THE OMEN Blu-Ray Thread

[mkaroly]

In the last few weeks, I've watched the first two Omen movies. Even though I'm sure I've seen them before, it felt like I was watching them for the first tome. I didn't even remember the decapitation scene!

Anyway, I'll offer a third opinion on The Omen vs. The Exorcist based on their religious appeal. I'm a Protestant and prefer The Exorcist which I find to be much more thoughtful and intelligent in its treatment of spiritual themes. It's been more than a year since I last watched it yet I m still thinking about it. The Omen movies, on the other hand, while entertaining as thrillers, seem like they were written by someone who never bothered reading the Bible before they wrote the script.

For one thing several characters who ought to know better call the last book of the New Testament "Revelations" plural instead of "Revelation" singular, its correct title. A pedantic point I grant you but it still bothered me. Or at least made me roll my eyes. And in the first movie, some of the verses they quote in order to prove that Damien is the Antichrist are completely made up! I went through a phase many years ago in which i read several books on the subject of biblical eschatology (the study of the end times.) While I agree with Eric that there is a bit of evangelical end-times thinking in The Omen, it's not presented very well.

I grew up in the RCC, moved over to Protestantism and engage with Messianic Judaism...all that is to say that of the two films I am with jkhom and Andy in preferring The Exorcist over The Omen. I always felt The Exorcist was more profound and disturbing in a more 'believable' way. The Omen is just a super creepy movie - I appreciate that about it but would rather watch The Exorcist.

And on a side note I too roll my eyes when people say 'Revelations.' Lol...the Greek word translated 'revelation' that opens up the book is in the singular (apokalypsis).

[Eric Paddon]

I'm willing to cut some slack on the lack of true fidelity to Scripture in "The Omen" largely because as a product of Evangelical circles I have seen far too many productions on this subject by Christian companies that might get the text right but who produce horrible drama in the end. The "Left Behind" series of novels and films from the 90s is the ultimate example of that but there were similarly themed films by low-budget Christian companies in the 70s that did the same thing, and I remember one of them being shown at my youth group and it was to say the least quite laughable. Because the "Omen" deals with the same basic theme and does it in such a compelling way that the Christian companies never delivered on, that's why I can cut it some slack.

By contrast, I did not see "The Exorcist" until the early 2000s I think after I'd already seen "The Omen" several times over two decades. When I saw it, there were a lot of things I didn't care for from a dramatic standpoint. I felt they plunged into things too fast in that I didn't see enough of Regan "normal" at first. I also was completely put off by Lee J. Cobb's Kindermann character because it was so obvious he was channeling Columbo, yet William Peter Blatty had the gall to accuse Richard Levinson and William Link of "stealing" his character when in fact the Columbo character was first created for a 1961 play years before Blatty wrote "The Exorcist." And I suppose not being Catholic, the theme of something like an Exorcism just doesn't have the resonance with me that a subject like the End of the Age does, which is something Protestants are more naturally attuned to.

[jkholm]

I'm willing to cut some slack on the lack of true fidelity to Scripture in "The Omen" largely because as a product of Evangelical circles I have seen far too many productions on this subject by Christian companies that might get the text right but who produce horrible drama in the end. The "Left Behind" series of novels and films from the 90s is the ultimate example of that but there were similarly themed films by low-budget Christian companies in the 70s that did the same thing, and I remember one of them being shown at my youth group and it was to say the least quite laughable. Because the "Omen" deals with the same basic theme and does it in such a compelling way that the Christian companies never delivered on, that's why I can cut it some slack

On that level, I agree with you. The Omen is far and away a better made movie than most "faith=based" films. Low-budget Christian films made in the 70's, huh? Are you referring to something like A Thief in the Night? I know that more by reputation. I have vague memories of seeing one of those types of movies in my church sometime in the late 70's/early 80's. All I recall is a scene in which one character takes another character's bible and throws it into a fire.

