Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online


Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> WHY,OH WHY? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WHY,OH WHY? - 8/6/2006 9:52:56 AM   


Posts: 1
Joined: 17/5/2006
Saw the omen on 06.06.06 as you do. If you are going to do a remake, then watch the original, to make sure you know what your up against. Then, do not dismiss what made the original half as successful, i.e. the score....I mean, where was that creepy, Jerry Goldsmith church choir music?
After all these remakes, e.g. Texas Chainsaw, Amityville etc, not being a fraction enjoyable as the original, I'm actually worried about the film I've been waitng to see so far this year..Superman Returns. Will this also dismiss the enjoyable John Williams score which, in my opinion, made half the film....we wait with bated breath

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 31
RE: WHY,OH WHY? - 8/6/2006 10:35:31 AM   


Posts: 4
Joined: 26/12/2005
From: leamington spa
it's just dull, honestly.  one neat scare with the dogs and a couple of decent hammy supporting performances aside, it descends from quite entertaining guff to just being boring when it follows schreiber and thewlis (who has obviously bought a new house recently) around mainland europe in a narrative that appears to have been re-written by dan brown.  julia stiles pulls it out from being rubbish, just because she is julia stiles.  this director seriously needs to put away his stanley kubrick vhs, or at least think about casting his influences in an imaginative way.  no no no no.     

(in reply to harpreet)
Post #: 32
RE: WHY,OH WHY? - 8/6/2006 12:35:45 PM   

Posts: 354
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Somewhere between Life and Death

INT:- Fox Studios - Day


Man, with that 6/6/6 date coming up, we really need a gimmick movie to pull in the crowds!

How about a prequel to Seven?

Good idea, but here's a better one: Let's remake The Omen! For the Final Destination generation!

Sounds like a winner! We can ditch the creepy atmosphere of the original, and instead just ram in a few shots of things JUMPING INTO FRAME accompanied by A VERY LOUD NOISE! And people will simply mistake these cheap tactics are real scares!

I'm loving it! Furthermore, we can cast what could be potentially the worst child actor ever in the role of Damien. It'll be easy - every time he has to look menacing, we'll just ask him what the square root of 64 is! He won't have a clue, and he'll just screw up his face! And people will find him scary!

It's playing out brilliantly in my mind already. What about the rest of the cast? I'm thinking Brad and Angelina...

Steady on, son! Let's get that guy from the Scream movies - kids will identify with him.

David Arquette?

No, the other one. And let's have Julia Stiles gurn her way through the whole film. And let's put Mia Farrow in there too as the Billie Whitelaw character. She won't be half as menacing, but who cares? And finally, let's have David Thewlis. Any movie set in London has to have David Thewlis.

Sweet sweetness! Of course, we won't film a frame in London - we'll do it all on the cheap, in the Czech Republic. And nobody will ever tell the difference! And to top it off, let's throw in some footage of the recent Tsunami and the 9/11 attacks, to really raise public awareness and make everyone gasp!


Aren't we great? Who should we hire to direct this cash cow?

What about the guy who made that Owen Wilson action movie?

It's a done deal. Let's just sit back, wait for the crushing reviews, and watch audiences ignore them and flock to it!


God, I love myself.


You got it right though mate...


The universe will expand, then it will collapse back on itself, then will expand again. It will repeat this process forever. What you don't you know is that when the universe expands again, everything will be as it is now. Whatever mistakes you make this time around, you will live through on your next pass. Every mistake you make, you will live through again, & again, forever. So my advice to you is to get it right this time around. Because this time is all you have.

(in reply to bigbigtom)
Post #: 33
The Omen - 8/6/2006 1:59:13 PM   


Posts: 5
Joined: 30/9/2005
People are being a little harsh, i feel. Although the similarities between the two films are, at times, uncanny to say the least, i think that it was about time for a remake. The way the Revelation prophecy was linked in to modern day settings was genius (all be it much discussed genius) that the old version couldn't have dealt with - simply because the things needed hadn't happened yet. The shot at the end (one of those similar moments) was worth more and even went so far as to suggest the devil is working through the president of the United States - as the original did, but with less conviction. Given the context of the time, i think The Omen deserves a big thumbs up. And who can deny the coolness of having seen it on 06/06/06?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 34
RE: The Omen - 8/6/2006 8:51:48 PM   

Posts: 9355
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Dublin: Ireland
It's just really boring. This film did not need to be remade at all.

