MovieChat Forums > The First Omen (2024) Discussion > Good film but has problems (spoilers)

Good film but has problems (spoilers)

posted 8 months ago by Melton (4723)
14 replies | jump to latest

This was a very well directed and acted prequel. Nell Tiger Free is great as the protagonist and Ralph Ineson ROCKS - that guy’s voice is pure power, plus he looks like Father Brennan from the first film, superb casting.

The creepiest aspect is the ‘friendly’ roommate who turns out to be utterly devious, it had shades of Rosemary’s Baby in that sense.

Overall it’s an effective horror and worth seeing in the cinema for the gorgeous 35mm photography which apes 70’s film aesthetic, and the meticulous and powerful sound design.

What holds it back is, as usual, the woke factor. Our heroine births two children - Damien is obviously the antichrist and she tries to kill him, but she also births a girl who seems to be being set up as his opposite number. Male = evil, female = good 🤦🏻‍♂️

Added to this, our heroine, despite being a child of Satan herself bearing the 666 mark and birthing the antichrist, is ultimately portrayed as good. As is her ‘sister’ from the nunnery. So we end up with 3 women out to defeat the evil male.

She’s also tough-as-nails and wielding a rifle at the end in their girl-power-cabin, pushing Father Brennan around.

Finally, the film rather awkwardly retcons the first film in which Damien is born of a Jackal. In this, he is born of a woman, and Satan appears as a jackal-like demon who rapes her, and assuming the jackal actually is Satan… it doesn’t look great or particularly terrifying.

The new motive behind Damien’s creation - evil clergy wanting to scare people back to church - is also less creepy than the original implications, and has shades of anti-Christian wokism.

So while this film is decent and worth watching, it has a nasty dollop of woke, and the inevitable prequel-sequels are almost certainly going to ramp up the woke and drop the quality. I hope I’m wrong but I think we all know where this is going…

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 months ago

Don't forget Fr. Brennan being deprived of his mark, his witnessing of the birth, his struggle with faith, his status as a condemned soul, his cancer, and his fear of the supernatural power using happenstance and accident to coordinate Damien's rise.

Great actors, wonderful film work, great locations, and perfect costumes are betrayed by a script that seems to have forgotten to watch the original movie.

reply

[–] Melton (4723) 8 months ago

Presumably most of that emerges between the end of FO and when we meet Brennan in O?

reply

[–] [deleted] 8 months ago

They're banking on that which is dumb. I gave the movie a 3/5 for the film work and acting. But the writing completely missed the mark.

reply

[–] Martoto (5049) 8 months ago

The notion that the son of Satan is evil is mandated by biblical convention. God sent his son, the Christ. Satan sends his son, the antichrist. To attribute those circumstances established millennia ago by the early Christians who invented them to current day "wokeness" is absurd.

reply

[–] Melton (4723) 8 months ago

OK. Who is doing that?

reply

[–] Martoto (5049) 8 months ago

What holds it back is, as usual, the woke factor. Our heroine births two children - Damien is obviously the antichrist and she tries to kill him, but she also births a girl who seems to be being set up as his opposite number. Male = evil, female = good 🤦🏻‍♂️

So either the bible is woke for making the son of satan evil. Or the fifty year old novel where Damien was created, and the near fifty year old movie that made it famous, is woke. Or this movie is woke because the daughter of the woman forced to carry satan's son isn't also evil...

Do you know what these kind of complaints sound like to others who haven't invested in being "anti-woke" as their whole personality. They sound like those really annoying kids who complain when they don't also get a gift when it's someone else's birthday.

reply

[–] Melton (4723) 8 months ago

Absolute strawman bullshit, you’re an obvious wokist rewriting what I’ve said to gaslight readers into thinking there’s no woke to see here.

The movie is woke for the reasons I’ve explained, your straw reinterpretation of my words is not necessary.

Trying to portray yourself as sane, or any kind of spokesperson for ‘others’ is hilarious, you’re another woke cultist fucking nutcase on a gaslighting mission.

reply

[–] Martoto (5049) 8 months ago

I'm quoting you numnutz.

reply

[–] Melton (4723) 8 months ago

You quoted one of three paragraphs explaining the wokeness of the film, and then you’re reinterpreting it through your straw-filter to criticise points I never made. You’re not fooling anyone, ya woke lying sack of shit.

reply

[–] Martoto (5049) 8 months ago

First you say I rewrote what you said and now you are admitting that it's a quote but not of your whole post. So you're not ashamed to be a proven liar. Cool.

I quoted the first part only because your argument is fundamentally and demonstrably a load of bollocks. Damien has been a boy since the character was created fifty years. So how the fuck can that be the basis of your thesis that this "woke" and ruins the film? You're just an amateur troll.

It would be like complaining that Pontius Pilate is a man reviled for crucifying Jesus and Mary Magdalene is revered despite being a whore because of wokeness.

reply

[–] Melton (4723) 8 months ago

No, you quoted a fragment of my argument about the wokeness of the film and then reinterpreted it through your straw filter, ya lying sack of shit.

You’re too dumb to pull off the sophistry you’re attempting, and doubling down just makes you look like an even bigger prick.

reply

[–] johnmiller (3940) 6 months ago

Regardless of why they decided on it, actually working to birth the Anti-Christ just so they can get people back into church is REALLY nuts! I have zero idea how that is exactly supposed to work. A bizarre plot device that made me stop mentally in my tracks watching the film.

That they have two children, one a positive and one a negative is actually fine with me. It at least gives a reason to tune in to any future installments. It's a feature directed by a woman, so I am not surprised that it had the elements that it did. But, I thought that it was an effective thriller. Considering how 2006's remake was such a wreck, I am glad that this film worked as well as it did.

reply

[–] simone21 (21) 6 months ago

Maybe one deranged priest might be delusional enough to think devising a plan to birth the Anti-Christ so we can fill up the churches again is a great idea. But a whole lot of them agreeing to this where murder and rape, etc is justified because we're trying to fill up churches to preach against things like murder, rape,etc is beyond NUTS.

reply

[–] johnmiller (3940) 6 months ago

Yeah, like I said, my brain just came to a stop at this and it took me out of the movie, for sure. But, there were genuine chills in this movie, which I find quite rare in today's films. So, a writing problem here, not a directing problem.

reply