|
Directed by: John Moore Starring: Liev Schrieber, Julia Stiles I caught a free sneak of this tonight and I thought it was terrible. There were a couple scenes that made me jump and some really creepy images, but most of the movie consisted of poo poo coming out of nowhere and trying to scare you (especially random dogs). Julia Stiles was terrible, no surprise there, but I actually was a bit surprised that the kid wasn't as creepy as I thought he was going to be. He was more weird than scary, and didn't really do anything in the movie to make me go "wow that kid is really loving creepy". The rest of the cast was decent as at best. The horror fell flat on way too many occassions for me to consider grading this movie anywhere over a 1.5. In fact I'm only really giving it a two because of the dream sequences and a few other sequences where I felt pretty scared. RATING: 1.5 PROS: Some scary moments/images CONS: Awful script, terrible acting from Julia Stiles and the little boy, more laughable than horrifying at times ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0466909/ Vernacular fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jun 6, 2006 |
#
?
Jun 6, 2006 11:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
This movie was awful, one of the worst I've ever seen. It's one of the very few where I've felt cheated out of my money. The director was awful. Subtlety is not a word in his vocabulary. The movie constantly beats you over the head with awful orchestral crescendos and hamfisted symbolism, in which you'll see a dog, skull, 666 or (evil symbol)in nearly every scene for very little reason. (I.E. the skull and crossbones in the hospital room.) The soundtrack was filled with grating, YOU SHOULD BE SCARED NOW BECAUSE THE MUSIC IS BUILDING campy B-movie fare music. The movie constantly resorts to cheap scares in dream sequences, using loud noises accompanied with the tried and true formula of "thing comes out of loving nowhere." The acting is very wooden and forced, and the characters are one-dimensional. Damien does little more than stare into space and scream the whole movie. The setting and plot jump around so much that I just felt disjointed from the whole experience. The plot jumped around way too quickly, while still managing to go nowhere for the first 4/5ths of the movie, which was essentially "Hey look, this boy is prophesized to be the son of the devil! Look at all this gradeschool symbolism and overt direction I'm using to point out that he's evil! But is he really evil?!? Stay tuned to find out!" About 15 minutes into the movie I was rolling my eyes. 30 minutes in and I was shaking my head. After an hour it was painful to sit through, but I endured to the end to see if perhaps the ending was changed and Damien would be slain, because I was loving sick of that kid's vacant stare and shrill shreiking at the end of two hours. Terrible, terrible movie. 0.5
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2006 08:41
|
|
|
My take on the movie is a little lighter than the 2 previous posters. The flashes on the screen of sixes (at least I think they were actually on the screen) had me looking at all times to pick up on things in the movie. But anywho, I'm going to rank the movie on several different things. Acting: Terrable. I felt that Julia and Lievs charactsrs could not have possibly loved eachother. Each time they kissed it looked forced. I didn't by any chemistry. Character Development: I kept getting confused about the characters making different decisions. Ex: Liev's character believing, then suddenly not believeing that his son is actualy the spawn of satan Suspense: Good. I felt my heart beating like mad during the air bubble in the IV scene The dogs were uneeded, but the constant jumps in the movie kept me interested. Horror: Not really I felt that the movie was overall enjoyable. I wouldn't pay to see it again, but I'm glad I saw it once. I also think that the movie would be much better if you have NOT seen the origional, otherwise you'll know all the twists and turns. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2006 01:00
|
|
|
This was the most obvious case of pushing a movie out solely to cash in on the release date (6/6/06). This was apparently why the script was almost identical to the original. The only reason I enjoyed going to this movie was cracking jokes with my girlfriend, who thought it was pretty terrible too, even though it was her idea to see it. I haven't seen a more unnecessary and pointless movie in a long time. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2006 22:07
|
|
|
Having never seen the original, I can say I really enjoyed the movie. Not a masterpiece by any means, but I can't really understand why everyone is being so harsh on it. I thought the movie was genuinely creepy, even if it did rely on cheap scares. It was a good popcorn movie, pure and simple. My opinion may change when I see the original, however. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2006 06:49
|
|
|
Throughout the entire movie I couldn't help but feel like I was drowning in heavyhanded metaphor. I enjoyed the use of red initially, but it just got old as the movie went on. I kept waiting for a twist, a turn, anything to keep me interested, but until the ending where you learn that he's the President's godson I was incredibly disappointed at how obvious the movie was. I've never seen the original, but I want to just to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Hey look, some more symbolism: .666/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2006 04:57
|
|
|
I just didn't understand why the movie needed remade.Having seen the original, and thought that as a B-movie, it was just fine, and the heavy metaphors/other cheesiness just added to the camp of watching a B-movie. It seriously came off as a sheer marketing ploy because of 6/6/06, and not an attempt to make a good movie. Plus, I think the late 80's and the early 90's kind of killed the Apocalyptic/Antichrist theme, and there aren't too many ways you can get creative with that, since its in the Bible. (sorry for the slight derail there)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2006 05:00
|
|
|
I found the remake to be pathetic. They basically took an entertaining old thriller and removed every bit of acting ability, drama, and, well, everything that made the original good. I can not put enough emphasis into this advice: See the original, don't even think of seeing the remake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2006 20:34
|
|
|
rosebud posted:I found the remake to be pathetic. They basically took an entertaining old thriller and removed every bit of acting ability, drama, and, well, everything that made the original good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2006 13:40
|
|
|
Blah, I thought I had seen the original going in to this but realized that the movie I saw before was in fact The Exorist. Either way, this movie sucked. I kept laughing at all the wrong parts and tried desperately to find the scary in this movie but failed. At least I had something to do on 6/6/06. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2006 21:47
|
|
|
Was I the only person that really enjoyed this film? It was legitimately scary, far scarier than the other horror movies I have seen this year. I actually enjoyed the cheesy plot, and was very pumped throughout the movie. One of the scariest of the year. And you've got to forgive horror movies for their obvious faults, scaring you is their primary objective, and that is typically what I look for first in a horror movie. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2006 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
This movie was not scary or interesting in the least bit, I can't really tell you why. All the kid does in the movie is stare out into the audience, somehow the director wants you to think this is scary? I am glad I didn't pay to watch this movie. I hear the original movie is much better. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2006 10:26
|
|