They really rush through the story. From the moment you see the first nanny until the 'it's all for you, Damien' bit is about 60 seconds.

Too many images of satanic figures popping up when they close the mirrored door while brushing their teeth (that old trick).

Also, the kid seems to know who he is. That was the great thing about the first one. The kid had no idea and only at the end did you think he was starting to realise it.

This kid, with his hair dyed off his head, seems in on it from the start and spends the whole movie with this sullen stare.

The casting is good apart from Gambon who is rubbish as usual. Music is not a patch on the original which scared me shitless as a kid.


You're killing Independent George!!!!

(in reply to Mantha)
Post #: 35
RE: - 9/6/2006 3:46:35 PM   
Filmfan 2

Posts: 1052
Joined: 30/9/2005
Wasn't the absolute crap it could've been, but it wasn't great either.

I think the principal problem with a remake of a film like The Omen is that this kind of story isn't...well..scary anymore.

The attempts to make it more contemporary, and thus more relavent, were a nice touch, but it did nothing to make the film more eerie. In fact, whilst the film was very atmospheric at times, it lacked any real frights (which I'm sure weren't helped by the audience knowing what was coming most of the time - though I did jump at that bit with the Rottweiler coming out of nowhere).

Julia Stiles and Liev Schreiber were wasted in their roles. Schreiber was great throughout (one of the best voices in cinema), bringing genuine emotion to the screen, but the roles were pretty much a phone-in affair.

An entertaining enough night out, but nothing to have sleepless nights over.


< Message edited by Filmfan 2 -- 9/6/2006 3:47:40 PM >


I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins

(in reply to taz_e)
Post #: 36
Enjoyable Horror - 9/6/2006 8:53:16 PM   


Posts: 8
Joined: 5/11/2005
It's not as good as the (5 star) original in most ways but has plenty of redeeming qualities and it much, much better than any recent horror I can think of. First the bad. This movie didn't need the extra gore- it's not that sort of horror. Not as ambiguious as the first movie- Damian is clearly the son of Satan here when in the original there was always the possibility that he was unfortunate enough to be singled out by some lunatics who convinced his father he was evil. There's an extra death scene and three altered death scenes. One works better in my opinion thanks to Julia Stiles who was wonderful in this movie and two are fine but far inferior to the classic.
Julia Stiles as I mentioned, really stood out in this movie. Kate Thorn never really caught my attention in the original but a few small dialogue changes and some wonderful acting and it's one of the standout roles here.
Mrs. Balock (Mia Farrow) was also given some extra scenes and dialogue but I felt her scenes with Damian were just more than were needed to prove he was evil. Played way over the top.
Had I never seen the original I would love this movie so I'm giving it four stars because on it's own merrit it deserves it. The new nightmare scenes were predictable and clashed somewhat with the subtlety of the original movie but they made me jump and it was nice to have some unexpectedness in this very loyal to the classic remake.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 37
Surpisingly good - 10/6/2006 8:35:39 AM   


Posts: 6
Joined: 10/6/2006
Like others have said, I went along to this remake (having seen the original twice before) with a good deal of reservation it would come up to the mark when compared with the 1976 version. I was, however, surprised as to how good it was. Found the pseudo-religious mumbo jumbo at the beginning a little hard to understand or believe, but as the film progressed, I found it quite a thrilling romp. I tried to put the personae of Gregory Peck and Lee Remmick out of my mind as it watched it but couldn't help but make comparisons and though Julia Stiles miscast and totally unconvinging as the Ambassador's wife whereas Liev Schreiber turned in a polished performance throughout. Also preferred Billie Whitelaw as the evil Mrs. Baylock than Mia Farrow who never really conveyed the impression of being an 'apostate from Hell' as she is described in the film. But the storm-lashed scenes of London at critical 'creepy' moments were impressive. All in all, a movie that is worth the price of the admission ticket.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 38
just ok - 10/6/2006 11:27:21 PM   


