The Omen Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x1040 | 8139.12 MiB | 1080p | |
|
520x274 | 701.69 MiB | divx | |
|
320x176 | 305.81 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
His Day Will Come
From the eternal sea he rises. Creating armies on either shore. Turning man against his brother. Until man exists no more.
The prophecy is clear. The signs are unmistakable. On the 6th day of the 6th month in the year 2006 his day will come.
When the Vatican observatory priest sees the appearance of a comet, the Church is sure that it confirms the eve of the Armageddon. Meanwhile, the USA President's godson Robert Thorn is informed in the maternity in Rome by Father Spiletto that his wife Katherine has just lost her baby and she had troubles with her uterus and would not have another pregnancy. Spiletto suggests Robert that another just born child that lost her mother could be the substituted for his son, and Robert accepts the child and gives the name of Damien. Robert is promoted to ambassador in London after a tragic accident. When Damien's nanny commits suicide in his birthday party, a substitute, Mrs. Baylock, comes to work and live with the family. Along the years, Katherine realizes that Damien is evil, while Robert is contacted by Father Brennan, who tells him that Damien is the son of devil. When the priest dies in a bizarre accident, the photographer Keith Jennings shows evidences to Robert that the boy is the Antichrist. They travel to the town of Megiddo to learn how the boy can be stopped.
| Predrag Bjelac | Vatican Observatory Priest |
| Carlo Sabatini | Cardinal Fabretti |
| Bohumil Svarc | Pope |
| Liev Schreiber | Robert Thorn |
| Giovanni Lombardo Radice | Father Spiletto |
| Baby Litera | Damien - Newborn |
| Julia Stiles | Katherine Thorn |
| Tomas Wooler | Damien - 2 Years Old |
| Rafael Sallas | Rome Embassy Marine |
| Marshall Cupp | Ambassador Steven Haines |
| Martin Hindy | Haines' Limo Driver |
| Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick | Damien |
| John Moore |
5.40 out of 10 (11457 votes)
Visitor Reviews
OK, this is it
posted on 26 Aug 2009I never saw the original. As many of you are saying that there is not much difference between the original and the remake. How anyone could ever call this pile of garbage a "classic" or "an intelligent movie" is beyond me. This movie was an embarrassment; and I think the director, actors and producers who made this piece of junk available to consumers should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for being involved. I haven't seen a movie this bad since the remake of "Shaft".OK, so first off, we open with the Pope's "underground secret hi-tech spy room" which we all know does NOT EXIST and the idea of it beyond retarded and seems like something out "Austin Powers". Then we somehow see the writer try to tie in recent events by throwing in the lame and tired correlations of 9/11 and the Tsunami with "what some guy in the bible said". Thats beyond idiotic and stupid and know whats EVEN STUPIDER? How about this initial plot setup NEVER PLAYING ITSELF OUT or ever being mentioned EVER AGAIN. Wow, that was so pointless. Good job! Way to "tie in" the audience.There is zero character development for anyone in the entire movie and I still don't know who/what/where that nanny came from or if she was some demon or some Satan worshiper or what. All of the acting is beyond bad, especially Julia Stiles and that chump lead guy who cant even annunciate his lines audibly so I can understand what the heck he is saying. The kid says like three words and is not scary at all. Oh what, Im supposed to be scared cause his eyes are BRIGHT BLUE?? AHH! SO scary! Oh yeah, and for a movie that was supposed to be about something as scary as umm...the end of the world? This was about as scary as the mascot for the Cincinatti Reds. So what, throw in some angry dogs and a bird skull and I am supposed to lose sleep over that? I see angry dogs every day in New York dog runs, why would one on the screen scare me more? Oh and give me a break with the "our father" and the whole stupid climatic "holy sacrifice in the church" ending. I wanted to throw my Stonyfield Farm frozen yogurt through my new TV. Oh yeah, and why was the swat team chasing the "dad" at the end? Oh, and why is the president at the end? whats the point of that? Why did the dad ditch his wife and son to run around Italy and Palestine to meet with characters who were NEVER INTRODUCED????? Who were these people? what possible proof did the dad have that the skeleton he found in the grave was his real son's??? NONE! What was the point of the pope dying? How did the Nanny possibly kill the mom without ANYONE in the hospital noticing? Why did they get out of the car and walk up to that house rather than drive? and finally, NO ONE lives in a house like that and makes a living as an ambassador!! That house looked like freakin' Versailles! He cant AFFORD VERSAILLES! This was by far (and dumber than "shaft") the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. It has ruined my day today just thinking about it. Completely unrealistic and unbelievable. Take this from the shelves and use it for firewood, the smell it emits when burning is more scary than the movie.
