Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Near Riot at 9-11 image used in Fox Remake of THE OMEN at New York Preview?

Hey folks, Harry here... Gaspode has sent in before - and when you read the hilarious Q&A account that he witnessed, I think you'll agree with me that you would have given anything to have been there at that moment. The description, "Some people start looking around for something to throw." is perhaps the funniest, yet scariest audience description that I have ever seen written about an advanced screening. Oddly enough - the review is a mixed-positive - where he feels if you haven't seen the original, it may work for you, but if you love the original you might want to hold off for the DVD.

After attending Fox’s New York press screening of The Omen this past Tuesday I was reminded of an old joke about the guy who went to a brawl only to have a hockey game break out. I’m sure studio execs were prepared to be slammed by die-hard horror fans, or even a bit of Da Vinci Code religious spillover, but I’m not sure that anybody, including director John Moore who showed up for a post-screening Q&A, was prepared to see the evening degenerate into a nasty shouting match after a shot of the burning World Trade Center towers was used in the film’s opening.

Let me set the stage for you. After a screening of The Omen, Fox had arranged a panel with Moore and Professor Michael White, director of the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins at the University of Texas. After the moderator began with a very long-winded intro about ‘speculative theology’ and the relationship between Hollywood and organized religion, he opened things up with a question about the current fascination with the Apocalypse. After a brief discussion, the panelists were interrupted by an audience member who asked, ‘Why did you think it was okay to use an image from 9-11 to manipulate the audience’s emotions in your horror movie?’

Moore’s response: ‘I can see your anger sir, I can see it from here, but let me answer the question you asked. What happened on 9-11 was a world event, I understand that it’s particularly sensitive to New Yorkers, and what happened on 9-11 deeply affected me also. I happened to be in America when it happened, and it left a lasting impression on my mind, and the impression that I had when it happened was that we were in a very dark time, and it seemed to me to be the beginning of a very dark series of events. That’s why I put it in the movie

Disgruntled New York Guy: It’s a good thing that the movie is such a piece of shit that nobody is going to see it!

Lots of loud groans. Some people start looking around for something to throw.

Moore (talking over embarrassed moderator) You want to come back and actually finish your thought, or do you want to just be like most thugs, make your statement and then leave before anyone has a chance to talk about it? Can you expand on why you think the movie is a piece of shit?

Disgruntled New York Guy: You used something that hurt a lot of people, to manipulate our emotions; that’s what I think you were doing.

Moore: All art will manipulate your emotions. The point of art is to manipulate and stimulate emotion.

DNYG: Why do you think your movie is art?

Moore: We differ in opinion, but I’d like to posit the idea that what happened on 9-11 was a global event, and believe me, as an Irishman, it’s in the movie to signal to you that I felt as devastated. I felt it was as dark and evil a moment as you might have felt on that day.

At that point, the moderator hurriedly swooped in to change the subject. They took about another ten minutes of questions, but I sort of got the sense that the studio publicity people might have cut things short just in case another problem arose.

Okay, to tell you the truth, I’m not unsympathetic to DNYG’s point of view. I’m sure there are people who felt uncomfortable seeing the trailer to Oliver Stone’s upcoming film, and I still get a headache every time George Bush invokes 9-11 in a speech, which is, well, all the time. I’m not a big fan of using real-life tragedy for entertainment purposes, but not to the point where I have to act like a dick in public. I’ll let the rest of you decide in a couple of weeks whether Moore was right or not in using that shot in his movie, but to his credit, he was willing to discuss his position.

Thus endeth the editorial. Here beginnith the review. There are going to be a few spoilers coming up, but if you’ve seen the original 1976 film, you pretty much know all of them. If you haven’t, you’ll probably want to skip to the end.

As in the original film, The Omen focuses on Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) deputy ambassador to Italy whose wife Kathy (Julia Stiles) gives birth to a baby at the beginning of the film. Unfortunately, Thorn is told that unbeknownst to Kathy, the baby has died, but guess what? Here’s another good-looking baby, whose parents are conveniently no longer around, so all the grieving dad has to do is give the word and the switch will be made. Everybody goes home happy. And when the ambassador gets torched in a freak accident, the 34 year-old Thorn becomes ambassador to the United Kingdom.

Well, after a montage of home movies showing Damien as a happy toddler, things start to go downhill rather quickly. At Damien’s birthday party, the nanny hangs herself in front of a group of kids who will probably never go to a kiddie party again. The new nanny (a wonderfully cast Mia Farrow) Mr. Blaylock seems a little too protective of her new charge, as does the big-ass dog who suddenly shows up in Damien’s bedroom. Kathy finally begins to realize there’s something wrong with her son only to take her own fall over a banister thanks to Damien and his well-aimed scooter.

Needless to say, Thorn isn’t too quick on the update either, despite lots of people trying to convince him that Damien is actually Devil Boy. A local priest (Pete Postlethwaite) takes a shot at it, but is impaled on a scaffolding pole, along with a face-full of stained glass. A sleazy paparazzo (David Thewlis) makes some headway before getting decapitated in a Rube Goldberg (or Final Destination, depending on your age)-like fashion. It isn’t until a loopy priest (Michael Gambon) shows up near the end to provide a sermon on how to kill your demonic son in ten easy lessons that Thorn finally gets with the program. Just in time to get taken down in a hail of gunfire. Cut to state funeral, and the inevitable shot of innocent-looking Damien looking into camera, secure in the knowledge that a sequel will follow if box-office receipts are healthy enough…

So is the movie any good? Well, that depends on your age, I guess. If you grew up with the original 1976 film, you’re probably going to sit there with a hundred minute-long feeling of déjà vu. But if you’re coming into this movie fresh (in which case, apologies for the spoilers) you’ll probably find The Omen to be a dandy little horror film. Moore does a respectable job of directing, using a nicely restricted color palette with an occasional splash of red. The major death scenes (the so-called ‘big five’) have all been tweaked a bit, with the Father Jennings impalement and Jennings beheading done particularly well. But for my money, the best sequence takes place in the snow-covered graveyard, where Thorn and Jennings discover the truth about Damien and are set upon by a couple of less than friendly canines. It’s a beautifully paced scene.

As for the casting, Schreiber does a good job of stepping into the shoes of Gregory Peck, although like his cinematic predecessor, I kept wishing he’d get with the program a bit earlier. Stiles is a little too light for the role, but in all fairness, she doesn’t get that much to do. Thewlis steals his scenes as the photographer trying to save his own ass, or neck, and Postlethwaite and Gambon are wonderfully over the top as the scenery-chewing priests. For sheer lunacy however, the award has to go to Farrow, playing the demonic nanny Mrs. Baylock as Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. I think movie-goers are either going to love or hate the character, and to be honest, I’m still not sure myself. When the character delivers lines like, ‘Caring for children has been the joy of my life!’ you don’t know if you should laugh or get creeped out. I think I did both.

While Moore is obviously doing his best as a director, there are a couple of notable misfires, particularly when the director goes for the ‘big jump’ moments, complete with lightning-fast editing and a cranked-up soundtrack. Sure you jump, but it’s almost impossible not to, with Moore doing everything short of walking up behind you in the theater and slamming you in the head with a garbage can lid.

So once again, is the movie any good? Considering I spent the first half wondering why The Omen should be remade in the first place, I was pleasantly surprised by how well it was done. If you’ve never seen the original film, you’ll have a good time. If you’ve seen the 1976 version, go to a half-price matinee or better yet, wait for the DVD so you don’t feel you’ve wasted your money. And I’m interested to see what John Moore does next- as long as he doesn’t mention 9-11, that is.

Submitted for your demonic approval,


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 21, 2006, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Good Gosh

    by billybobhoyle

    First again??? People are crazy these days.

  • May 21, 2006, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Political art

    by halfmahalfn

    Wouldn't it be fantastic if there was a disgruntled New York Guy around after Bush used 9-11 in his speeches? To (kinda) quote. "All politics will manipulate your emotions. The point of politics is to manipulate and stimulate emotion."