Posts: 2
Joined: 10/6/2006
you know if the child you reared turned out to really be the devils spawn I think it might upset you a bit. In this film nobody gets too worked up about anything. This is a story that needs a little drama. All the actors seemed to just be looking at a paycheck. On the other hand the dogs were scary. Even if they switched from one dog to a completely different one at the kids house. A shepard is not a rotweiler. I kinda liked it but it was a little flat.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 39
- 13/6/2006 12:45:17 PM   

Posts: 4182
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Cardiff
"What's the point?" sort of sums this film up. As so many others did, I went to see it on 06.06.06, for the novelty, and that was the most exciting thing about the film. Words like "bland" and "dull" spring to mind. The acting was either half-hearted (Schreiber) or hammy (Postlethwaite -- who, incidentally, went to school with my aunty. Brush with fame, eh?). The new score was crap, completely devoid of atmosphere, and the few "jumpy" moments were overused cliches (sudden appearences accompanied by loud music) that caused the audience I was watching it with to laugh more than be startled. The new Damien wasn't especially scary, he just looked a bit depressed, and as has been pointed out by other reviewers here, no one seemed *that* troubled by the fact that he was the spawn of Satan. It just seemed a bit of an inconvienience. An appalling waste of my time and money.

...and even if Damien's real mother was an actual jackal, why would you *bury* the corpse of a jackal, in a satanic cemetary, with a headstone and a real human name...? Surely you'd just burn it, or throw it out with the garbage??

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 40
RE: --- - 13/6/2006 5:12:26 PM   


Posts: 1
Joined: 1/6/2006
Yep, kinda

(in reply to webbman75)
Post #: 41
RE: The Omen - 14/6/2006 2:27:53 PM   

Posts: 4450
Joined: 28/4/2006

Isn`t it obvious why The Omen was remade? It isn`t just because this year we have the date 06/06/06 and it`s the perfect release date to launch a new version there are other reasons than just a potentially promising commercial enterprise. It`s 30 years since the orgional came out and there have been some freaky things happening in the world in the last five years or so that you could easily say have been predicted in Revelations. These events needed to be shown at the start of the movie (and could be argued mean the Antichrist is about to arrive or even is among us) and do make you think adding an extra chill to this remake. These scenes of events are relavent and historic and shouldn`t be banned from movies when used in a historical context. Although I sympathise with them it`s always going to be hard for those who suffered directly from say 9/11 to see those images. Having said that though saying the rise of the Roman Empire (a Revalations apocalyptic preditiction) is to do with the European Unions birth with the Treaty of Rome is pushing it! I mean the power there is with Brussels not Rome. 

It was about as good as I thought it would be from the trailers. I didn`t expect it to be as good or better than the orgional (and it wasn`t it was okay) but the trailers looked promising. The musical score was okay but nothing like as disturbing and freaky as the black mass sounding orgional score which scares the life out of me even now 23 years since I first heard it. It would have been more frightening if more of the deaths weren`t as similar as in the orgional and concequently as predicatable as most of them are in this remake. However knowing there are differences in some of them did increase some of the tension for me.

As for the performances well on one hand you have Leiv Scheibers Robert Thorn under played with him looking only mildly concerned that he might be raising the Anti-Christ. He looked like he was late for work rather than running for his life when being attacked by demonic dogs or being pursued by a demonic hysterical nanny! Then on the other hand you have a very OTT, awful cameo performance by Micheal Gambon (his career low)who hysterically gives the knives to Robert Thorn and tells him how to kill Damien with them. Mia Farrow does become quite chilling and scary as Mrs Baylock but nothing like as scary as Billie Whitelaw brilliantly was in the orgional (but then again surely no-one in their right frame of mind would have employed a nanny as scary as Ms Whitelaws Mrs Baylock?). I did care what happened to the good characters in this version as I did in the orgional and especially felt sorry for Kate Thorn thanks to a good sympathatic performance from Julia Stiles. Pete Posilewaite (excuse the spelling) was as usual throughly convincing as Father Branning. However I didn`t understand how he on one hand had a 666 birthmark and was partly delibrately responsible for the Thorns adopting Damien in the first place but strangly enough (unless I missed something) for a demonic man was trying to redeem himself, put things right, wasn`t bothered by and was indeed conforted by having lots of crosses in his bedroom and was a priest? I didn`t know demons could secretly convert to Catholicism! I mean Damien couldn`t get near a church without freaking out. Speaking of Damien the actor who played him was okay I suppose for a five year old actor, ocassionally creepy but nothing like as scary as some five year olds I`ve come across in my time or the orgional Damien thrity years ago! 

