[PatientX]

Favorite of the movies…easily the ’76 version of The Omen. Although I’ve got to agree with some of the people here…the ‘Why me?’ scene in Damien is easily one of the best parts of the trilogy.

Which, really, is a big part of why I feel the remake dropped the ball.
The new Damien seems to be fully aware that he’s the AntiChrist, which kind of kills his one major developing point from the original movies.

That’s just me talking though..

[granville1]

I never found any of the Omen films to be frightening. They rely too much on standard, boring horror cliches – lightning flashes, mutilation, stupid, cartoon-like accidents, animal attacks, decapitation, unecessarily ugly/”spooky” characters, clueless parents/witnesses, sick, fucked-up clerics, etc. (I nearly fell out of my chair LOL when the priest tries to tell Peck that Damien was born of a wild dog. Talk about a ludicrous and un-scary premise.)

One of Omen’s greatest flaws is that – unlike The Exorcist – it panders to the worst gullibilities of popular and fundamentalist religion. Hence, since the Christmas Star was (fundamentalism says) a real/literal/factual star, so the Second Coming must be heralded by another “real” celestial phenomenon (this time, an alignment). Just as Jesus was “really” born of a “real virgin”, so too Damien’s birth must have a literal, physical parallel (conception by and birth from a jackal)to the literalist understanding of Jesus’ birth. Not to mention the film’s primary conceit that the Book of Revelation and the “666” myth describe both a real, factual, literal AntiChrist and our modern times.

But the trilogy’s most monumental gaffe is that human action is crucial to the AntiChrist’s defeat. This is a completely unscriptural view: even if one fundamentalistically takes the Book of Revelation literally, that book nowhere claims that humans are to have an active part in the “Final Conflict”. Rather, God, Jesus, and the angels are the sole pro-human “comabatants”. Not even the most vicious diatribes of the Jewish Dead Sea Scrolls envision a human participation in God’s vengeful “end time” purges. The Christian Testament holds a similar view.

A corollary to the Omen’s notion of a human intervention in the “end times” is the idea that the plan of an “almighty” God can be defeated if humans cannot stab the AntiChrist with the Daggers of Meggido. If that notion is taken seriously, it means that God is not almighty and is powerless to defeat the AntiChrist except through the good or the bad luck of the human wielders of the Daggers. And the wielders don’t need to be godly or even religiously literate. They just need to 1) have the daggers and 2) successfully strike their target.

Another unpleasant, arbitrary feature of The Omen is the introduction of unspooky “spooky” characters, e.g., goon clerics – sick, weird and/or nasty priests, e.g., the creepy priest with the eye disease who warns Peck of Damien’s dog-birth, or the shockingly wasted performance of Leo McKern as Bugenhagen in Omen II. Compare these nasty characters to the priests of The Exorcist, who though they are human beings struggling with human problems, are nonetheless plain-speaking, rational, reasonably healthy, compassionate, desirous to serve, genuinely concerned with Regan and with Karras… and they don’t carry around dark secrets wrapped up in physical and mental grotesquerie. The Omen, on the other hand, introduces creep-priests because it doesn’t have enough genuine scares to deliver – so it pads the job by planting the script thick with nasty stock characters.

But none of this “stuff and nonsense” is present in The Exorcist. Satan, through the medium of a powerful demon, is already present on earth. No fundamentalistic echoing of scripture is required to establish Satan’s presence and power. No “virgin birth from the split womb of a wild dog” is necessary. The Exorcist’s demon is not constrained by mythical daggers, the efforts of inept/crazy clerics… nor is he particularly susceptible to Christian ritual exorcism.

The Exorcist delivers real horror – with very little borrowing from horror genre cliches. And when it does borrow from cliches (e.g., the sound of wind-blown tree branches as Chris ascends alone to the attic holding a candle) – it delivers sparingly and effectively.
And it delivers stark demonology without the claptrap of popular religion, fundamentalism and outright mythical invention (the Daggers; “666” on Damien’s scalp; comic opera priest-assassins).

Except for Jerry Goldsmith’s three outstanding musical scores, the Omen trilogy is just so much junk. The Omen and its sequels are not in The Exorcist’s league by any stretch of imagination, normal or febrile. Not by a long shot. Not by light years.

[BadLocust77]

Granville, you’re right on re: Omen 2006, which just pandered to expectations and brought nothing new (perhaps that dream sequence of disturbing imagery experienced by Julia Stiles, but nothing more).

(Maybe also Mia Farrow, returning to take care of her “Baby!”).

And let’s face it — 3/4ths of the greatness of the original Omen was the anti-christ chorus music. Damien’s “Coincidence Fu” was the precursor to the Final Destination films!

Omen II – could have gotten a lot more mileage out of Teen Damien’s conflicting emotions and struggle to surpress his nature. It needed more Satanism too – how about Lance Henriksen conducting ceremonies and sacrificing virgins?!!!

Omen III – I too liked it a lot. Sam Neill was creepy and terrific as adult Damien. The Lord of the Rings plot device that enabled Damien’s defeat was silly, but that soliloquy Neill delivers while talking to that giant Jesus carving was a very striking scene.

Omen IV – the only thing it has to recommend it is the use of Pentecostal snake handling, which other horror movies should use….we always see how the Catholics handle Satan – let’s get some Protestant exorcism movies! Also, Faye Grant, formerly our lovely and corageous resistance leader in 80’s miniseries V!

[granville1]

Bad Locust,

Thanks for your comments. Lance Henriksen is so damned good I wish the movie itself had been better. I also agree that Sam Neill did a fantastic job with the adult Damien – it was quite a while before I could accept him in non-evil-type roles after I saw his Damien.

I also fantasize that the late great Jerry Goldsmith could have expanded the “Observatory/New Christmas Star” and “Second Coming” themes into an extended religious piece. In the late 60s, he had done something called “Christus Apollo”, underscoring Ray Bradbury’s poem of the same title. It would have been interesting to experience a Goldsmithian “spiritual” symphony since he did so well with such themes in
Poltergeist and The Omen…

[SLASHerMan]

In the original Omen trilogy, which is your favourite film and why?

Mine is definitely Damien: The Omen II.
I think Jonathan-Taylor Scott embodies Damien better than anyone (at least yet).

He (Damien) carries himself well, and is intelligent and well trained, but still just a child at heart.
It’s just great to see him learn the truth and accept it. I definitely take his performance more seriously than Sam Neill.

Made a piece of fan art here:
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/33414085/

[mathmarchetti]

The Omen and Omen II are equally great films, well acted, pretty damn scary and well scripted. I didn´t like Omen III too much, it´s worth it for Sam Neil´s performance, the ending and the soundtrack. Omen IV is actually a remake of the first one as it states in the documentary and I think it´s a little better than the 2006 remake, though. That little girl was scary!

[Author]

Posts