  • May 21, 2006, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Huh, never thought we'd need to say TOO SOON! ...

    by chrth

    in an Omen review.

  • May 21, 2006, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Symbolic of Evil

    by barryap

    Go ahead, use it.

  • May 21, 2006, 7:52 p.m. CST


    by The_Comedian

    And the "Riot" sounded exaggerated to me. It was just on dude bitching

  • May 21, 2006, 7:55 p.m. CST

    DNYG sounds like an old friend of mine.

    by Nate Champion

    I'll catch a showing of the original on Fox Movie Channel before even thinking of wasting money on this remake bullshit.

  • May 21, 2006, 7:56 p.m. CST

    It sounds like they wanted to throw something at DNYG

    by chrth

  • May 21, 2006, 7:59 p.m. CST

    looks like crap

    by OhDaesu

    that's all I gotta say

  • May 21, 2006, 8 p.m. CST

    Just out of interest...

    by Yellow Flamingo

    What other imagery gets shown at the opening of the movie along with the WTC attack footage? Anyhoo the original is my favourite horror movie ever, scared the bejesus out of me when i first saw it. I'' probably go see this on opening weekend just to see if it in anyway lives up.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Director Moore was right...

    by BurnHollywood

    9/11 is now a part of the historical record, same as WW2 and the Vietnam War, and fair game for your average Hollywood "big events" montage...the loudmouth was just a grandstanding dipshit dying for attention.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:05 p.m. CST

    The 9/11 "Easy Button"

    by Flim Springfield

    Bush uses it, filmmakers use it, everyone is free to use it. Just like everyone is free to criticize them for using it.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Not having seen the film...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...I can't really say with any degree of accuracy what the context is, but I'm assuming that the 9-11 clip is part of a montage of disturbing events showing that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. I can also understand some people becoming agitated when they see clips of it in movies, but the fact is that happened and that it indeed was a "world event". Attacking filmmakers for using it in anything but a documentary sense has become the gripe du jour. I'll bet the same angry New York guy didn't even blink at the other things if that clip was only a part of a larger montage of other disaster and atrocity footage. Just because something particular hits closer to home to YOU, doesn't mean that your indignation is the moral yardstick by which such things are to be judged. I think that in a film showing a montage of the world going bananas today, the ABSENCE of a 9-11 clip would be conspicuous and weird.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Why did they need to remake this?

    by veritasses

    Why remake a classic if you're not going to add anything significant or "reimagine" it into something completely different? If it's not The Omen or Psycho it's some TV show from the 70's. Has Hollywood really run out of new ideas? Why not remake Shane with Freddie Prince Gellar or Breakfast at Tiffany's with Paris Hilton? And what's with casting Julia Stiles? She's way over rated.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:22 p.m. CST

    I wonder if that DNYG ...

    by BigStar

    would have been as angry if the director put in footage of victims from the darfur genocide. Not to make light of the events of 9/11 but one estimate puts the death toll in darfur at 70,000 in 6 months. Or how about the tens of thousands iraqis killed? It seems to me this asshat is offended only when tragedy strikes the U.S. Or as someone stated, is he offended when Bush uses that day to further justify his illegal actions. I'm going to guess that the answer is no.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:22 p.m. CST


    by Saluki

    Life is a fucking gas. Get over yourself.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Scott McCloud says Anything not made for survival isart

    by DOGSOUP

    "All art will manipulate your emotions. The point of art is to manipulate and stimulate emotion." I agree and I think no matter what he has the right to use the shot in his movie. But that guy has the right to call his art "shit". Who's right? Both of them.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:38 p.m. CST


    by The_Countess

    Should it be regarded as a coincidence that this movie's premiere date and the California's Primary Election date are the same? Just a thought.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:51 p.m. CST

    by Angry Mean Panda

  • May 21, 2006, 8:51 p.m. CST

    Why the fuck are we remaking The Omen...

    by Alonzo Mosely

    This perceived notion that no one who goes to the cinema would ever have seen a movie made before 1985 (star wars being the exception) means you can remake anything more than 20 years old and not worry that, without exception, the end result will be a weaker movie than the original. That is my problem with remakes, none of them have the balls of the originals made decades before. Stuff like The Omen and Assault on Precinct 13 are far from perfect movies, but the remakes are always far safer than the originals. And so I end my rant...

  • May 21, 2006, 8:55 p.m. CST

    Could you explain what the 9/11 reference was?

    by jimmy_009

    I think it would help those of us who haven't seen the film understand the reaction more.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:55 p.m. CST

    I hate New York. It smells like piss.

    by Angry Mean Panda

    The buildings and the people.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:59 p.m. CST

    Oh yeah, and I guess I should be...

    by Angry Mean Panda

    feigning outrage about this, too. Because that would make me cool and in touch with the common man or some shit. You want to know the truth? 9/11 was almost five years ago, and I'm far more enraged about what has happened to the world in those past five years than I am about some dude putting pictures of the burning twin towers in a movie.

  • May 21, 2006, 9:02 p.m. CST

    Not going to see this crappy remake

    by Doc_McCoy

    And it's not okay to use a 9-11 image like that. At least not yet.

  • May 21, 2006, 9:04 p.m. CST

    Re-making EVERY movie pre-1980 is lazy

    by Doom II

    filmaking. The creative well is officially dry in Hollywood. At least the originals will always exist. The problem is, some of these remakes actually STAIN the originals and make them lose some of their appeal. Many idiots do not know that these are remakes. It's true. My sister's friend was unaware that there was a Fog movie made in 1979. Insanity. Maybe this IS the Apocalypse. Read Easy Riders & Raging Bulls. Amazing book for fans of 70's cinema.

  • May 21, 2006, 9:08 p.m. CST

    It's not 'slow on the update'...

    by Facehugger

    ...the phrase is 'slow on the uptake.'

  • May 21, 2006, 9:09 p.m. CST

    It was nearly five years ago, y'know...

    by Paul T. Ryan

    It was a traumatic event (even for us Australians) but for Christ's sake, I'm sick to death of people acting as if terrorism never happened in the world before 9/11 (or September 11th, to use Australian English). Maybe DNYG should try living in the middle east, or watch a doco on Northern Ireland and get a taste of people who live with that kind of thing every day. Oh and I hated the original Omen, so I can only hope this one is an improvement.

  • May 21, 2006, 9:13 p.m. CST

    Too soon

    by spindude

    Too "god damn singer have you heard singer is gay?" soon. DNYG sounds like a knob

  • May 21, 2006, 9:15 p.m. CST

    hmmmm double singer

    by spindude

    well, he's still gay. or so i've heard

  • May 21, 2006, 9:16 p.m. CST

    9-11 happened so it could be used in this way!

    by performingmonkey

    Why do you think the government made 9-11 happen?? So Bush and every President that follows him can use it as an excuse to kill people. Bush will ALWAYS bring it up. There was no point in the planes otherwise! And in a way it IS right to use that imagery in something like The Omen because 9-11 is the worst thing that America has EVER done and people NEED to be reminded of the event because it is historic on a scale that we can only BEGIN to imagine. Jack Bauer would have stopped those planes. Fact. But sadly he is a fictional character and no-one with that kind of integrity has any power at all. I would love it if one day the President at that time explained to the world why America did what it did on 9-11. That won't ever happen because it would send the world into a chaos that it could never recover from. Americans killing thousands of their own people to get ahead in the world??? This is the kind of thing that should belong in movies about machines taking over the world, not REAL LIFE!!

  • May 21, 2006, 9:34 p.m. CST


    by Womb2dooM

    Where was the outrage when Final Destination 3 used the Twin Towers as an example of past instances where death gave fair warning (in the form of a cloud shadow that looked like a plane)?! That was just FUCKED! Honestly, the camera zooms in on the photo of the towers with the sound effect of a plane coming closer. Has nobody else taken exception?! Why can't they just use images of Britney Spears and all of her plane wreck glory to same effect?

  • May 21, 2006, 9:41 p.m. CST


    by Womb2dooM

    Yeah, Womb2dooM is right!