My major gripe though with the film which really made it hard to take seriously and made it look at times amatuerish was how everyone thought when they were in Prague it was London despite their being signs in Chez (excuse spelling again!) and tram lines clearly visable during Robert Thorns chase with the police to the church at the end!  Seriously though if they couldn`t film the London scenes in London couldn`t they put some decent CGI effects of landmark sights in a city that could vaguely at the very least (maybe somewhere else in the UK) look something like London. Instead you get a ropey ferris wheel in the background and the occasional red Royal Mail post box in a clearly medivial East European street.  I mean the scenes around their so called American Embassy (which incidentially isn`t by the Thames but in Mayfair) looks nothing like London. Apart from that dodgy Millenium Wheel CGI effect there were none of the distinctive buildings that make you think your looking at the Thames in Central London. If the beeb can make Cardiff look like London with special effects effectively in Doctor Who then why can`t a Hollywood movie? The Rome shots clearly were in Rome so why a farce with the London setting? They might as well have done a 9/11 movie set in New York and filmned it in Birmingham or Norwich! Nothing wrong with those cities by the way just trying to make a point about how unsuitable Prague was..

In the films favour though it does have some real jump out of your seat moments especially the dream sequences and that graveyeard scene. I would say if you haven`t seen the orgional or you have and loved it like me and want to see how this compares it`s worth it. Just enjoy it for the watchable ocassionally scary but not as good as the orgional remake that it is. If you don`t catch it you haven`t missed anything that amazing just make sure you catch the orgional as it is truely one of the most disturbing and chilling films your ever see.



Last five movies seen & rated by me.

1.12 Years A Slave. 4/5
2.Robocop. (1987) 3/5
3.Devils Due.3/5
4.American Hustle. 4/5
5.Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones. 3/5

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 42
close but no cigar - 15/6/2006 3:26:46 PM   


Posts: 100
Joined: 22/3/2006
From: wymondham
the name damien thorne has certainly permeated the collective consciousness hell even only fools and horses made a reference to it confident we would get the reference. which makes it invetiable that we would we would get a remake in this the year of 6606and it isnt half bad. it had worries that it would be watered down for a summer audience a 12a compromise but no all the famous gory setpieces are there plus some new ones and a sept 11 and tsunami reference too. the only concession appears to have been making the parents younger than g peck and l remick in the orginal. liev schreiber gives a good tortured performance as he did in that other superior remake of the manchurian candidate julia stiles makes less of an impression and is perhaps to young in the role probably cast because she is a box office name. good supporting performances from pete postlethwaite and david thewlismake a classy package even if the lad plying damien is not particularly scary. overall the film is very reverential to the orginal and if we had to have a remake at all this is the best we could have hoped for even if they do fluff the ending.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 43
- 16/6/2006 1:02:50 AM   


Posts: 104
Joined: 20/3/2006

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 44
Why, why why why why why!!!!!!!!!! - 16/6/2006 1:05:28 AM   


Posts: 104
Joined: 20/3/2006
If ur gonna remake something like this movie, bring it up 2 date..! Alot of things have adapted since this horror last graced every1c video collection (or appeared on telly) chrickey we all take the piss out of that arnie film bout the devil SO WHAT IS THE BLOODY DIFF HEAR!!!! DO WE ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS KID IS SOOOOOOO TERRIFYING? Ps - u can guess im not v religiouse

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 45
hmm... (slight spoilers) - 17/6/2006 7:29:52 PM   


Posts: 6
Joined: 30/9/2005
I jst saw this last night. I was good for what it was, but really nothing spesh c'mon guys we've seen it all before, the mirror shock was an umbearable cliche for instance. i found Damiens character luaghable, i didnt feel convinced that he was truly evil, yes ok so he pushes his mother off a banester n stuff but it jst didnt do it 4 me. o well i enjoyed the jumps *sigh*