Finally! A FUN horror flick
posted on 24 Aug 2009The Omen/2006/***Main Stars: Liev Schreiber Julia Stiles Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick David Thewlis Mia FarrowJohn Moore's The Omen is not like the typical horror film. The typical horror film has no wit and a bunch of scary images and BUM's from the music when someone/thing jumps out of nowhere to scare you or kill you or do something stupid. And most of the TYPICAL horror flicks will have a considerable amount of special effects just to make the fans of them be impressed. It is not impressive; it's old! It's stupid and boring! But this film has more to it than special effects and BUM's and people or things jumping out of nowhere… Okay so it has all of those things but it has a GOOD STORY to go along with all the extra goodies inside. So it fits together to make a good film! Most of the killings are cleverly planned out; however they are rather gruesome so I wouldn't recommend the film for anyone under thirteen. The film is rated R but I wouldn't agree. The film should have been rated PG-13 because there was only one killing that may have been really disturbing: a beheading in a different way that usual beheadings are. I would have to admit, it was clever and gruesome all the same. The story is a famous one. It's obviously about a kid that is the devil's child even though some inept people in the movie think he's innocent even though it was proved about a million times that he was the Antichrist. Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber), the father of Damien (Seamus Davey Fitzpatrick), is made the Ambassador of Great Britain after the one prior him dies from a clever killing. This is obviously the devil's plan to make him ambassador. So they move to a ridiculously enormous home where Robert Thorn complains to his wife, Katherine Thorn (Julia Stiles) that the house is a bit too big but soon accustoms to it. Katherine obviously does not know the secret of her REAL child and that he's dead which is what leads to Robert getting the Antichrist as a child. It is all planned out cleverly by the devil. Then things start to get out of hand. When the nanny gets out of control in her own mind and does the devil's bidding and hangs herself after repeating in a sweet manner, "Damien, it's all for you" things start to get suspicious. Then the photographer (David Thewlis) comes along and points out suspicious symbols that resemble spears in certain photographs. Robert is not convinced that Damien is EVIL! yet. He meets up with an elderly man (Michael Gambon) that gives him a pack of knives that he should kill Damien with. He needs to put the knives in a certain order for not only to kill Damien himself but his soul. But Robert STILL needs more proof but how much more proof do you need. And after another clever and the most gruesome killing, finally he's convinced. And the NEW nanny (Mia Farrow) who replaces that old nanny who hung herself resembles a person with a sweet disposition when first shown but if you get on her bad side or mess with her in any way to get her to go ballistic, believe me, she gets ugly and it's awesome (my opinion) what happens to her later in the film because she really deserves it! The movie was fun. The music and the very nice cinematography on a few scenes made it even more worth while so I would have to recommend it to anyone that can stand gruesome killings and still have fun with the movie. I will not recommend this film to someone who is a bit squeamish to gruesome killings and pays their attention only to the killings they just saw and keeps envisioning it over and over again in their head and doesn't pay the slightest bit of attention to the movie itself which I think is fun. So make your decision. Movie directed by John Moore.
The Omen 2006 Worst Movie Since the Exorcist the Heratic!
posted on 22 Aug 2009The was by far the worst movie I have ever seen. Let me start off by saying the score or music was really really bad. Where the heck is Jerry Goldsmiths score. Marco Beltrami wrote an awful score. When the scene got a little intense there was no music, I just don't get it. Liev Schiber was so bland and didn't show any emotion whatsoever in this movie, bad actor. Mia Farrow was bad as well and so were the other casts. I wouldn't even recommend renting this movie. Stay far away. I would suggest sticking with the original Omen. Why does Hollywood insist on making re-makes when there is nothing wrong with the original. I guess its because they are running out of fresh ideas.