  • May 21, 2006, 9:42 p.m. CST

    FD:3 Bad!

    by Womb2dooM

    Outrageous, Womb2dooM! You're absolutely on the money, chap!

  • May 21, 2006, 9:46 p.m. CST

    A remake = art? My god do we need criteria to return...

    by genro

    ...and fuck all the passive-aggressive, "art is subjective" bullshit .

  • May 21, 2006, 9:49 p.m. CST

    Ignore it and it will go away!

    by half vader

    Yeah that's always the solution. Don't show the towers at all - it's not respectable! WTF? Whether you think this guy made a hamfisted and unsubtle statement by saying conversely that the attack was evil, and that a horror remake wasn't the appropriate place to say it , the idea of coddling people because New Yorkers are still grieving and haven't got to the same point as the rest of the world is more harmful than good. He as an Irishman absolutely would have sympathy with New yorkers as he knows about bombs and having your countrymen blown to smithereens and it seems like he was saying THIS is an example of evil, which is a fair and true statement on its own. Because America can still hardly believe what happened (or rather "how could it happen to US?" which is obviously disturbing for many reasons) doesn't mean handling the issue with kid gloves by erasing hurtful imagery for longer than they would for anyone anywhere else in the world helps people to cope. Sometimes it can have the opposite effect. Remember too that the day after it happened even the New York based media itself was exploiting the event with atrocious lingering faux-sincere and melodromatic angled closeups of people and their pain and iconographic music-accompanied shots of the the towers. I'm glad I saw the coverage as it happened when the coverage was honest and not for the first time later on, as horrible as it was. I remember thinking, "Just report the damn thing, and FORGET about concocting fancy 3-d flying logo bumpers in swishy chrome that sensationalize the whole thing. As an ex-graphic designer, my subjective view is that it would have been just as impactful and infinitely more respectful to just show the numbers 911. On that note don't get me started about the contrivance of 6.6.06. Anyway, direct your anger not so much at a director making a well-intentioned but maybe misplaced statement as toward the U.S. government who backed Bin Laden in Afghanistan or the CIA who ignored repeated calls from the flight school. Are you American Doc or from overseas? Just curious.

  • May 21, 2006, 9:50 p.m. CST

    They used WWII clips while the war was going on

    by Terry_1978

    And if anything that made us stronger back in the day. Now seeing what took place appears to make us weaker. Go figure.

  • May 21, 2006, 9:50 p.m. CST

    A Challenge to all Hollywood Executives!

    by Yo_SheBitch

    Come on guys - we're sick of all these horror re-makes. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Fog, Psycho, The Hills Have Eyes, The Omen, When A Stranger Calls, The Eye, The Ring, The Grudge, Pulse... What's next? Black Christmas?! (gulp. Nevermind.) Hollywood has proven that it can make good original recent horror movies such as Land of the Dead, Frailty, Session 9 and Silent Hill (ok - that was from a video game - but at least it wasn't a movie remake.) Saw wasn't too bad and neither was Hostel or Slither. Take chances on some new script material for a change. You might be surprised at the turn-out from the horror fans.

  • May 21, 2006, 9:51 p.m. CST

    Final Destination 3

    by Psyclops

    In the test screening I went to for FINAL DESTINATION 3, the photograph actually showed the fire and smoke from the towers forming into a demonic face. The reaction from the audience made it pretty clear that the filmmakers would have to alter that moment somehow. Now I know what a "collective gasp" sounds like.

  • May 21, 2006, 9:55 p.m. CST


    by sith-vol

    Wow, two topics to bitch about in one talk back. First- 9/11 was a national tragedy, a world tragedy, a wound that hasn't and may never fully heal. A tragedy being used to further the agendas of every two-bit political head with a microphone. Yet just because a filmmaker decides to use an image from 9/11 I'm supposed to get pissed about it? If it doesn't invoke some kind of emotional response than you are a heartless bastard. Second- Why remake the Omen? Oh I forgot....Hollywood remakes everything. Thanks for the ear....don't forget to tip your waitress.

  • May 21, 2006, 9:59 p.m. CST

    Remakes suck. Just look at The Thing

    by Big Bad Clone

    talk about a shitty movie. Where was the silly female supporting roles. The bad special effects. The Frankenstien/vampire alien taht could be anyone of us! (yes, I am being sarcastic)

  • May 21, 2006, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Terry_1978 brings up a good point

    by chrth

    Did you ever stop to think while watching Casablanca that this movie was released during the war? Can you imagine ... it's 1943, you're a Frenchman/woman lucky to have escaped to New York City ... and then the scene ... THE SCENE ... no, not the end with Ilsa and Rick ... earlier, when the people start singing the Marseilleise (yeah, I probably butchered the spelling) ... how do you not cry? How do you not break down at the thought of all those you left behind, all those who have died? And by the end of the scene, when the German leadership is so perturbed they have to shut down the place, how do you not have a triumphant smile shining through those tears? That's some powerful shit right there.

  • May 21, 2006, 10:04 p.m. CST

    What about the use of Nazi imagery?

    by Big Bad Clone

    That comes up a lot in movies as embodiment of evil. Surely the twin towers can as well. Like it was said, they are trying to an emotional response from you.

  • May 21, 2006, 10:09 p.m. CST

    Three cheers for DNYG

    by Buck Turgidson

    How many of us have the audacity to tell the director of a major studio release that his film is a "piece of shit?" And, without having seen said "piece of shit," you know what? On the face of it, I'd be inclined to agree that that is inappropriate. I mean, the attacks of 9/11 don't play into The Omen I recall. I believe using that footage purely to "set a tone" would be offensive. Let's hear it for DNYG.

  • May 21, 2006, 10:16 p.m. CST

    What's wrong with New Yorkers lately?...

    by Kid Z

    ...What happened to the "Oh yeah, terrorist attack me, bitch? Well I got double for you, ya mook!" New Yorkers I usedta know back in the day when I lived there? When did they all turn into whiney pussies???

  • May 21, 2006, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Kid Z ... they didn't

    by chrth

    It's just a bunch of commutin' pussies from Connecticut, I'm sure.

  • May 21, 2006, 10:18 p.m. CST

    that's cool angry Mean Pedo

    by 81666

    ny doesn't like your stank ass anyways.

  • May 21, 2006, 10:23 p.m. CST

    people need to stop being crybabies

    by shalashaska

    as someone who lives in new york, and someone who knows people who died on 9/11, i can say that i don't think its a big deal. people need to shut the fuck up already.

  • May 21, 2006, 10:33 p.m. CST

    Julia Stiles - miscast

    by hiperaktiv

    She's like 24 or 25 and how old is Liev Schriber? Nearly 40? Yeah thats believable.

  • May 21, 2006, 10:44 p.m. CST

    put it this way..

    by El Borak

    people being overcautious about 9-11 is one thing. like the first spider-man. but it's because they DON'T want to illicit negative emotion. this guy SAID he wanted to illicit emotions of horror and pain for his dumbass horror remake. it's not a historical film or a documentary. it's a fuckbag teenie movie. is it so much to ask that you or i can go to a shitbag movie at the theater and NOT have a national tragedy shoved down are fucking throats? i feel the same way about holocaust footage or any other tragedy. and for the people saying that other countries have terror and horror going on... how would iraqi, irish, etc. people feel if they were watching a movie and their 5 year old tragedy was inserted into it? they might even burn the fucking place down. it's like inserting a flash of that cartoon muhammad for muslims. they'd go ape shit!

  • May 21, 2006, 10:45 p.m. CST

    Jesus were still bitching about this

    by Lovecraftfan

    Have to agree with the director. Its been five years what happened is fair game in art. Get over it. Also calling a filmakers movie a piece of shit during a Q And A is not having balls its called being a prick. Its called tact get some.

  • May 21, 2006, 10:46 p.m. CST

    The Twin Towers will always be used like this

    by indiephantom

    As are images of Hiroshima, Vietnam, JFK's murder, the Holocaust etc. God forbid the movies should reflect the times.

  • May 21, 2006, 10:54 p.m. CST

    3,000 Americans getting killed is a tragedy.

    by Winterchili

    And millions of Africans dying of AIDs is a statistic.