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 46
hmm... (slight spoilers) - 17/6/2006 7:29:54 PM   


Posts: 6
Joined: 30/9/2005
I jst saw this last night. I was good for what it was, but really nothing spesh c'mon guys we've seen it all before, the mirror shock was an umbearable cliche for instance. i found Damiens character luaghable, i didnt feel convinced that he was truly evil, yes ok so he pushes his mother off a banester n stuff but it jst didnt do it 4 me. o well i enjoyed the jumps *sigh*

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 47
The Best ever Remake - 17/6/2006 10:19:18 PM   
Daniel Kelly

Posts: 3086
Joined: 6/4/2006
From: warkham
Remakes dont tend to be good but this really was a quality film. The casting was excellent and in Director John Moore we have a stylish director who will soon come to blockbuster kingship. Some sequences were genuinly scary more than The Amityville horror are The hills have eyes remakes can boast.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 48
- 18/6/2006 12:01:56 PM   
plum bob


Posts: 203
Joined: 30/4/2006
well don't care wat anyone else said i enjoyed it. it rocked along at a fair old rate and the kid did come accross very sinister. only problem not as many jumpy bits as there should b. only twice did it actulally get me

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 49
RE: - 18/6/2006 2:18:14 PM   
Daniel Kelly

Posts: 3086
Joined: 6/4/2006
From: warkham
I thought it the best of all the remakes. Actually enjoyed it more than the original and found it was done with great style. The cast were unusually good for thistype of thing


(in reply to taz_e)
Post #: 50
666 - 19/6/2006 9:14:40 PM   


Posts: 66
Joined: 22/2/2006
This is why remakes are made!!! I'm a big fan of the original and felt that a remake would undoubtedly be nowhere near the original, but boy was I wrong!!! I feel that this was no more than an updated version (just to coincide with the commercial time bomb of 06/06/06) but there is nothing wrong with that when the original was almost a perfect genre film. The only gripe I have is with british filmgoers, who think they are clever laughing whenever damien was on screen which stopped any tension which would have been there in the original (well it was the 70's!!!) If you can catch this film in a quite almost empty cinema I am sure you will enjoy it greatly, good work Mr. Moore!!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 51
RE: - 20/6/2006 10:44:07 AM   


Posts: 4
Joined: 20/6/2006
From: kent
i thought the film was ok, but the use of the dogs was a bit extreme and i got a bit sick of them - especially as i have a fear of dogs! The acting was pretty stiff throughout the film, but i suppose it was an easy watch for any audience. I am now going to watch the original to see how it is the same/different to this remake and i have heard that during the making of the original there was lots of spooky "coincidences". I thought the choice of the actor for Damien was a bad one, i don't think he really captured the character very well. I am sick of seeing this sweet and innocent character who plays the evil child. He really didn't live up to my expectations and felt that he has no real input to the film. Sure he is good at giving the evils, but he should of said more/featured more. Oh well,. thats just my view of his character really. I thought the woman who played the evil nanny did a good job and i think she appeared to be more devil like then Damien himself, it was more of her show then his! I agree that Stiles was a bit young to play her character as we are used to seeing her in less mature productions, such as 10 things i hate about you, where she plays a teenage character. I thought the photographer was portrayed well and he was the main story teller. Over all the film wasn't too bad and was worth a watch, the best bit i thought was when Stiles was looking in the mirror and all of a sudden the jeckal (however you spell it) appeared, i think the whole cinema jumped at that point. Shock tactics always work well!

(in reply to taz_e)
Post #: 52
Totally Pointless - 28/6/2006 11:12:35 PM   

Posts: 1296
Joined: 30/9/2005
The film itself was OK, but what was the point?
It's biggest problem is Damien himself, every time he turned to the camera I half expected him to spit on it and write POB on the lens!
I'd have much rather seen a remastered version of the original on the big screen.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 53
- 29/6/2006 7:05:51 PM   

Posts: 6
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Middlesbrough
Really liked this film. I thought that it updated the original but didnt change it too much. It has its shocks, jumps and gore for the people that like that kinda stuff (i do), but it also has a psychological aspect to it as well. The climax of the film built up really well - good pace - and ended leaving you feel satisfied. all in all one of the better remakes of late.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 54
RE: - 2/7/2006 3:16:08 PM   

Posts: 1935
Joined: 30/9/2005
It was alright. I had a few jumps in there, and I thought Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles were pretty good despite the very obvious age difference. She still has puppy fat for God's sake. Pete Postlethwaite, overracting as usual, and David Thewlis' accent seemed to jump between Salford and Chaz and Dave. I was also put off by the fact that they were clearly living in a 6 million house. He's only an ambassador, not the freakin' king.

