?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
Previous | Share | Next
 
Hoc Est Qui Sumus
discoflamingo
08 June 2006 @ 12:20 am
Omen 666? Urgh  
Liev Schreiber? You're no Gregory Peck. You come close, but you don't have the gusto. B for effort.

Julia Stiles? The nanny who's in the movie for a grand total of 80 seconds out-acted you. By a lot. Her shoe dropping into the punch bowl is a better method actor.

And little kid who plays Damien? Looking like you have to take a crap is not the same as being evil.

Watch the original. Only the effects are better in this one, and even then, that's not what it was about.
 
7 comments | Leave a comment
 
 
7 comments —
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
nettnessbondchick_nett on June 8th, 2006 06:22 am (UTC)
So. Um. The plot is EXACTLY THE SAME? And Julia Stiles dies after all?
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
(Anonymous) on June 9th, 2006 03:36 am (UTC)
Indeed. And Indeed. Not worth it, in my opinion.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Hoc Est Qui Sumusdiscoflamingo on June 9th, 2006 03:37 am (UTC)
Er, what I said. ;-P
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
nettnessbondchick_nett on June 9th, 2006 03:49 am (UTC)
*giggles*

Wow, so I will definitely giving that a miss. Or downloading it and watching it that way.. >_>;;

How disappointing. I guess I couldn't really expect them to change it, though, could I?

*sighs*
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
elfdope on June 8th, 2006 11:40 pm (UTC)
I pretty much agree, but you do realize that the nanny is played by Rosemary. You know as in she had a baby, it was Satan's, so now she's Satan's Baby's Mama. That would be Mia Farrow.

My thoughts were that the character roles were played better in the new one, but that you just can't beat Gregory Peck (Liev did an OK job, but c'mon those are some serious size 15 Jordan's to fill).

Also making the kid older while understandable didn't help the movie in any way.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
Hoc Est Qui Sumusdiscoflamingo on June 9th, 2006 03:38 am (UTC)
Not the second nanny - the first one, who is on-screen just long enough to kill herself. Mia Farrow was pretty damn good - just not particularly compelling enough for my six sentence blurb.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
elfdope on June 9th, 2006 04:26 am (UTC)
Mia Farrow was chillingly awesome. I guess my biggest problem with your review is that I don't understand what you were expecting. Just based on the cast, and preview alone I was expecting as follows:

The first nanny was kind of cool, but she had an easy, and fun, fun part.

A pretty by rote remake (nothing really looked changed from the preview except the boys age).

Liev would do OK, but would pale in comparison to Peck.

Stiles would most likely suck, because well she isn't that great of an actress. I was disappointed that I didn't see more of her in the bathroom scenes.

Mia could be awesome, and the character actors were all some of my favorites.

My big worries were direction, and the handling of the kid. The kid really blew goats. The direction/cinematography was quite good.

Basically its about 80-90% of the original's quality which is still pretty damn good. The problem is that outside of Mia, noone really was awesome enough to justify its existence. The only reason it does exist is to make money, which it probably will.

Basically I would recommend it to anyone wanting to watch a horror film. I mean really what are they going to go see "See No Evil". I just wouldn't strongly recommend.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)