  • May 21, 2006, 10:55 p.m. CST

    "X-Men" used the Holocaust in its opening scenes...

    by Uga

    Anybody bitch about that?

  • May 21, 2006, 10:58 p.m. CST

    For a horror film...

    by Kid Joker

    I hardly see why showing 9/11 is necessary. To me I think it shows that without it, we wouldn't be able to get into any dark dsitrubing mood due to the fact it's probably bad horror film making. It sounds so out of place as well, I'll have to see for myself when it hits Region 4.

  • May 21, 2006, 11:03 p.m. CST

    The whole point is THE TONE

    by LilOgre

    First, what was the clip? Second, if the clip is used solely as a way to heighten the fear and and stress that we all would associate with what looks to be a mediocre horror movie (which I'm guessing is the case and no preview that I have seen has persuaded me to think that this film is anything other THAN that) then the use of this clip will ultimately trivialize the event. Subconsciously or consciously, it will happen. Yeah Moore can put the damn clip in, sure - it's a free country. But it probably still is a jackass move and good for DGNY guy for speaking his mind too if that was his own reaction.

  • May 21, 2006, 11:29 p.m. CST


    by spindude

    is a manson fan. singer I'm told is gay

  • May 22, 2006, 12:03 a.m. CST

    I knew someone would bring up the Thing...

    by Alonzo Mosely

    I should have answered that in my original post. I love The Thing, one of my favorite movies ever, but (a)it was not a remake, rather it used the same short story as another film has already used, big difference, (b) it was made over 20 years ago, and therefore is irrelevant to the current trend and (c) it was made by a director with balls, vision and talent.

  • May 22, 2006, 12:09 a.m. CST

    One guy making rude comments...

    by Mr Brownstone

    qualifies as a near riot now? Standards for rioting have really been lowered.

  • May 22, 2006, 12:20 a.m. CST

    sounds to me like everyone was fearing for their lives

    by isildur29

    That is one wild riot. Thank God one man made it out alive to give us an Omen review. Fuck why even put riot in the tagline? I was expecting something beyond one guy disagreeing with a stupid 9/11 exploitation scene.

  • May 22, 2006, 12:23 a.m. CST

    Tragic? YOU WANT TRAGIC?!!

    by Womb2dooM

    'My Girl'. Maculey Calking is dead in the coffin and his girl comes in screaming "He can't see without his glasses" and proceeds to put them on him. Whenever my family put on 'Home Alone' after that I'd scream "Too soon!"

  • May 22, 2006, 12:25 a.m. CST

    as far as using the footage goes.

    by Mr Brownstone

    Last time I checked it was okay to use elements from reality to highten a fictional story. If people are gonna get upset everytime real footage is used, or a real tragedy is evoked, in the framework of a fiction they should do us all a favor and just stay home with the curtains drawn.

  • May 22, 2006, 12:49 a.m. CST

    This is bullshit

    by Cruel_Kingdom

    Moore shouldn't even have to defend his inclusion of that footage. Yes, it happened in NY, but it's an event of global significance and pretending like it never happened is stupid and pointless. I seriously doubt that Moore believed at any point that the inclusion of that brief shot would make or break his movie. But if you want to include a montage showing that the world is going to hell in a handbag, what is going to be more significant (other than maybe a shot of Bush's inauguration, ahem...). I wept on 9-11 and I weep at the thought of those events even now, but I think it's unfair to say that footage of that atrocity or the mere mention of it in a speech, movie, or conversation is off limits. That's just stupid and if you personally feel that way then you are stupid, as well. Not to offend, but it's true. Look in the mirror, you know who you are... It's a ridiculous point of view and it's a ridiculous argument. This is not an instance of exploiting the tragedy. I probably won't see this movie myself, but I will defend it against closed minded morons.

  • May 22, 2006, 12:50 a.m. CST

    This is bullshit

    by Cruel_Kingdom

    Moore shouldn't even have to defend his inclusion of that footage. Yes, it happened in NY, but it's an event of global significance and pretending like it never happened is stupid and pointless. I seriously doubt that Moore believed at any point that the inclusion of that brief shot would make or break his movie. But if you want to include a montage showing that the world is going to hell in a handbag, what is going to be more significant (other than maybe a shot of Bush's inauguration, ahem...). I wept on 9-11 and I weep at the thought of those events even now, but I think it's unfair to say that footage of that atrocity or the mere mention of it in a speech, movie, or conversation is off limits. That's just stupid and if you personally feel that way then you are stupid, as well. Not to offend, but it's true. Look in the mirror, you know who you are... It's a ridiculous point of view and it's a ridiculous argument. This is not an instance of exploiting the tragedy. I probably won't see this movie myself, but I will defend it against closed minded morons.

  • May 22, 2006, 12:53 a.m. CST

    Is this a Rosemary's Baby sequel?

    by Napoleon Park

    In this movie a couple's new born baby is stolen and replaced with the Antichrist. In "Rosemary's Baby" Mia Farrow played Rosemary, the human Mother of the Antichrist, and in this movie she plays the child's happy nanny. That's interesting. Oh, and remakes suck and 9/11 exploitation is still too soon. And "Heckle" is not spelled "riot".

  • May 22, 2006, 12:54 a.m. CST

    I have no problem with the movies U93 or WTC but

    by Demosthenes2

    I agree that this sounds like an inappropriate and exploitive context for such a reference. People killed people on 9/11, not some dramatized concept of the devil that I doubt many of the people associated with the film believe in. Granted, it's unfair that the sometimes wonderful genre of horror often gets red-headed stepchild treatment from critics and labels like "exploitive." Some people seem to think that anything with the intent to shock, surprise and incite severe, visceral discomfort cannot have artistic merit. I do believe that a horror film could recognize 9/11 in an artistic, culturally minded manner as capably as any other genre. However, this film from advance word and its marketing campaign does not appear to be that film. This remake, in not having its own voice from the original and sounding like a total rehash, does not seem to have any real artistic ambition and instead seems to exploit the youth many of whom do not care to see movies more than 10-20 years old and take their money. These are certainly fighting words to say without seeing the movie but there are too many better movies out there to waste my time and money with what is described as a redundant remake.

  • May 22, 2006, 12:58 a.m. CST

    WTF -- Holocaust or Mai Lai ok, but Twin Towers is not?

    by Triumph poops!

    Speaking as a born and bred NYer, I have no problem with this. Simply because I have to agree with others who note that history, by purely being fucking HISTORY (ie. an event that the world can uniformly point to in a communal way) should ALWAYS be fair game for all aspects of art to play off of. Simply because, as the director correctly noted, art IS supposed to elicit emotions -- whether they're pleasant OR comparable to something conjured up from Vader's dark side. Hey, here's the bottom line truth: movies made and shown DURING World War II used footage from the war itself, and the same was true of movies and art during the Korean War and Vietnam. Come on, let's be honest: how is showing a simple shot of the the Twin Towers burning towers 5 YEARS after the fact any worse than all the movies that have worked in the actual photographs of something like the Mai Lai Vietnam massacre? Or movies that have shown the real life images of bodies piled in ditches from the Holocaust? It would be one thing if THE OMEN used footage of those poor souls who leapt from the towers. Out of respect for those people and the fate they face that day, the personal choice they were forced to make, I could fully support NEVER showing that in a movie which was put out for "commercial purposes." But a long distance shot showing the Towers burning? Or the smoke rising on the horizon? Sorry, but as I said at the beginning, even as a NYer I have a larger respect for HISTORY than to suppress the events of 9/11 and how that impacted and reshaped the entire WORLD.