New remake is better all around.
posted on 18 Aug 2009I'm doing all I can to celebrate 06/06/06 and honor The Number of The Beast. With that in mind, I went to see the remake of "The Omen" today. It's the same script but I think this new version is better all around. They've added some special effects that are frightening, such as the mother having horrifying visions. The set design and location shooting are very good, especially the scene of an eerie monastery that is accessible only by rowboat. The music and photography are excellent. Damien is more obviously evil in this new movie, with no hint of innocence and Mia Farrow as the evil nanny is inspired casting. There has been some criticism of the acting by the principal characters, but I thought everyone did as well, if not better, in their roles than the original cast. The decapitation scene toward the end is the best I've ever seen in the movies. There was a middle-aged couple sitting near me in the theater and when the guy gets his head cut off, the woman squealed loudly with a mixture of shock and pure delight. I wanted to applaud and vomit at the same time. Absolutely the finest "head getting completely whacked off" I've ever seen in the cinema. I give the movie an "8".
Facsimile Caution
posted on 12 Aug 2009Of all the remakes I have seen recently, this is the worst of them. It's as if the makers had already decided the original is so good, the best course of action is to copy it very closely.It's very much like a bubblegum-pop, glossy remake of a classic song: all the elements that made it great have been ignored. As for the music score, it's like trying to better a score like Jaws or Halloween. It simply can't be done!It's understandable that the acting, music score and general style might be hard to top but surely bettering the effects should be possible? Unfortunately not.In all the above cases, it's clear that they made no attempt to upstage the original in any way, unlike Dawn of the Dead or the Hills have Eyes. Either that, or from the offset, they decided it was not achievable. In which case, what was the point of the remake?
An Unnecessary Re-make
posted on 04 Aug 2009A re-make of the original horror classic of 1976, this film offers nothing more than the original film has already given us, besides some admittedly impressive death scenes. This re-make is far below the standard set by the original film. The acting is stiff and stilted, with Liev Schreiber (as Robert Thorne) giving a thoroughly one-noted performance which proved to be quite frustrating to watch for over two hours. Even when he finds out about the incredibly terrible events that consistently occur throughout the film, Schreiber keeps an indifferent expression on his face. This undoubtedly makes many problems arise; how can the audience get involved in a movie if the actors are unconvincing in their roles? Julia Stiles does well, but she doesn't work in her role as Robert Thorne's wife, but Mia Farrow as Mrs. Baylock gives the film a bit of a spark in an otherwise dull film. The main thing is, is it scary? Damien is creepy enough, and there are some OK dream sequences that offer a couple of good jump scares. But this is all it offers in scares. The film is basically just a re-shooting of the original scenes, except they lack the energy and tension. There is no sense of foreboding, and it's almost as if the film makers and actors were just bored and wanting to get it over and done with; it's as if they hardly cared about making a good film. What was meant to be a gripping, horrific and intense viewing experience right up to the stunning climax becomes a boring and plodding time, and you just about lose interest in the whole story, and the characters. Overall, a very disappointing re-make, which begs the question: Why did they re-make it in the first place?
Carbon Copy Of The Original
posted on 02 Aug 2009In a very rare venture into the cinema,I sat through this film due to the fact that I am a fan of the original Omen trilogy.I was expecting something a little different but this film was almost identical to the original. Apart from a few differences in the details, for example, when Damien was getting on his mum's nerves with the snooker balls in the original, - in this version, he was getting on her nerves with an electronic game. The scene when Damien's mum fell off the landing after the goldfish bowl had come crashing down; - this time the goldfish bowl was replaced by a pot plant and Damien was riding a micro-scooter instead of the kiddie's bike he was riding in the original.I'm not a fan of remakes, so I shouldn't be surprised that this film failed to impress me.I thought the decapitation scene was very well done though, but it did make me question the 12A certificate rating as it was rather gruesome.The Damien child didn't look half as evil as the kid in the original either and Mia Farrow was terrible as Damien's Satanic nanny, Mrs Baylock.I'm pleased I have seen this film but a bit upset over losing £5.50 to watch this poor relation of the original.I definitely will not be buying the DVD and will stick with the much more superior original.Poor.
