119 min
6.877
2024
USA
When a young American woman is sent to Rome to begin a life of service to the church, she encounters a darkness that causes her to question her own faith and uncovers a terrifying conspiracy that hopes to bring about the birth of evil incarnate.
Overview
Reviews
Manuel São Bento wrote:FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/the-first-omen-review-a-must-watch/
"The First Omen holds many narrative issues and a too-safe ending, but it deserves to be seen on the big screen due to its grotesque practical effects, hauntingly well-built atmosphere, and one of the most impressive, transformative performances of the year by Nell Tiger Free.
Debutant filmmaker Arkasha Stevenson clearly leaves her mark on a technically sublime film that easily becomes the best installment of the franchise after the original movie.
Lead yourself into temptation and embrace the incarnated evil. You won't regret it."
Rating: B-
CinemaSerf wrote:Novice "Margaret" (Nell Tiger Free) arrives in Rome to a welcome from her cardinal sponsor "Lawrence" (Bill Nighy) where she hopes to complete taking her vows. She is greeted with open arms and taken on a tour of what she hopes will become her new home. This is when she encounters the shy "Carlita" (Nicole Sorace) who spends much of her time in solitude drawing. This intrigues "Margaret" but not as much as some of the other goings on in the maternity ward of the hospital. Her concerns are only exacerbated by a meeting with "Fr. Brennan" (Ralph Ineson) who spins her an horrific yarn that makes her head spin and sets her on a detection task that reveals a conspiracy to end all conspiracies - one that is conceived by the church for it's own perpetuation, but that could bring down both it and mankind. At times it's quite a decently paced watch, this, with a little gruesomeness (isn't it odd that the tools of medicine so often look like those of torture?) but given we have known the denouement since 1976 the lack of any real jeopardy does rather rob the film of much of a sense of menace and what "jump moments" there are are all a bit predictable. Free does try to imbue her character with a bit of passion, and she manages along well enough but Nighy is weak and the single appearance from Charles Dance adds nothing at all to these lacklustre proceedings. Prequels are always hard to deliver. This tries, but sadly we've seen it all before and I fear the nun theme is beginning to self-flagellate itself to death. A short story over-stretched.
MovieGuys wrote:The First Omen, like so many latter day spin offs, of well respected franchises, fails to understand what made the original films so successful.
I well remember the original Omen film and how it held me. Its intricate story, which chillingly displaced a sense of normalcy with a ever growing horror and otherworldly menace, was truly compelling.
By contrast. The First Omen lacks true progression and originality. For well over half the film, it is, in fact, rather dull. It does make vain attempts to utilises tropes and events of the earlier films but fails to develop a measurably meaningful, original narrative, to accompany them. Moreover, as other reviewers have stated, quite correctly, in my view, its safe ending does little to mitigate the overriding sense of cinematic malaise.
In summary, if you have never experienced the Omen franchise, don't start with this film. The original films are horror masterpieces, well worth your time. By contrast, this film will, I suspect, be remembered as a minor footnote with Omen fans, like myself and that's if its lucky.
Ritesh Mohapatra wrote:The First Omen" is a chilling and atmospheric horror film that effectively pays homage to the original which came out in 1976 while presenting a fresh and unsettling perspective, with standout performances and direction that will leave viewers on edge. The film's atmospheric tension, creepy moments, and effective storytelling makes is a worthwhile horror flick. Director Arkasha Stevenson's debut film impresses with its confident direction and storytelling, featuring a standout performance by Nell Tiger Free. She literally has given a performance to remember.The film's slow pace can irritate a few viewers, as well as the unexpected ending tying it to the original of 1976 can be questionable, but overall, the film shines in its ability to evoke a haunting atmosphere and deliver scares without relying on cheap jump scares or gimmicks. A worthy prequel.
whitsbrain wrote:This was shot and directed well and the way that Margaret's story was constructed early on was interesting. The movie is less appealing in its final act as it ushers in the arrival of the antichrist and tries to tie itself into the original **Omen** film. That film was made almost 50 years ago, and most modern moviegoers aren't going to appreciate the effort.
There aren't many jump scares in this, a couple of them occur early, but this doesn't really have any sustained scares, either. There are strange moments but nothing that will keep anyone from good night's sleep.