  • May 22, 2006, 1:06 a.m. CST

    Hollywood hardly running out of ideas.

    by LucienPierce

    With all these remakes being made you would think that Hollywood has run out of ideas. I completely disbelieve that, its not that they've run out of ideas. It's that the good ideas hardly get made. What better way to ensure ticket sales than by remaking films that tap into peoples nostalgia. Inevitably you'll get those that don't go watch it, or hate it on principle. Otherwise they'll say the original was better, when I'd say it's about a 50/50 split between those that are better and those that aren't. Hollywood is playing it safe, plain and simple and but I wouldn't put all the blame on the Studio Machine. Did the audience flock to Kiss Kiss? No. Sure the marketing was ashy but the trailer promised a good film and it delivered. Where was the audience? What about Running Scared? Now we have Southland Tales and The Fountain coming up...Southland may stand a chance of doing fairly okay but I doubt mainstream audiences are ready for The Fountain. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the last "original" film to come from Hollywood that really did fantastically well was The Matrix. If audiences showed up in numbers for fresh original films we'd get more of them and that's the bottom line.

  • May 22, 2006, 1:08 a.m. CST

    the creative well...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    ...has not run dry in hollywood - there are very original screenplays being written all the time - some good - some bad - the problem is that any worth producing never see the light of day - because hollywood prefers to play it safe - theyd rather spend millions on a "threes company" movie, or "towering inferno" remake than take a chance on making something no one has seen before - hollywood is full of shit - it panders to the lowest common denominator - which is the same "group" that buys the most movie tickets - jesus fucking christ - did we need an "omen" remake or a "poseidon adventure" remake - and the kicker is the remakes are infinately worse than the originals - and they always pump these turds up as if theyre going to improve upon the originals - remember burtons "planet of the apes" remake - or as he called it - re-imagining - what shit - im astounded that an original movie like "the fountain" managed to get made at all

  • May 22, 2006, 1:10 a.m. CST

    deja vu

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    lucien - i just rea your post after making mine - i basically said the same thing you did - how embarrassing - i should make it a point to always read the last post before making my own

  • May 22, 2006, 1:13 a.m. CST

    Frankly, I've never understood the whole "TOO SOON" bit

    by Triumph poops!

    The bottom line of what I was trying to say in my previous post: History must ALWAYS be kept out in front, ALWAYS kept in view for public reflection, or else that old adage about it repeating itself will fucking come true. Which is why, in regards to 9/11, I've never understood the whole "Too soon!" mentality that some people shelter themselves behind. And I say "shelter" very purposefully. Wasn't the whole POINT of the rage we felt after 9/11 that we NEVER wanted to forget lest we lose sight of the horror that happened that day? Hey, I'm ALREADY convinced that waaaaaaaaay too many people have fucking forgotten what truly happened on 9/11 and have just ignored how the world truly changed, and have just moved on in their lives as if it was just a minor thing. And as a result of that, they've likewise forgotten that we STILL have a long, long road ahead of us to combat the evil of terrorism and pricks who want us dead just because we're from the West, or just because we happen to practice a religion other than radicalized Islam. So for that reason alone, I have no problem at all with movies starting to use 9/11 imagery simply so people DO remember and are FORCED to address the problems that, quite frankly, we're going to have to address for years and years to come. So while some may say "Too soon!" my attitude is "Not soon enough!"

  • May 22, 2006, 1:14 a.m. CST

    Same here, Jimmy...

    by LucienPierce

    Ha, I think it's healthy that there's more than just one of us on this blue pearl of ours...if only the rest of the world thought the way we do. It would be beautiful!

  • May 22, 2006, 1:24 a.m. CST

    As to the movie itself, why bother? Who WANTED this?

    by Triumph poops!

    On this I agree with pretty much everyone: why the fuck do we need an Omen REMAKE? What, THIS is what the world and horror fans were clamoring for? Did I miss that internal email? And going a step further, if this is a hit, does that mean we'll then be treated to shitty remakes of the original shitty Omen parts 2, 3 and 4? I love horror movies as much as the next person, but give me a fucking break. You're telling me there are absolutely, positively, 100%, without a doubt, NO good horror scripts floating around Hollywood that are ORIGINAL IDEAS and thus would be NEW movies? The saddest part is, when this bombs and box office returns continue to tumble this summer, naturally the overly-priced talentless suits that occupy every executive Hollywood suite will blame the failure of movies like this on any reason BUT the fact it was a shitty remake, or the fact that audiences simply want to see something NEW and ORIGINAL. Yep, THAT realization will once again just pass them by completely!

  • May 22, 2006, 1:49 a.m. CST

    it's one of the most iconic images of our time

    by Mr Brownstone

    and as such it's fair game for use in anything no matter what the context.

  • May 22, 2006, 1:59 a.m. CST

    Gee I'm sorry but

    by Tremor

    why is it that Hollywood is allowed to make a film about every tragedy in history EXCEPT 9/11? What is this double standard that people seem to have? 'Oh it's fine to show atrocities in the rest of the world, but when it affects us it's just not right.' Now I am completely against using tragedies simply to add depth to something like The Omen remake (something which lety's face it, is gonna be a pile of shit) and I am still outraged by the number of people who continue to condemn America so quickly after 9/11. I personally can't stand to see that footage of the planes hitting the towers and I hate the whole 'anti-America' bandwagon that I'm ashamed to say most of my fellow Brits have jumped on, but I'm annoyed that this New Yorker had the audacity to complain when he probably wouldn't have even batted an eyelid had it been footage of the London bombings last year.

  • May 22, 2006, 2:27 a.m. CST

    Its Pop horror. Trashy B.S. Using 9/11 is crude

    by Tall_Boy

    because The Omen is not trying to be art, its trying to make a buck on opening weekend and DVD sales. (despite what the douchebag director says) I can watch United 93 because it treats the subject with some reverence. Throwing in a shot of the WTC burning before a fucking REMAKE of a shitty 70s horror movie is just . . . lame. And gay. And stupid.

  • May 22, 2006, 2:39 a.m. CST

    doesn't surprise as it mabeeeeeee should . . .

    by reckni

    the first is entertaining, probably not as much as the girl cleaning my taco bell sauce off the chin f*ckos? see u n hell, logan goes down today in 24! and nobody wants this .. FU

  • May 22, 2006, 2:39 a.m. CST


    by TheLastBystander

    haven't read the entire talkback and maybe somebody mentioned this, but OUTRAGE! Oldboy used 9/11 in it's montage too! IT WAS BAD AND THAT MOVIE IS A PEICE OF SHIT! TOO SOON! LET US NEVER DISCUSS 9/11 AGAIN! UNLESS IT'S THE PRESIDENT IN HIS BRAVE BRAVENESS! OUTRAGE AT OLDBOY AND OMEN!!!!!!!!

  • May 22, 2006, 2:40 a.m. CST

    WTC and Etc...

    by Silverblade11975

    There is a song by Darryl Whorley called "Have You Forgotten". This song mentions how people try to remove the WTC towers from TV and news and how we should be reminded of those events as often as possible. Considering how we live in an age where people have short-term memory and short-term patience, we ought to be reminded just how important 9-11 was to our history and to current events. Now I don't condone exploiting the imagery to make a buck, but from what I've read about how it's used in The Omen, I don't think it is a form of exploitation. Someone in talkback mentioned Darfur, why not Rwanda, Bosnia, and various other genocides going back to Vietnam and even farther back? If the imagery accentuates evil acts I think it should be used, not just to set tone, but to remind us of things that really do and have happened. Just because it was evil doesn't mean we should wipe all traces of it from memory or history. Some people believe the "end times" are upon us, and movies and shows relating to that theme can definetly demonstrate that there have been things that are happening that can bring some level of validation to that belief. However, there is a point where showing certain things in a certain light is going too far and that is exploiting it and being irreverent. My verdict: It's use in The Omen, if done to give an example of evil, is justifiable. But if there was a Naked Gun movie or some comedy, or people were selling chunks of debris for profit from 9-11, then it deserves to be protested. People need to stop being overly sensitive about things. Political correctness is turning this nation into a bunch of egg shell walking pussies. Honoris Causa... Silverblade

  • May 22, 2006, 2:42 a.m. CST

    somewhat coherent

    by reckni

    not really . . .

  • May 22, 2006, 2:47 a.m. CST

    Grandpa Simpson

    by kaptron

    Tonight's Simpsons had a good riff on the whole "too soon" thing when the Duff blimp crashes and Duff Man makes a Hindenberg joke, Grandpa Simpson says "Too soon!"

