Maybe he was hoping for a big musical number, a la The Producers -- "Springtime for the Anti-Christ in Jerusalem..."

Fair enough. I liked it immensely and thought that all involved did a nice job. It spooked me in all the right places.

And that would have been appropiate in 1976. You know, when this shit was still sort of scary and original.

Dan, two things...

I think you're confusing good direction with good art direction in this film. Yeah, some of it was gorgeous to look at it (you know, when Moore would keep the camera still and wouldn't cut every two seconds), but it was mostly because of the beautiful and surreal art direction/set design. For example, the scene in Father Brennan's room with the bible pages pasted on the walls looks great, but it's not because of Moore.

I can't believe you were honestly scared by this film at any point. I just can't. Everytime it attempted to be scary, it was ruined by atrocious editing or shrill noise.

Beyond the putrid job Moore did bringing this thing in, I didn't even like the art direction. Consider their elaborately decorated house; there is no way a young couple would want to live in a place decorated like that. The living room looked like a museum in Colonial Williamsburg. Damien's room was so fucking ugly...yeesh, that wallpaper. The movie felt stuck in a time warp, because everyone involved was too lazy and/or stupid to update the damn movie. The entire thing was silly, silly, silly.

I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it either. The direction was interesting and I liked the atmospheric feel to it, but I also though it felt a bit too campy at times, kind of like it got stuck in limbo. The chld actor was more humerous then effective, everytime he appeared on screen with his grins, the entire audience erupted in laughter.

The death scenes, personally, reminded me way too much of Final Destination, specifically the last installment in that series, though the gore was well done. A lot of the film felt like a ploy though, the release date, everything being red, the opening credits with their upside down crosses and "6"'s.

Like I said it was an enjoyable movie but nothing spectacular at all.

B-

We all make mistakes.

re: The Grudge

I'm still not sure why this is such a big deal to you. Considering I didn't step foot in a movie theater until 1990 or so, I don't exactly have the cream of the crop in horror to pick from when it comes to theatrical viewing. The Grudge might have been the scariest film I ever saw in a theater, but it wouldn't even crack my top twenty scariest films of all time.

I think it's funny because of how utterly terrible it. It's like a hardcore fan of classic comedy saying Mr. Deeds is the funniest movie he's seen in a movie theater.

It wasn't terrible. At all. But, whatever.

Seriously though, I didn't start actively seeing horror films in theaters until around 1996. So, I've had roughly ten years of horror viewing in theaters, and those ten years have been some of the worst in horror history.

If this imaginary hardcore fan of classic comedy had a ten year, below average pool to pick from, Mr. Deeds wouldn't be too bad of a choice.

At least, not bad enough to warrant someone brining it up in virtually every thread the hardcore comedy fan posts in.

Tell me, what's the scariest film you've seen in theaters? No re-releases allowed, either.

Mr. Deeds is a much better comedy than The Grudge is a horror...

Actually scared? I don't know. I've jumped, but I don't get particularly creeped out often. Probably The Ring, which I saw at a 1 p.m. show opening day before there was any kind of hype towards it.

I don't get creeped out much, either. It's not as if The Grudge was some sort of scarring experience I'll never return from and still have nightmares about to this day. In the moment, it was scary. That's all.

Good pick on The Ring, though. I can't say I was scared while watching it (I saw it opening night, too), but it stuck with me.

The Grudge is a much better comedy than Mr. Deeds is.

Too true. I've never heard so much inappropriate laughter as at my regretable screening of The Grudge...

I will never understand all of the Grudge hatred. I didn't love it buy any means, but it wasn't this horrible movie that you all make it out to be. I saw it in theaters, and people were genuinely scared.
It wasn't even like it got bad WOM and fell horribly. It opened to 39mil (which shocked pretty much everyone), it increased on Sat (2%, but still) and then it managed to have a 2.8+ mult and finish with 110mil. After the opening weekend everyone was like "this is going to be the highest opener to not get 100mil", and then when it fell 44% its 2nd weekend everyone was like "well, it was Halloween, it will collapse next weekend". Then it had a better hold and only fell 42%.
It's RT score was 44%, not great, but not horrible either. It got a 5.8 at IMDB, a 49 at metacritic, none of which screams "worst movie ever made".