Woah
posted on 02 Aug 2009I just finished watching this movie and I'm still a bit on edge! That kid is SCARY! I've heard a lot of negative things about this movie and that's disappointing, because the movie was so good. I don't know that I have ever seen the original so that probably helps my opinion of this particular film. What I've seen for negative comments from people who didn't like the movie was that it was a poor remake. Well, I have nothing to compare it to and I loved it. Liev Schrieber is SUCH a good actor and believable in these types of roles (think "Cotton Weary" in Scream). Julia Stiles plays her supporting role well, though I think her fear of Damien could have been more pronounced - even to the point of madness/hysterics.I was thoroughly enthralled from beginning to end with this movie - it kept my attention and I was excited from scene-to-scene to see where it was going (again, I have not seen the original). Liev is wonderful and that kid is creeepy. There's enough action to keep you engaged and enough mystery to keep you wanting more. That's enough for me. If you haven't seen the original, definitely check out the 2006 Omen - it's worth a watch.
solid horror movie
posted on 31 Jul 2009If you are looking for a horror movie that questions the mind and keeps you guessing then this movie is good for you. The movie will develop some new understandings about religion and show the spectrum of some very good acting and some very bad acting tied into a pretty good overall movie The acting in this movie was very impressive at times and somewhat questionable at times. I feel that the boy was not a great actor but Julia Styles thrived in a role she is unfamiliar. The movie in all was suspenseful and kept me wanting more. 7/10 was a fair rating for a movie that I thoroughly enjoyed because it was a re-make of a prior movie that had a much better presentation. However, a highly recommended movie.
There is not 1 good thing to be said, about the entire movie!
posted on 25 Jul 2009I just came home after seeing this abomination called a movie and frankly it didn't even come near it's predecessor...*Technical Aspect*The camera was absolutely horrible! I haven't seen such shitty camera works in a very long time! While standing still, it was obvious that a hand was shaking, while running it was shaking as well but this time like an earthquake... Totally inappropriate for any movie... 3/10*Script Aspect*The script was awful... Just looking at the dialogue made me sick to my stomach... It actually was boring to listen to the dialogue! 4/10*Acting Aspect*Wow, I didn't realize anyone could act like wooden dolls... It was like watching a puppet show, by far sad to be called! Example on how it would have looked if this would have been a dialogue: Man: Madame, your husband has a deadly disease Ms Pontiac: Oh no... *sniffing for 3 seconds and done move on...* It was just terrible to watch, no feelings, no emotions, nothing! 1/10*Casting*Julia Stiles and Liev Schreiber, I already had my doubts about it but this was far worse! Actually to be honest except for Giovanni Lombardo Radice and David Thewlis no one else did really show the essence of any character... 2/10*Storyboard Aspect*It was almost the same storyboard as the original but they had changed a few things, this was what the director told everyone... Well let me clear things up. First of all this was not looking or feeling anything like the original... The only thing that was the same, was the plot... But how they managed to almost destroy an awesome concept with such power, is still a miracle.... It was boring and never did you get frightened at any point. Just 2 points where you would get scared for no reason at all... 2/10*Soundtrack Aspect*I'm amazed! They used great symphony's on such WRONG moments! Like using scary music for a car that drives by, which is totally irrelevant... Using an awfully sad melody for something not sad at all... This did not help the movie anyway, it actually disturbed me after a while! 1/10*Final Thoughts* If you liked the original, stay far away from this movie. This movie does not come near the original, it only implies to do so... Sad but true even people that haven't seen the original or don't like it, still stay away the movie sucks... You think you'll see excitement no, you will get bored to death and then it ends... Just keep your money and when the movie finally comes on TV, watch it so you won't be sorry!
Don't believe that this is like the original. Not even close!
posted on 25 Jul 2009Although it tried to be faithful to the story of the original (which not necessarily a good thing), the remake sorely missed the Gothic score of the original. The original had very creepy moments, even in repeat viewing, could not be achieved in the remake. The casting was much weaker. The 2 leads I thought was miscast. Liev Schreiber was no Gregory Peck. I like Julia Stiles, but she was not credible in her role. Not that the original was a top-notch movie, but the remake made that seemed so. That said, those who never saw the original will enjoy it as a mediocre thriller. Unfortunately, they will miss out the spooky atmosphere of the original, a thriller and a horror.
Wonderfully directed!
posted on 23 Jul 2009Critics usually complain about a remake if it's too different from the original or if it's too similar. It's hard to please such high expectations, but I think The Omen succeeded in taking the old while adding some new stuff to keep the fans of the original happy. No one can complain about the script, because the same person that wrote the original wrote this one, which is a plus. And director John Moore left nothing to be questioned, left no doubts as to how someone got here or there or why they would be there in the first place. Instead, it makes you genuinely feel for this family, and the acting (mostly Liev Schreiber's) makes the story feel as realistic as it can possibly be.