  • May 22, 2006, 2:48 a.m. CST

    every body else is an idiot

    by reckni

    9/11 blew up big, how entertaining eh, yet domination of subject matter thrives on ignorance today,

  • May 22, 2006, 2:52 a.m. CST

    is it fair for me to call next talkback people fools?

    by reckni

    I own oldboy, and it's a beautiful movie in all the worst ways possbile. Omen cannot be much better, the original stands alone as a classic . . . those dumbasses in the studio have nothing better to sell . . see you at X3 (with honest fear for sake of history) . . .

  • May 22, 2006, 2:54 a.m. CST

    see u in bosnia

    by reckni

    Moriarty is the Jigga . .

  • May 22, 2006, 3:12 a.m. CST

    Oliver Stone Directs


    The whole point of using 9/11 in the opening montage is to suggest that eventually Damien grows up to be . . . George Dubya Bush! Or someone similar. And Performing monkey notes that Bush and America purposely engineered 9/11 so we could fight wars everywhere, because wars are so fun and profitable (why, just look how much money we've made in Iraq, and how great it's been for Bush's poll numbers!)--how Son of the Devil is that? Come on! I hear Nicholas Cage is awesome as the New York firefighter who tries to warn the world that Bush is the devil, only to be impaled by a giant iron weather vein in the middle of a lightning storm.

  • May 22, 2006, 3:27 a.m. CST

    The Director Sounds Like A Hack

    by flamingrunt

    Not only does he try to make an unnecessary remake to a horror classic (the whore) but he also tries to add gravitas to this piece of shit by putting in the burning twin towers. Im pretty sure that after seeing it you too will be dying to tell the director its a piece of shit to his face.

  • May 22, 2006, 3:27 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    Apart from hard, cold cash that is? Fuck thi stupid shit, i'm off to watch THE OMEN on DVD, you know the one with Gregory Peck, Patrick Troughton, Leo McKern, David Warner, Lee Remick, Bille Whitelaw, beautiful scope photography, luscious jerry Goldsmith score. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

  • May 22, 2006, 3:29 a.m. CST

    And Since When Did The Director Of Behind Enemy Lines

    by flamingrunt

    get to call his films "Art"? If id have been there calling his film a piece of shit would have been the warm up act

  • May 22, 2006, 3:32 a.m. CST

    This movie was directed by PSYCHO's Gus Van Sant

    by Spacesheik

    its a shot by shot remake or should i say a shit by shit remake

  • May 22, 2006, 3:35 a.m. CST


    by Sepulchrave

    Can anybody say perfect casting? I was complaining to my Dad the other day that The Omen is a pulp elevated to the status of a campy 70s classic by the great cast; and they have found near-doubles for nearly everyone: Liev Schrieber: Fine, but nobody has Pecks vertical integrity anymore. Mia Farrow: great take on Billy Whitelaw. David Thewlis is as closer to David Warner as it's possible to get. Need a Patrick Troughton? Call Peter Postelthwaite. Who could do Leo McKern? Oh, I don't know...Michael Gambon! This could be tremendous fun.

  • May 22, 2006, 3:47 a.m. CST

    by ScaryJim

    ''I suppose its equally allowable for Moore to include footage from Nazi death camps as further symbols of evil, right?'' well, err. Yes they do use that sort of imagery often. Anyway, I'm pretty dissapointed, this film sounds like a shot for shot remake. What the hell is the point? So the pictures less grainy and the hairstyles are more current? Ridiculous. The Omen was probably the best horror film of that era and is still my favourite horror film to date. What was really dissapointing was 'The Final conflict'. I supposse if they end up making a balls to the wall final conflict it will be worth it . Where was the AntiChrists world dominance in that film ? why wasn't he out causing wars? Why wasn't he the president with his finger on the big red button? all it came down to was some dodgy GM grain being sold to poor countries ?! Nowadays they could really show apocalypse on screen - there's been enough of it in real life.

  • May 22, 2006, 3:58 a.m. CST

    Urg. I'm less impressed

    by Sepulchrave

    I just found the trailer (I'd just seen the teaser 'We need a school with a BLOOD RED uniform, dear, Damian insists!') and it starts with a virtual reshoot of the famous hanging-nanny birthday party; "It's all for you Damian!" that showed a remarkable lack of imagination. Farrow looks cool. But it seems to be going for a slick and slavish retread; baboons, tricyles, even the goldfish bowl! Still, I like Pete Postletwaite's Irish accent. But what's with the mad Satanist costumes?

  • May 22, 2006, 4:06 a.m. CST

    Oh and 9-11

    by Sepulchrave

    is public property. get over yourselves and stop using emotions as a weapon; you already have guns and bombs, do you really need to add egotistical passive-aggressive posturing to the list? Yes, the US film industry has made money by exploiting world tragedies: Hiroshima, Hitler, the Holocaust and a million other images and themes that might stun and sicken sensitive groups; you really think Holocaust survivors appreciate Indiana Jones's Nazi torturer jokes? Or The Marathon Man? Wipe your eyes and grow some balls; as a historic massacre; it doesn't even rate. It's just a button to be pressed. Oh, and I had people killed that day, so don't tell me to keep my ignorant mouth shut.

  • May 22, 2006, 4:08 a.m. CST

    It's all art, bitches.

    by kintar0

    There's good art. There's bad art. It's all about how you talk about it. That's like "Art Appreciation 101." Take a class, you under-educated fucks.

  • May 22, 2006, 4:56 a.m. CST

    the benefits of war

    by jollysleeve

    "....because wars are so fun and profitable (why, just look how much money we've made in Iraq, and how great it's been for Bush's poll numbers!)--...." -------------Actually, for certain groups, war is extremely profitable. You seem to be approaching this with a bizarre Mary Sunshine view of the world. If Bush and Co. wanted to make these perpetual wars happen at all costs, what makes you assume their motivations would be to help the pocketbooks of the little people? And the poll numbers mean nothing. First of all, the guy's still in office, regardless of how many jokes are made about him on the Daily Show. And second, all accounts point to a President who believed this thing was going to be a cakewalk. (Including the account that Bush actually claimed that there wouldn't be ANY deaths in Iraq.) If anything, they were probably salivating over the idea of skyrocketing poll numbers.

  • May 22, 2006, 5:01 a.m. CST

    You know,

    by theoneofblood

  • May 22, 2006, 5:02 a.m. CST

    You know, "Oldboy" used footage of 9/11...

    by theoneofblood

    I didn't hear anybody complaining about that when it was released.

  • May 22, 2006, 5:08 a.m. CST


    by AmirReza

    If you read the CHUD interview, you'll see Moore btings up Rwanda, a horrible genocide in Africa in the 90s. Now I'm sure if that was used most Americans would be indifferent, yet in terms of lives taken it is definitely not a "lesser" tragedy (to be crude about it). There are times when 9/11 images should not be used (i.e. in the original Spider-Man, since it's a lighthearted scene), I guess I'll just wait to see if Moore was justified to use it here.

  • May 22, 2006, 5:54 a.m. CST

    'Here "beginnith" the review'...

    by SalvatoreGravano

    Do not use lexemes with which you are unfamiliar.

  • May 22, 2006, 6:45 a.m. CST

    911 in context

    by BranMakMorn

    There's a different level of emotion from someone who is DIRECTLY affected by a trajedy as opposed to others who experience it a degree or more away. We would all respond differently if someone we loved dearly died as opposed to reading about a complete stranger's death. So I find no fault in the DNY being affected more by a 911 subject than Rwanda, and vice versa. Others can step back and see it much clearer in context without that personal trauma clouding their judgement. That's just human nature.

  • May 22, 2006, 7:04 a.m. CST

    It's always manipulation when someone mentions 911

    by -sfx-

    I hate Americans because to them tragedy isn't a tragedy unless it involves Americans dying.