Dr.Malcolm, Your alright in my Book, but as your friend, as your buddy, facts are the facts and the fact is, is that The GRUDGE was horrible.. It was.. You wanna talk about it some more??

It wasn't.. bad. I've seen far worse. Technically fairly solid... but I don't know, the crowd in the theatre and myself keep on laughing at the supposedly creepy moments... I don't think the filmmakers intended this to be THAT funny. Deaths were elaborate (yet predictable, even for people who probably have never seen the original), score is thriller-ish but sometimes too bombastic, acting borders between wooden and confused - only Mia Farrow (LOVE HER!), David Thewlis, Michael Gambon, and Kobayashi seem to be getting the film they signed up for. The main problem with Damian is that for a Spawn of Satan and a Jackal Bitch, he's pretty passive and pouty (he has thick lower lips!) Hehe, I must admit, those 2 or 3 quick dream sequences did surprise me.

C

Scariest film I've ever seen in theaters is Open Water. It scared the shit out of me as I have a very real phobia of sharks.

some comments on the Omen remake..... overall it was OK and fun to see on the big screen.

* as some asked, why re-make it..........because the other one is 30 years old and this one brought the same great story to the screen and if you saw the BO #'s lots of people into the theater.

* as no one has mentioned yet > Anyone know if a sequel has been set up yet. As they seem to be coping the same story-line as in 1 & 2 > wonder if #2 will also be a copy job or will it be a new story. They seem to be leading there with the President taking in Damien.

* on this movie, big deal that it didn't go for the 2000 horror effect > they had alot of people jumping in the theater with those couple of dream scenes and the visions that Julia Stilles saw.

* Like the one scene of how he trapped the dog in the basement.

* Of course, since it was a kid, they couldn't even stick one of the kinives in him > I was hoping that he would be I knew that he wouldn't make it.

* Mia Farrow was very good > hint people > Rosemary's Baby

* he was sure lucky to find the 666 right away on the kid's head - what a lucky hollywood guess.

* The kid was horrible but his main job was just to stand there and do nothing but try to look creepy.

* I wish that the kid didn't speak to the father at the end > I would have liked it better if he didn't speak at all and only did the creepy smile at the end.

that is just some small stuff on seeing this.

*******************************************

Question on the way that the movie was made.

* With how the photographer, ambassador and priest were killed, how come the mother and father couldn't have been killed in a more super-natural way by that evil entity. That would have been sureer and easier > especially with the feelings the mother was having and then the father wanting the kid dead after hearing the mother died.

* If there is a devil then isn't there a god > would the devil have been able to kill the priest on the church land > locking the church door from the inside, breaking that piece which lead to the impaling the priest. Just seems wierd that the Devil could do that in God's church. I just would have liked it to have happened outside the gate and church property.

I thought it was ok, very borderline for me but I think the good (barely) outweighs the bad. Great look to it, Mia Farrow was deliciously evil but didn't turn it into complete camp, some pretty good "jump" scenes, entertaining death scenes (though I agree with them being a tad too Final Destination-ish) and decent suspense buildup through-out. I liked the dream sequences too, actually thought the second one was really happening for awhile, though I couldn't figure out who the hell has a bathroom like that or why they would want it. The bad, well, there are a number of unintentional laughs, Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles have zippo chemistry, too many "and furthermore, your son also is the devil because..." scenes, and that ridiculous opening sequence with the pope and his cronies viewing footage of recent disasters and quoting Bible verses to explain why the devil caused it or whatnot. Oh and at the end when Schreiber was racing to the church, it looked very much like a car commercial. But still, at this point I think I'll give it a B-, though I plan on watching the original soon and that may change my opinion about this one. As for the kid, I'm neither here or there. He didn't bother me or wow me, though I was confused as to why he was basically a mute.

Think it was a creepy effect - and anyway, even if he spoke, they probably wouldn't have been able to come up with anything that would have been scary enough for him to say.

There was no point in the film that was actually scary, but the film is genuinely creepy throughout. It's an exact replica of the original, but I thought it was pretty great.

B+

BJs Grade:

C-

film was crap.

C

Mediocre and predictable remake. It brought nothing new. I was disapointed.