So you want to remake a horror flick?
posted on 23 Jul 2009Why did I go and see this movie? My first clue to avoid it was that it's rated R. The second clue is that they are proud of the number "666" the mark of the beast, so I guess what drove me was the theological curiosity, as many movies are pretty deep into the bible, especially in reference to the book of Revelation. But this movie was just a horror flick, with a usual horror flick kind of plot. The kid is your usual spoiled little brat, as most children with bad parenting are. This kid's only excuse was that he was the devil himself, otherwise he's just like every other bratty kid. I've seen many times where Nannies were nearly driven to suicide by the kids they took care of, so big deal... Creepy sound effects accompanied by goofy situations, it's all relative to the plot.I give this film 2 stars (out of 5) because the acting was good. There was a story line and it did keep me interested. I suppose I should now see the original 'Omen' film from the '70's and base my judgment on this film from that one. Fortunately, the matinée at the mall left me an entire theater to myself, so I felt like I was given the special treatment of a film critic.One of the actors, David Thewlis, plays as 'Keith Jennings', the wayward paparazzi. I recognized Thewlis from his role in 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban' as 'Professor Remus Lupin', Professor by day, Werewolf by night. Quite fitting for this role, I'd say...Meanwhile, the moral of this story is, no matter how cute they are, if they're not your kids, they'll turn out to be evil.
Non-Biblical Account
posted on 23 Jul 2009I am a Bible believing Christian. I can tell you that very little of this is Biblical. But that is common fare for entertainment - it's not science, it's entertainment. Nonetheless, this movie acts as if it comes from the Bible and all I am saying is that very little of it is. But this can be said - God wants us to love Him above the entire world - from the profits of the Old Testament to the apostles of the New Testament (Jeremiah 31:31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.")That being said, then is this an entertaining movie? Yes. I gave it a 7 out of 10 only b/c the script is thin in my opinion. But this movie is better than the original - from the acting to the directing. The imagery is also better. The script is true to the original version so even though there were no surprises for me I still found this version plenty scary. It had me on the edge of my seat (even though I saw the original with Gregory Peck as the Ambassador).-LD______________________________________________my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/PS: may God open your eyes, may He pour His Holy Spirit into your heart so that you too will have hope in Salvation, in Jesus' name, amen.
Just an updated version of the original and lacking some scenes
posted on 21 Jul 2009Okay first off, I just checked spoilers because there might be some idiot out there that doesn't know this movie is about the Anti-Christ and impending apocalypse. That said, better than average remake, but when is anybody gonna make a new movie and stop remaking the old ones? The Omen scared the HELLLLLL outta me as a kid and I guess this one might scare some new kids, but let's make some new nightmares rather than rehashing old ones. Anyway,the best part of the WHOLE movie was where they tried to show some scenes foretelling that the apocalypse was soon at hand and they showed the World Trade Center bombing. I laughed out loud and so did my brother and the people with us. THIS MOVIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED......THE STORY OF GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!!!!! Much more appropriate title. Could've been an A&E special on his rise to power.
Why make it again?
posted on 17 Jul 2009One word to sum it - Stale.To begin with, though I managed to watch it on The Day 6-6-06, I missed the 06:06 pm show. Not much there to miss as i found out, except for the Number of the Beast.The question to be answered is - WHY? Why make it again? The new version does absolutely nothing new. It is almost a shot-for-shot remake. The atmosphere is identical, the camera angles are identical, even many of the dialogues sound the same. Added to that, the the actors are low profile and so is the music, which is far from Jerry Goldsmith's scary rendition in the 1976 original. And the lead actor is no match for Gregory Peck's impeccable performance as a man fighting his own beliefs in the battle against evil.Of course, the deaths are more gruesome, a trend that seems to have been started by the Final Destination movies. The sound effects are good but they still cannot make up for the fact that there is absolutely no suspense that we don't already expect.If you haven't seen the original version yet, go watch that first. This one can wait.