  • May 22, 2006, 7:05 a.m. CST

    "Worst blimp accident ever."

    by Nice Marmot

    Buck said something like that on the Simpsons last night, as kaptron pointed out. I laughed my ass off when Grampa yelled "Too Soon!" My wife didn't even get it. 'Course she doesn't realize how often I visit this tool-fest site. And I saw the "Fauxmen" trailer before the Da Vinci code this weekend. I was floored at how unoriginally similar this thing looks. Every big scene is identical except they replaced the falling spike w/ glass, the safari park w/ a zoo, & the tricyle w/ a fucking razor scooter. This looks to be one of the lamest lacks of inspiration ever filmed!!!

  • May 22, 2006, 7:15 a.m. CST

    OK, posted before I read the review , , ,

    by Nice Marmot

    So the priest DOES get impaled. All I saw in the trailer was the stained glass raining down on him. So now I know it's even more similar than I thought. CRAP CRAP CRAP.

  • May 22, 2006, 8:17 a.m. CST

    9/11 in films...

    by chaos731

    Listen, I understand the sensitivity and tragedy of 9/11 as much as anyone, and that's exactly why it SHOULD be used. That single event...that set of static images from that static event...will always stay with us, and they are truly a global event. Yes, 9/11 has been "embraced" by New Yorkers as "their tragedy", but it's something that pretty much changed the world permanently. The entire world. Not just New York. Not just the United States. It changed the WHOLE world, forever. So, as perhaps the most profoundly affecting moment in the last, oh, two decades or so, it's only natural that (ostensible) artists of all varieties use those images and emotions for their purposes. There's a little sicko of a horror movie called "Murder Set Pieces", directed by a guy named Nick Palumbo, and this flick is about a serial killer stalking the streets of Las Vegas. This guy's psychology is in complete tatters, and he's been proufoundly changed by recent world events, including 9/11. Well, the director, Nick Palumbo, lived in NYC on 9/11, and during the 'attacks', he grabbed his camera, ran out to the street, and starting filming stuff. Guess what footage showed up in "Murder Set Pieces". And guess what, even in this exploitative, sick, and totally unrelenting extreme horror movie, the insertion of 9/11 footage (some pretty harrowing stuff, I might add) did not come across as being even the slightest bit exploitative of the events themselves. Instead, they work perfectly to underscore a specific mindset, and help to establish time and place, as well as the well-known fact that our civilization is slowly (very slowly, but very surely) starting a decline. Anyway, showing 9/11 footage or imagery, and intercutting it with Coke commercials, and perhaps some Victoria's Secret models bouncing around might be in bad taste, but the usage here is justified, and probably fairly effective. I haven't seen the remake of The Omen, but it seems to me that movies like this have more reason to invoke 9/11 than the illustrious Mr. Bush does in yet another of his sappy, manipulative speeches. But whatever. To each his own.

  • May 22, 2006, 8:18 a.m. CST

    Sounds like shit movies using shocking images to

    by brycemonkey

    drum up some publicity, fuck all this noise. The poster near the top was right. If you want to depict horror, terror, and evil in a film, just cut to a Britney Speirs clip.

  • May 22, 2006, 8:19 a.m. CST

    Oh and if that's a near riot...

    by brycemonkey

    you need to get out more.

  • May 22, 2006, 8:20 a.m. CST

    Honestly New Yorkers...

    by Lost Skeleton

    I was born in NYC and I live in DC. I actually lived a few blocks away from the Pentagon and had to smell the burned ruins of that wing of the Pentagon for months before it was repaired. However, getting pissed over 9-11 I think is misplaced anger and fear by New Yorkers. Yes, after going back to visit my grandmother...I am struck by the fact that NYC is too damn big with too many buildings that can topple on your ass in a second if another attack came. However, for the rest of the world to forgoe any discussion on 9-11 is just plain annoying right now. It happened and now is the time to face it.

  • May 22, 2006, 8:54 a.m. CST

    More 9/11 footage!

    by MaryTylerMorbid

    I don't think we see enough footage of the burning twin towers in movies. It would be nice to see shots of the buring towers in every movie. Especially the upcoming "Porky's" remake. Are they still remaking that?

  • May 22, 2006, 8:54 a.m. CST


    by vwvoyager

    Exploitive, yes. But 911 was one of the most evil days in our history. If that doesn't bring a vision of evil, nothing will. What else was shown? The Hindenburg? Hitler?

  • May 22, 2006, 9:18 a.m. CST

    TOO SOON! (For an Omen Remake)


    So I guess the World Trade Center shot was in the opening sequence because it shows how the director feels about 9/11. That's good news. For a minute there I thought he was equating 9/11 with Satan so that all the Christian Fundies in the audience will get tiny hard-ons about the apocalypse they've been waiting for and right wingers of all stripes can continue to equate the attacks with "evil" so that they never have to face the issues behind "evil." Glad they cleared that up.

  • May 22, 2006, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Art is art, and a dumbass is always a dumbass.

    by Z0D

    The dude at the Q&A who criticized the inclusion of the Twin Towers is a whiney little bitch who probably has never seen anything above a PG rated film. Art is Art. When somebody creates something, whether it be a painting on canvas or the sidewalk, designing a car or a bridge, or twidling something on a cocktail napkin, it's art. Using the vision of the twin towers burning in a movie is a SIGN that evil is making a comeback and is killing the innocent. Horrific visions are intended to create a strong emotional response. If this NYGuy can't handle it, he's a fuckin pussy. Kinar0 is right, a lot of you need to go to college (or finish up high school) to take a few art appreciation classes. You under-educated people need to go learn something instead of bashing something you don't understand. ___KNEEL___ before Z0D

  • May 22, 2006, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Actually, is it art?

    by brycemonkey

    Not wantimg to get in a big fight with you but this debate tweaks my fancy (ooh err). This is pretty much an exact remake of the original, yes? So if I photocopy a Van Gogh, is it art? If I wiped my arse on the photocopy and put it on display I'd probably win a Turner pize! Interesting art debate brewing here... Peace.

  • May 22, 2006, 9:54 a.m. CST

    Totally UNNECESSARY Remake

    by Jeditemple

    No thanks...I'll pass.

  • May 22, 2006, 10:14 a.m. CST

    I've been thinking...

    by brycemonkey

    it is art. Just very unimaginative art. It doesn't hold a candle to my 'shit on a photocopy of Van Gogh' idea...

  • May 22, 2006, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Why Should We Go Back To College To Appreciate

    by flamingrunt

    Bad Art? I mean its great that some guys are getting on their high horses about how thick everyone is and how we all need to go back to college because we cant see THE REMAKE OF THE OMEN as art. but if it has no artisitic merit then is it art? Surely the "is it art" debate is more intricate and involved than simply saying "yeah everythings art, go back to college you fucking idiot if you cant see this."

  • May 22, 2006, 10:30 a.m. CST


    by brycemonkey

    I agree with your sentiment. Also I'm sure all those art majors working in Starbucks enjoy taking the high ground on this "finally, those years weren't wasted!" JK ;-) My thought process was that even when a popular play is re-enacted it's still art. Therefore an exact remake of a movie is still 'art' even if it's shite and unimaginative. Gets you thinking though and that's never a bad thing.

  • May 22, 2006, 10:38 a.m. CST

    No, not everything is art.

    by RobRed1

    It's such a load of crap that EVERYTHING is art. Hang a urinal on a museum wall with a good enough BS story and people will call it art. Why? because they're afraid not to! No art critic working today wants to be compared with the critics who called Picasso a hack or Monet a loser. Art critics are afraid to be critical! It's been proven over and over. Scam shows have filled galleries with 2 year olds finger paintings or taught a house painter how to talk the bs talk of an artist and they have fooled the so-called critics EVERY TIME! It's long past time someone called them on their crap.

  • May 22, 2006, 10:44 a.m. CST

    The Trouble I Have With The Omen Remake Is

    by flamingrunt

    that its a remake of a movie, which has almost certainly been made to specifications from the suits as to its content. While i can appreciate that plays and films are always made with constraints, my question is what exactly did the director for this movie input for him to call it his art? I mean if the suits told him what he had to do, and the screenplay was written for him and hes copying an already made movie, then what exactly are the features that made this a "john moore" piece of art. It may be a piece of art, but whos piece is it if john moore worked to spec?