[Paul MacLean]

Anyway, I'll offer a third opinion on The Omen vs. The Exorcist based on their religious appeal. I'm a Protestant and prefer The Exorcist which I find to be much more thoughtful and intelligent in its treatment of spiritual themes. It's been more than a year since I last watched it yet I m still thinking about it. The Omen movies, on the other hand, while entertaining as thrillers, seem like they were written by someone who never bothered reading the Bible before they wrote the script.

While I agree The Omen is more of a basic thriller -- and not as scary than The Exorcist -- I still prefer the former over the latter. Yes, The Exorcist is arguably a more polished film, and has the credibility of being based (however loosely) on a true story.

But the ending of The Exorcist makes no sense to me. Karras sacrifices himself to save Regan -- but how does killing himself appease the devil? Satan wants wants everyone to suffer. The devil would not be a "good sport" and swap Regan for Karras. He'd continue to torment her. Moreover, if Karras is a believing man of faith, his spirit will ascent to Heaven upon death -- and out of the devil's clutches. Hardly a win for the kingdom of darkness.

My other misgiving with The Exorcist is that it depicts Satan and the demonic kingdom as a virtually undefeatable foe, as the priests endlessly hurl holy water and chant "the power of Christ compels you!" to almost no effect. In scripture, the casting out of demons -- provided one has faith (and exercises -- exercises, not exorcises!) authority in Christ -- is a merely a matter of commanding them "In Jesus' name come out of him." The Gospels record the disciples expressing their wonder to Jesus "Even the demons submit to your name".

The persistent inability of the priests to cast out pizuzu actually resembles the false exorcists in the book of Acts, who had no relationship with (and therefor no authority in) Christ -- and were thus beaten bloody by the possessed man, after they tried to cast out the demons "in the name of Christ whom Paul preaches".

Basically I find The Exorcist to be the work of people who don't understand demonic possession. Of course, I concede that an accurate depiction of demonic possession and exorcism would probably make for a much duller film.

[AndyDursin]

DAMIEN OMEN II

On this viewing of the 1978 sequel I tried to pay some more attention to what sequences Mike Hodges directed. And, yes, it's true that the scenes in the military academy -- especially those involving Lance Henriksen -- have a different, more patient and ominous vibe than the rest of the film. They do seem to have a sense of discovery and eerieness that the rest of the film -- the work of journeyman (hack?) director Don Taylor -- doesn't contain.

The rest of this movie...I confess I like its energy and I find it entertaining, but man is this movie nasty. And DOWNBEAT. In a way neither the first or the third films are. There's a real nastiness in this film and not a single moment of levity to break it up. Every "good" character is dispatched in a horrendous manner. There's no light at the end of the tunnel for Holden or his actual son -- and the way in which the characters die are often hysterical in their explicitness. Like the woman in the red dress who not only gets blinded but then mauled by the truck! I'm sorry but between that and Mesach Taylor's death in the elevator DAMIEN takes the cake as the most unpleasant film of this trio.

The worst part though is the fumbled element involving Damien learning he's the Anti-Christ. The sequence where he realizes his nature is well handled with Goldsmith's music blaring and the character running through an autumnal scene near Lake Michigan -- but moments later it's over. He knows he's the Anti-Christ, he's fine with it...and that's it. We're on our way to the next subplot. There's no tension there, there's no development of Damien's relationship with the Thorns so there's no EMOTIONAL impact on that level. The movie just keeps throwing plot at you instead, and misses what should've been the key dramatic transition of the entire trilogy in so far as its previously "innocent anti-hero" now just throwing nasty looks at his victims and dispatching them like any other movie villain (how does he even know enough to kill the plant manager who's trying to get in contact with Holden?)

It's a better movie than THE FINAL CONFLICT, I'll grant that -- but in some ways, especially conceptually, it's also not as interesting. It's a strict, almost rote formula reworking of the first film saddled with a screenplay that's not nearly on the same level. The dialogue and story construction in this sequel just doesn't measure up. And all the stuff about Thorn Industries getting involved with famine and the politics involved with the Foxworth character -- it's just not very compelling.