Dean wrote:It was alright. Not bad, but definitely not as good as previous omens. I think main problem was that first of all it was too stretched into 2 hours and almost whole movie was happening in once place - nunnery and basically movie lacked scenes in other places, which made it a bit boring to be honest. Wasn't scary. I think 6/10 is appropriate rating for this movie.
Dean wrote:It was alright. Not bad, but definitely not as good as previous omens. First of all, its story was short, but too stretched into 2 hours length & to be honest it felt like movie was very slow paced which made it a bit dull. Secondly, almost whole movie was happening in once place - nunnery and basically movie lacked scenes in other places, which made it a again dull and boring. Wasn't scary either. I think 6/10 is an appropriate rating for this movie.
TheSceneSnobs wrote:This movie was ultimately pointless. While it featured some cool visuals and interesting death scenes, it was overall very boring and failed to add anything significant to the lore of the franchise.
The film does have moments of visual flair, with certain scenes showcasing impressive special effects and creative cinematography. A major issue with the film is the way it handles its female characters. The writing falls into condescending tropes that undermine the potential for strong storytelling. Female characters are often depicted in stereotypical roles, diminishing their complexity and impact on the plot.
Additionally, the film attempts to delve into the Christian-based horror sub-genre, specifically exorcism themes, but falls short of creating genuine scares. Studios often struggle with making these films truly terrifying because they lack a deep understanding of the faith’s principles. The result is a portrayal that feels hollow and inauthentic.
One solution could be to hire screenwriters who are well-versed in Christian theology and culture to bring authenticity to the sub-genre. Marketing these films to a Christian audience might also prove interesting and create a more engaged viewer base. Authenticity in storytelling could transform the genre, making it more impactful and frightening.
As someone who does not identify as Christian, I can see the potential for more meaningful and scary films within this sub-genre if approached with respect and depth. The current approach, however, leaves much to be desired and feels disconnected from the true essence of the faith it seeks to portray.
Overall, while the movie offers some interesting visuals and death scenes, it ultimately fails to deliver a compelling or original story. The condescending portrayal of women and the hollow execution of Christian-based horror elements significantly detract from its potential. Studios need to rethink their approach to both character writing and genre-specific storytelling to create more engaging and authentic films.
Petercushing wrote:Why does the modern horror community settle for such mediocrity in film making? Don't be so lazy and settle for the usual unfulfilling, stereo typical Hollywood dreck such as this. There are so many fantastic indie horror movies being made out there.
GenerationofSwine wrote:I really don't see the point of making a prequel that retcons the original films. Hollywood does it all the time, and when you hear the creators it is always to own the fans in some way. As in: "this will anger the fans of the original"
I don't understand how they think it's a good idea given that the fans are the reason the movies are worth making sequels, prequels, and reboots of.
So they seem to intentionally NOT want the fans to see it, and then are always angered when the movies fail.
But sometimes it's because Hollywood hires people who proudly didn't see the source material and then don't require them to watch the source material.
In either case they always seem shocked when the movie fails.
I read the plot and... didn't see it until fate made me, and the reason I didn't see it is because they outright said what they retconed.
I'm not sure if it failed or not, but watching through it I couldn't help but think "Why rewrite the Omen? Why does my wife want to watch this?" and then when it was over "Well, yeah, I can understand why you don't like it honey, you're right, they changed too much."
kevin2019 wrote:"The First Omen" approaches the whole franchise in much the same way as George Lucas did with his "Star Wars" prequels (1999-2005). Lucas took some ideas which had only been hinted at in the dialogue and then he simply expanded upon them. The "Omen" film which emerges here using this same method has been superbly directed by Arkasha Stevenson and it does manage to create a particularly threatening atmosphere which is allowed to subtly develop from the very beginning and then it gradually comes to the forefront and eventually permeates everything by the end. The idea of a sinister conclave existing within the church and working its own agenda is a magnificent concept and it has been marvellously used here with deeply disturbing results. However, it is somewhat unfortunate this film also resembles "To The Devil A Daughter" (1976) at least in the beginning. This realisation hits home almost as soon as Margaret makes her first appearance on screen and the moment of revelation which comes much later on has no real impact at all because of it.