Liked the kid playing Damien, he nailed that line at the end and I thought he was as subtle as Harvey Stephens was in the original.


"Claire, that's disgusting" - Sylar, Season 3

(in reply to Superlad)
Post #: 55
- 6/7/2006 4:50:17 PM   


Posts: 1
Joined: 7/10/2005
I'm giving it 3 stars for the pure snarky-heckling opportunities it presents. I found the whole red-in-contrast-to-everthing-else thing incredibly tedious, that it'd probably be better if they had a plank of wood with "IMAGERY" and "SYMBOLISM" written on it, and bashed the audience over the head with it until they died. It would probably have made it more enjoyable.
That said, there wasn't much to hate. Just not much to like either.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 56
RE: The Omen - 22/7/2006 9:56:35 PM   
repo man


Posts: 56
Joined: 22/7/2006
A boring cover version with not one shred of atmosphere or menace - pisses all over the original, and not in a good way - notable seemingly only for one of the ugliest casts outside of a Tod Browning film ( one particular Tod Browning film ), and very obviously made for the sole purpose of releasing it on 06/06/06.  Makes about as much sense as making a film about the emergency services and releasing it on the 9th of September 2009.  Worth watching just to see how right I am.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 57
The Omen 666 - 26/7/2006 11:57:41 AM   


Posts: 50
Joined: 25/7/2006
I'm a big fan of the origional Omen but this is boring. When you watch it it is the same as the origional frame by frame, was there any need to remake this? Damien doesn't look sinister and that ruins the film straight away. When I watched it I felt that the only reason they made a remake was so they could relaese the film on 6/6/06, which rakes more money in at the box office because people will probably watch it for that reason. We can only hope we don't have a remake for "The Exorcist" in the future. Overall this is dissapointing.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 58
- 18/10/2006 11:51:27 PM   
dj vivace

Posts: 5991
Joined: 28/7/2006
From: plymouth
The problem with re-makes is all you do really is compare it to the original, and every so often one comes along that betters the original, The Omen however is not one of those. Where to start? First of all Julia Stiles is one of the worst actresses i've ever seen, the bloody dogs out act her. Damien himself is dreadful, he's too much older and is not a bit scary. The disturbing thing with the original Damien is he LOOKED innocent, whereas this Damien seems to know what he's doing and is intentionally snarling all the time and it doesnt work. The woman who hangs herself is appauling, in fact that whole scene is handled dreadfully. The monkeys (who attack from in the zoo home this time) are crap, and you can clearly see the big gorilla is a man in a costume. Liev Schreiber does a good enough job, in fact he's very good but too young. The way he ends up being ambassador is dramatically changed for the worse, with the added 666 factor! Pete Postlethwaite looks terribly uncomfortable and out of place and i usually like him as an actor. His accent was awful. The only saving grace to this film is David Thewlis, one of the most underrated actors around today. He actually made the film a lot better and stopped me turning off as the troubled photographer. This is a bad bad remake which is really unnecessary, it seems almost like an excuse to blame the problems in the world today on the coming of the Devil and it really wants us to believe it too. All the clips of recent disasters are used to enhance this idea and to me just seemed daft and there was no need for it. If your gonna remake a film at least have some heart in what your doing, and dont use it as your personal attempt to try and right the wrongs of today with religious ramblings used to much much better and disturbing effect in the original. Stay well clear

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 59
- 6/12/2006 7:07:50 PM   

Posts: 104
Joined: 31/8/2006
the remake was ok but the original stands alongside jaws as one of the greatest horror films ever made.
If any hollywood halfwit tries to remake jaws! i may have to have them assassinated

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> WHY,OH WHY? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts

Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI