![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Six Hundred Threescore and Six: (if you really have never seen The Omen, you might get spoiled)
I enjoy clever marketing as much as the next guy, but I do find it hilarious how many people honestly thought something bad was going to happen today. My cab driver, for example, thought it was really bad luck for us to scoff at 666 and go see The Omen. I informed him that luck is considered a form of divination by fundie christians and is as evil as dice and lipstick put together. I punctuated my faux and sarcastic point by not tipping him. ;-}
We saw The Omen666 which is a remake of The Omen. I think I'll like it a lot more the second time I see it. I enjoyed the cast, even thought Mia Farrow and Michael Gambon were dreafully underused. The remake itself was from the original shooting script, and indeed, made most of the same cuts they did the first time around. Harvey Stephens (the original Damien) appeared as a a photographer. I didn't notice him in the movie, but I noticed his name in the credits.
Liev Schreiber is subdued and supremely watchable as Robert Thorn, the guy who lies to his wife for her own good. Despite that, he's a sympathetic character who loved his wife very much. He's also the more oblivious of the two parents; and the focus on the wife and her gradual shift from sane to terrified was much more entertaining than I was expecting. In short, Julia Styles was surprsingly good even thought she was about 10 years too young. The family dynamic was more realistic, with the ambassador and his wife actually arguing once in awhile. So that was good.
Seamus Fitzpatrick is pretty creepy as Damien. When I first saw this kid in the trailer, I was sure he needed to be snapped up for a new version of The Innocents. Now that I've seen the movie, I have no idea whether or not he can act. They played him really overt in this movie, like he hates his mother and wants her to die. While I support that in theory, it doesn't make for suspenceful anything. David Thewlis was hot as always, and it's a drag to see him meet his grisly end. Again, Farrow and Gambon were excellent; we just saw far too little of them. The scene where she's feeding him the strawberries and gazing lovingly at him is freaky as shit.
The main difference between this version and the original is the visuals. There was some technological updating happening, which means everyone had an Apple computer. Sweet. Everything was bloodier, more horrifying, and louder. This brings me to the main disappointment: The directing. It was not good. He seemed unable to coax a good performance out of anyone. As such, Liev Schreiber was not as intense and riveting as he usually is. He was fine and fun to watch, but Robert Thorn should be captivating. Anyway, there were too many cheap scares (multiple startled waking from nightmares for example). And the thunder, for fuck's sake, it was relentless. It rained in over half the scenes, and thunder punctuated anything the least bit ominous.
The score was good, they updated Ave Satani a bit, so that's cool.
They imitated a mistake in the very last shot. Can't put my finger on why, but that bugs me a lot.
And of course, there were some cool-ass animal attacks, it was clear that THESE dogs were attacking and not humping. Although I really dont' think they make gorilla cages that gorillas can bust out of. Then again, maybe they do.
I have a feeling once I get past all the things that bug me and just watch it for the gore and the hot men's. I'll like it that much the more.
While I'm here, in WhipAss Horror news, it seems that Trilogy of Terror is finally coming out on DVD. Now if they can just release that movie whose name I can't remember. It's a 70's thing that ends with a bunch of tiny monsters dragging a woman up or down stairs and getting loose in the world. I used to watch it on the 4 o'clock movie which used to be quite popular. And while you're out buying expensive gifts for friends and online friends, do pick us both up a Zuni fetish doll. You know you want to.
We saw The Omen666 which is a remake of The Omen. I think I'll like it a lot more the second time I see it. I enjoyed the cast, even thought Mia Farrow and Michael Gambon were dreafully underused. The remake itself was from the original shooting script, and indeed, made most of the same cuts they did the first time around. Harvey Stephens (the original Damien) appeared as a a photographer. I didn't notice him in the movie, but I noticed his name in the credits.
Liev Schreiber is subdued and supremely watchable as Robert Thorn, the guy who lies to his wife for her own good. Despite that, he's a sympathetic character who loved his wife very much. He's also the more oblivious of the two parents; and the focus on the wife and her gradual shift from sane to terrified was much more entertaining than I was expecting. In short, Julia Styles was surprsingly good even thought she was about 10 years too young. The family dynamic was more realistic, with the ambassador and his wife actually arguing once in awhile. So that was good.
