The Omen came out during the decade in which Hollywood’s secret obsession with the devil was laid bare for everyone to see with other big films like The Exorcist garnering lots of attention. Despite being one of the most famous movies involving the devil or the antichrist, I think The Omen is just okay. It has its moments and is well-acted, but there are a few things that get in its way. Regardless, it’s remembered fondly by most and has spawned numerous sequels and a remake, so it only makes sense to go back to the poisoned well once more and make a prequel, right?

For those who don’t know, The First Omen is a story that leads right up to the events of the original movie. However, the real question is, does it deserve to exist? If you have seen the first five minutes of The Omen and know what the original film is about, then you know enough to predict how The First Omen will end. If somehow you have no idea what The Omen is about, you could potentially watch The First Omen without necessarily knowing what the film is building towards, though I’m not convinced you would not find it to be as predictable and dull as I did. So, you can choose to walk away now, or keep reading…

Pros

Makeup and practical effects look good
Some decent acting from some of the cast
Surprisingly graphic in some places that manage to make the scenes more shocking

Cons

Dull, predictable plot
Slow pacing in the beginning
Acting from some of the cast is not great
Continuity and logic do not always make sense
Weird tonal shifts and odd soundtrack choices
Underusage of Charles Dance

Plot & Thoughts

Before we get into this movie, let’s just provide the context of the original to paint the prequel picture. The Omen was about a prominent American couple who adopted a son after their baby allegedly died during the childbirth process. Their adopted son, Damien, is actually the antichrist and the plot of The Omen revolves around the father uncovering the satanic plot while horrific things happen around him. Just with that little amount of information, you should be able to guess what The First Omen is about and building towards.

After an opening scene that includes a cameo of Charles Dance informing Father Brennan (Ralph Ineson) of the satanic sect of the Catholic Church that has managed to impregnate a follower with the evil seed, who then successfully gave birth to a girl destined to bear the antichrist, the film shifts focus to a young American girl in Rome who is preparing to take her vows and become a nun. She is Margaret (Nell Tiger Free) and she has some anxieties about everything, including social interactions. Nonetheless, she is a caring individual who wants to help whomever she can, including the young problem child Carlita (Nicole Sorace) at the local orphanage run by the church. The longer she stays there, the more creepy things start happening, including one person performing a throwback suicide that is very similar to one of the iconic deaths in the original Omen—because we have to reference the other movie for that little bit of nostalgia, right?

In the original film, Damien is already born and we as the audience are privy to information the protagonist has to eventually uncover. We as the audience know Damien is the antichrist, so the fear and enjoyment of that movie is watching its hero progress through the mysteries of who Damien is, where he came from, and what happened to the main character’s real son while encountering some horrific events along the way. The First Omen’s mystery is more focused on who is the girl that was mentioned in the opening scene and how will she come to be the mother of Damien. If you’re paying attention to any of the dialogue, you know those answers in the first thirty minutes, despite the film’s best efforts to distract you with some red herrings.

Aside from a few cool, creepy moments, like the scene in which Margaret witnesses a birth, The First Omen is not a good film. It moves at a slow pace. It doesn’t make its mystery anything less than predictable and it feels like things are being drawn out deliberately. There are moments that have continuity issues or just allow characters to get away with actions that don’t make sense. It has characters that seem to lack sufficient brain matter to think logically, which is funny when you consider how the scene with Charles Dance ends. It’s a movie that will inevitably fall out of my head sooner rather than later. In fact, when this review comes out it will likely be instrumental in me remembering anything that happens in it besides a scene in which a nun looks like she’s about to hardcore dance in front of a crashed car. No, I’m not going to provide more context.

One of the things I got hung up on was the main antagonistic motivation for birthing the antichrist in the first place. This sort of thing is usually not much of an issue because we just assume there are some crazy cultists out there who would worship the devil, so an explanation of their motivation rarely felt necessary. In this instance, it’s not simply that there are Satan worshippers out there who want to bring about the end of the world in the name of Lucifer. It’s supposed to be a portion of the Catholic Church with the intent to control the antichrist as a means to create enough chaos that will drive people back to the church.

Why go to such lengths? Well, since this movie takes place in the 1970s, which was a decade in which secularism started to take off, the Catholic Church wanted to make sure they didn’t lose their flock, and there was no better way to get them back than with an antichrist at their beck and call. When the term ‘antichrist’ is thrown around, I don’t tend to think of anyone being able to control it, let alone a bunch of bishops and priests who want to use him to make people believe in God again. Maybe I missed something, but I’d need a better explanation than what the movie gave me to understand this. Why not just have the backstory be that the church has long been infested with Satanists who have been growing in number and are finally going to make their move with the conditions finally being ideal? That’s a simpler plot that is easier to accept.

Regardless of who makes up the group of Satanists, The First Omen is less like the original film and more like Rosemary’s Baby with how its story is told. If you’ve seen Rosemary’s Baby, you’ll be able to make the connections. Like Rosemary, Margaret is new to her environment, timid, and socially anxious towards those around her. She comes to learn that there might be something involving the devil going on and that people whom she trusts or likes might be in on it. She doesn’t know who to trust and becomes more unstable as she encounters more horrific events and visions until finally a demon baby is born. Even though I think Rosemary’s Baby is a slightly overrated film, it still does its paranoia and mystery a hell of a lot better than The First Omen. What this review is really saying is just watch The Omen and Rosemary’s Baby if you want movies that are about the antichrist, and watch The Exorcist if you want a horror movie that is better than the rest that came out during that era.

TL;DR

The First Omen not only does not manage to justify its existence, but it manages to rip off another famous horror film about the antichrist that did everything better. It’s a slow, dull experience with the occasional jump scare or creepy image that stands out. The rest of the time, it feels like I’m watching a crappy cover band poorly play the greatest hits from other bands that are past their prime. It’s not overly long, but it’s still not worth your time.

Dagon Dogs Posts