A mixed bag for me, but one that does leave you with the sense a more meaningful and intelligent probing of this subject could've been on the docket if Hodges had gotten along with Harvey Bernhard. The best version of this story was the one that undoubtedly got axed after he got fired.

[Eric Paddon]

I give credit to "Damien" for pulling off what could have seemed like an impossible feat and that's maintaining a reasonable aura of continuity with the first film despite the fact that other than Leo McKern's unbilled cameo at the beginning (no one's ever explained why he was unbilled in both films) no one returns from the first film. When a new cast manages to sell that, I think that is a plus. But the story is indeed just a series of set piece horror moments not tied to a compelling storyline of discovery as the first film was, and only if things were being set up for a truly great third film (the involvement of Thorn Industries in feeding the world was sort of tied into what they wanted to go with in the next film as I recall, and also Foxworth's character was supposed to appear again in the next film as well. He is referred to without being seen in "Final Conflict"). In a way, it's kind of like "Jaws 2" in that it's entertaining but its just rehashing the first film's set pieces to more horrific effect.

Trivia note. The doomed Elizabeth Shepard was the first actress cast as Emma Peel on "The Avengers" and got fired after filming half of an episode paving the way for Diana Rigg.

[AndyDursin]

I give credit to "Damien" for pulling off what could have seemed like an impossible feat and that's maintaining a reasonable aura of continuity with the first film despite the fact that other than Leo McKern's unbilled cameo at the beginning (no one's ever explained why he was unbilled in both films) no one returns from the first film.

No one has figured it out, but my guess is it was a monetary thing. Some people noted you could get paid more union wise with an unbilled cameo back then versus getting promoted, acknowledged billing. Plus if he was THAT embarrassed by appearing in a horror movie like The Omen, you'd have expected he wouldn't have returned for the 2nd film.

I do think there was somewhere in the Shout extras where somebody mentioned that he was pissed by the treatment of Mike Hodges so he didn't want to get credit (doesn't explain why he didn't take credit on the 1st one though).

[AndyDursin]

Ian Hendry was also not credited in II, which I recall was how it came up in one of those interviews that he and McKern were angry that Hodges was fired from the movie, and didn't want their names on it. (So they say)

[Eric Paddon]

In terms of narrative plot holes between the first and second film, there is only one that doesn't seem to make sense from my standpoint. How did Leo McKern get the daggers back after Peck was gunned down trying to kill Damien?

Of course I'll note that the third film commits an even bigger faux paus regarding the daggers, so much that it ended up spawning a paperback follow-up "Omen IV" in the mid-80s building off it. The first two films establish that Damien can only be killed if he is stabbed by all seven daggers. The third film he is done in by just one dagger and it is suggested throughout the entire film that one is all that it takes.

[Eric Paddon]

I revisited the original tonight for the first time in 2-3 years I think. Again, I'm struck by how depicting the "beginning of the end" in a realistic atmosphere is what makes it so chilling from my standpoint. I will agree that had they only employed some stronger religious technical consultants who could have provided a little more underlying Biblical authenticity, the film would have been near flawless. A more authentic piece of Scripture than the made-up quote by Patrick Troughton would have been better (or at least specifically identifying it as an apocryphal quote rather than implying it's from Revelation) and this time, seeing it for the first time on a large screen, I think the scene with Bugenhagen is too short. We should have seen him giving more exposition to Peck and Warner explaining how he has these daggers and what his role has been. I can see where he comes off more as a too convenient dues ex machina plot device.

I find I can't listen to Donner's commentaries, because the man is so off-putting the way he basically from the outset tries to take the line that suggests everything is just coincidental ultimately. In short, those who approach the film because it touches on a potential spiritual reality are basically gullible idiots. That's why I find myself preferring Bosco's commentary which at least has the saving grace of acknowledging the religious underpinnings and manages to stay detached for the most part.