Seamus Fitzpatrick is pretty creepy as Damien. When I first saw this kid in the trailer, I was sure he needed to be snapped up for a new version of The Innocents. Now that I've seen the movie, I have no idea whether or not he can act. They played him really overt in this movie, like he hates his mother and wants her to die. While I support that in theory, it doesn't make for suspenceful anything. David Thewlis was hot as always, and it's a drag to see him meet his grisly end. Again, Farrow and Gambon were excellent; we just saw far too little of them. The scene where she's feeding him the strawberries and gazing lovingly at him is freaky as shit.
The main difference between this version and the original is the visuals. There was some technological updating happening, which means everyone had an Apple computer. Sweet. Everything was bloodier, more horrifying, and louder. This brings me to the main disappointment: The directing. It was not good. He seemed unable to coax a good performance out of anyone. As such, Liev Schreiber was not as intense and riveting as he usually is. He was fine and fun to watch, but Robert Thorn should be captivating. Anyway, there were too many cheap scares (multiple startled waking from nightmares for example). And the thunder, for fuck's sake, it was relentless. It rained in over half the scenes, and thunder punctuated anything the least bit ominous.
The score was good, they updated Ave Satani a bit, so that's cool.
They imitated a mistake in the very last shot. Can't put my finger on why, but that bugs me a lot.
And of course, there were some cool-ass animal attacks, it was clear that THESE dogs were attacking and not humping. Although I really dont' think they make gorilla cages that gorillas can bust out of. Then again, maybe they do.
I have a feeling once I get past all the things that bug me and just watch it for the gore and the hot men's. I'll like it that much the more.
While I'm here, in WhipAss Horror news, it seems that Trilogy of Terror is finally coming out on DVD. Now if they can just release that movie whose name I can't remember. It's a 70's thing that ends with a bunch of tiny monsters dragging a woman up or down stairs and getting loose in the world. I used to watch it on the 4 o'clock movie which used to be quite popular. And while you're out buying expensive gifts for friends and online friends, do pick us both up a Zuni fetish doll. You know you want to.
no subject
Reminds me of when a friend & I saw the dreadful, horrible FINAL DESTINATION (or FUD, as we inexplicably use to refer to it as) and all the "director" could ever think of do was have a panning shot of the fan in the bedroom.
During the "movie" we'd whisper to ourselves, "The fan! The fan! Oh dear God, I'm a-scared of THE FAN!!"
And then we caught glimpse of some 16-year-old bimbette absolutely scared out of her wits. All we could do was laugh at her. A lot. And she knew it. Which made her cry.
And then the "director" would have another shot of the fan.
Jesus, that was a long-ass movie.
no subject
Posted off-topic for absolutely no reason at all. Meh.
Re: Posted off-topic for absolutely no reason at all. Meh.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
It's all plastic-y and the teeth lack the stained and razor-sharp threat of the stage prop. I think you need one carved out of wood with a tattered look about it. Will keep it in mind. You also need a set of those special dentures she wore at the end.
BTW - I ganked you "shaun beatin'" icon a long time ago (credited) and found occasion to use it today.
no subject
Ah yes, the beatin' icon serves a variety of purposes. Enjoy!
no subject
Wasn't Gargoyles, was it?
no subject
no subject
Used to be great when they'd show a little gem like The Norliss Tapes, Trilogy Of Terror or The Night Stalker
no subject
no subject
Special edition? If its Region 0, I may well have to invest in a copy. ;)
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'd be very interested in what you come up with.
no subject
No probs. :)
no subject
no subject
no subject
Mystery solved!!
no subject
I daresay you might be onto something. I'm gonna have to pick it up.
no subject
tiny, dragging, monster movie-
http://hi-fiv.com/bobbagy.jpg
http://www.monstersinmotion.com/catalog/images/dvd/dontdvd2.jpg
Re: tiny, dragging, monster movie-
Although I can't be for sure unless I actually see it.
To the Video Store!!