Didn't really move me
posted on 15 Jul 2009From moving on with the original release 30 years ago I was expecting more from this remake. I was quite disappointed after seeing some of the trailers before seeing the movie that some of trailer scenes weren't included in the final release. ie. 1) The US Ambassador being graphically burnt alive in the back seat of the Iimo 2) Some of Dream Scenes weren't included where by the 1st nanny was screaming in a bright lit room sitting down with a noose around her neck. 3) The High Priest holding Damien up above his head .. The list goes on.I don't understand as to why it was given a MA+15 rating where by it was quite suttle.The acting wasn't bad either, Playing the character of Robert Thorn was pretty big shoes to fill with Gregory Peck playing this role but Levi did it pretty well.My advice, watch it when it is released on DVD
Better left to memory....
posted on 07 Jul 2009With all due respect to the Director and Cast, this remake should have never even been attempted. It's such a poor imitation of the original and even the impressive cast couldn't save it from mediocrity. The original was made in 1976 with no real special effects, etc., and was quite a chilling spectacle coupled with its brilliant score and soundtrack. This 2006 remake was quite unremarkable and some of the plot and location revisions were somewhat disconcerting to me as well. I don't mean to imply this movie is terrible, to the contrary, it is watchable, but having seen both I was just a bit disappointed it didn't leave more of an impression on me. I've seen the original many times throughout the years and it still has the ability hold my attention. This one however has left no impression on me whatsoever. Saw it once, doubt if I'll revisit it. The Director and Cast do receive an "A" for effort though, a noble attempt that just fell a bit short. Stick with the original.
Head is spinning, and not because of demonic possession.
posted on 03 Jul 2009666 the dark day. Once a century do those number appear as a date on the calender. yes! and what do we get for all that dark energy? The Omen Remake-- a new dreadful type of evil that strikes the horror fan at his weakness, His/Her love and respect of the influential groundbreaking horror movies.This movie provides two hours of mediocre entertainment of supernatural blah blah blah. It is not scary. Better horror has come out in the last few years people. Go see Hostel, or High Tension, or take a chance on an older horror movie like Session 9, or Ginger Snaps if you want character driven horror. As far as remakes go, not one in the last 15 years has matched the entertainment of the original, even though one or two of them may have been scary. The Night Of The Dead Remake was the last horror remake to take an old screenplay and really breathe some creativity into it.TOR is not so much a remake, but a polished copy with the same screenplay! Gregory Peck is still the man, and Leiv Schrieber cries too much! It is all how you remember it but all with a weird cast of more familiar faces from recent movies. Kind of like asking your girlfriend to try on an outfit of your ex-girlfriends; its never a good fit and it is likely to cost you a good relationship. I'm sorry, (Insert name of Remake here) but it's not working out, so I am not going to see you anymore.All you zombies do not show your faces and spawn of Satan celebrate in hell (where the party's at anyway) because if you go see The Omen Remake than the Exorcist remake with Dakota Fanning as Regan is not far behind.
Mediocre celebration of the Anti-Christ's birth.
posted on 30 Aug 2009Where to start? I have to admit that "Omen 666" or "Omen remake" is visually stunning. The cinematography is perfect and the combination of dark and light fits with the movie's macabre tone. Technology really helped for the movie's atmosphere... and that's the only positive thing about the movie.The original movie is macabre, perfectly written, it has excellent acting, direction, and a sinister score. It crafts a sentimental relationship between the couple and how they suffer because of their son (the son of the Devil). In this movie there's little emotion between the main characters and Damien shows minimal (if any) emotions. I mean, the original Damien really looks like the Devil himself! that was one creepy kid with an attitude. 2006's Damien looks uncomfortable with the role and looks as looks like he didn't know what the movie was about.Anyways, this new version doesn't offers anything new besides the 911 footage and the horrors of the Tsunami. Those scenes in my opinion were used just to cause polemic but are sadly wasted. The use of CGI didn't hurt this movie like many others from the new millennium. The death scenes are excellent and that may be the strongest thing about the movie. Not to mention the acting with has perfect by Liev Schreiber who demonstrates that he's a mature, solid actor. Julia Stiles in my opinion is miscast. She doesn't looks terrified or disturbed when necessary. Go back to the dance floor girl! Mia Farrow delivers a creepy performance as the devil's assistant. She did look creepy by the way. I didn't like how she looked like a creature from "Army Of Darkness" in her final scene. Also, the nightmare sequences were very well done. The director really knows what a nightmare is. Those 2 scenes were the best in the movie. But two scenes aren't enough to carry the whole movie.Omen 666 is a poor excuse to "celebrate" the supposedly birth of the anti-Christ (how many times have we heard about it?). The result is a millionaire publicity campaign that captivated consumers of Hollywood. Go watch this movie only for pop-corn purposes; I mean, waste almost two hours of your life.Instead of this, watch the original "Omen" or "El Dia de la Bestia". Now, that's real Anti-Christ fun.