3rd instalment. we knew it was just out for some cheap, quick bucks with something established, so it didn’t have to try. we also knew that it was on its last leg (with the exception of the first star wars trilogy and lotr) and if it didn’t go straight to video, then any subsequent sequals, it’s expected.and what is with bringing out 30, 40, and 50 year old tv series, and trying to turn it into a feature?! (i’m looking at you, bewitched)what’s even worse, is when they adapt things that are really only suitable for a tv series, that the entire premise is that it’s small segments of character sliced into a formula. like trying to turn “house” into a movie. it just wouldn’t work. what, so he just has a really big case to work on?formally, the idea of turning a tv series into a movie, was to try and draw a bigger audience to the show (and thus its advertisers), and give the established fans something splashy to spend money on the more direct market of box office and merchandising. these movies are usually forgetable. (offhand, the only happy exceptions i can think of are transformers the movie and serenity)if we’re going to keep churning out sequals, lets take a note from japan: movie serials. movies staring a likable/endering/memorable character that just goes on with further adventures, not trying to up the ante. basically, 90 minute episodes that come out about every two years. every watch zatoichi? remember blind fury, with rutger hauer? based on a zatoichi movie. the series ran on for 25 movies. then there was the grand fanale one, made in 90, which was the one i saw. then a modern take, in 2003, which wasn’t much like the original… but the thing about those? they were completely low budget. they were put out as a “here it is, if you want it..” and because of the low budget, it forced filmakers to be creative with it, to keep it interesting. not the same story, over and over – not to say it didn’t have a formula ( blind swordsman wonders into town, makes money by gambling and as a massues(?), encounters bad guys, tries to avoid violence, doesn’t work, kills everyone, wanders off, again )i’ve ranted enough.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s