  • May 22, 2006, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Well you are strying into different waters there...

    by brycemonkey

    Film and Theater are really a collective art form. Where not just the writer and director and actors create it but all the people involved. Set designers, electricians even the accountant. So everyone gets credit, hence credits at the end of flicks. Like I said, I like this talk, much better than the Star Wars format hate ;-)

  • May 22, 2006, 11:18 a.m. CST

    Agreed YackBacker...

    by brycemonkey

    there are several issues here and the first one was a shitty movie using controversial images to provoke hype. Seems to be working though...

  • May 22, 2006, 11:38 a.m. CST

    9/11 imagery needs to be earned

    by LeFlambeur

    Tacking it onto films for shock value and calling it art is cheap and ridiculous. Artistic imagery from 9/11 demands merit and should be a logical inclusion in a piece of art. Munich is a perfect example. The shot of the towers in the background was tasteful, logical, but left an impact and a statement nonetheless.

  • May 22, 2006, 11:59 a.m. CST

    get a grip Americans

    by Cedar_Room

    now I'm not American, but I seem to remember a lot of you Americans saying that when you saw the images from 9/11 it felt like the end of the world was nigh. And thats exactly the theme (supposedly) linking this footage into the film. Is it really so offensive to put images of 9/11 in as evidence of the devil at work? If the music is accompanied by the Benny Hill music you might have a point - but otherwise this doesn't sound too controversial to me. Unless you make a link that the director is saying the devil was behind 9/11-mohammed is the devil...

  • May 22, 2006, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Oh Munich was SO tasteful

    by Sepulchrave

    Yes, it really tastefully made a spurious propagandist link between Israel, Saudi Arabia and 9-11. All the same crazy rag-heads eh?

  • May 22, 2006, 12:43 p.m. CST

    by LouGehrig

    If this Moore guy was at all interested in art, why is he wasting his time with a remake nearly identical to the original? DNYG was correct in calling this buffoon out.

  • May 22, 2006, 1:06 p.m. CST

    Oh boy

    by Z0D

    You guys obviously don't understand why a higher education helps. Knowledge is power, right? You think de Goya painted his bloody masterpeices to appease the masses? Hell no. He did it to create discussion on those topics of massacre, war, and death. If people are still 'sensitive' about history they will need to get over it. It's going to be out there, begging you to learn what could be done to prevent it from happening again. That's why we have art, history, and sociology classes to learn from the past. If you whine and complain that the image of burning twin towers causes you to freak, that's your problem and you need to fix it on your own time. Footage of 9/11 is on the damn news every anniversary of the attacks anyways. As far as using the flaming towers in movies in good taste, the image has to be integrated to make sense with what the movie is about. If The Omen has the flaming towers within a montage of other 'evil' images about the Anti-Christ/devil bringing death and destruction, it makes sense. Whatever.

  • May 22, 2006, 1:23 p.m. CST

    funny people mention oldboy as well 'cause (spoiler)

    by half vader

    ...they're both movies where the parent inexplicably doesn't realise it's their own kid. The mother in this one - haven't seen the remake but based on the description the mother doesn't realise Damien's not hers, and in Oldboy the dad goes through the whole fucking film without tweaking that she's his. I really enjoyed the rest of Oldboy but nearly laughed out loud at the 'revelation'. I'm not trying to be cool by saying that because as I say everything else was cool, but the idea that you wouldn't recognise your own kid after that much time together is ludicrous, whether you have kids or not. It comes through in looks (sometimes), body language, body features, speech and so on. Some are obvious earlier, some later and even if there's no nurture there's still nature. On a geek level, Vader was pretty stupid and weak in the force if Leia was sitting across from him in the Imperial Senate all that time and he still didn't have a fucking clue! Back to 911, I liked CaptDanielRoe's comment in the Superman thread about falling planes being copyright 9-11. Spot on.

  • May 22, 2006, 1:34 p.m. CST

    I'd like a grande latte please, ZOD.

    by brycemonkey

    How did those art, history and sociology classes work out for ya?! :-P

  • May 22, 2006, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Whats he getting sand in his vagina for!?

    by Winkleboy

    Fuckin hell... there are two movies ABOUT this already and a t.v show (rescue me) he should get used to it happening. I understand its a senstive issue for a lot of folk and rightly so but when he called the movie "a peice of shit" he took any kind of weight away from the unplanned debate he unwittingly started. Sound like he just wanted to say something mean. I think Moore handled the situation very well. Im looking forward to this personally.

  • May 22, 2006, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Its Funny To See Those People Going On About

    by flamingrunt

    higher education, regardless of the simple fact that the majority of us did go onto further education but decided to do something more worthwhile than an art degree. Youll also have to forgive the rest who didnt get a chance to go onto higher education simply because they were far too busy desperately trying to make a living. To 99 percent of us in the working world, art is something that compliments our lives. To the other 1 percent (the art students) who get uptight and sanctimonious simply because some people have better things to do than study art, then all i can say is shut the fuck up. Your superiority complex is misguided and fundamently wrong. Oh and ill have a decaf late please. Thanks.

  • May 22, 2006, 2:12 p.m. CST

    Antichrist on a Plane

    by CuervoJones

    Fuck this remake

  • May 22, 2006, 2:15 p.m. CST

    "a spurious propagandist link between

    by CuervoJones

    Israel, Saudi Arabia and 9-11." mmm but, you know, that is the truth...

  • May 22, 2006, 2:42 p.m. CST

    I don't care about the film or the issue at hand...

    by Tesarta

    I just want to know why the heck Mike White was on the panel. He was a professor of mine in the 1990s and it was bizarre to say the least to read his name here...

  • May 22, 2006, 2:43 p.m. CST


    by ajudas torch

    Wasn't the Tower footage used to show the passage of time? Would have seemed fairly odd to leave out such a massive event in global affairs. Also for all the constructive criticism in the world I think sometimes directors should be told they just made a piece of shit film. Tact be damned.

  • May 22, 2006, 2:50 p.m. CST


    by Z0D

    the people on this site are. I do not have an art degree, I have a business degree. Nor do I work in a coffee shop. I have a job that defends and protects your way of life as an American citizen. My profession goes oversease to destroy those who want to destroy us. Anyways, you guys who think that images on a screen is all that's important, you've got another wake up call coming. Now go grab some food from your parents cupboard and enjoy what's given to you. As for 9/11, whenever I think about it I try to remember the importance of the day. I want to remember those who died and to go kill those who want to do it again. ___KNEEL___

  • May 22, 2006, 2:53 p.m. CST

    good point torch...

    by brycemonkey

    I'm always surprised when filmmakers or actors refuse to accept that something they've done is shit. I usually chalk it up to ego, embarrassment or that they are 'too close' to critique it. However, I think my first choice is the #1 reason they defend their 'art'. Saying that I'd probably not take it too well if some random dude told me the quality of my work was shit. (They'd be right but that's not the point!)

  • May 22, 2006, 3 p.m. CST

    Hey Zod...

    by brycemonkey

    so you've got a business degree but chose to join the armed forces, and you want to kill people? Psycho Killer, Quest que cest. I think I'd better run run run run run run run away...

  • May 22, 2006, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Selective reading...

    by kintar0

    If you honestly think that myself or Z0D is saying the only way to appreciate art is to get an art degree YOU ARE SEVERELY RETARDED. I like how the majority of you mouth breathers missed the sentence "It's all about how you talk about it." See, if you read a book or took one, single BASIC class about art appreciation, you'd get it. I know, I know the PEOPLE demand! a backlash against the intellectuals. Art, BY ITS VERY NATURE, is SUBJECTIVE. Sorry, RobRed1, you're just wrong. Art is an effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature, the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of emotion. Art is a nonscientific branch of learning, a system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities. It's a trade or craft that applies the same system of principles and methods. Art is skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation, skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties. Sorry, that's probably too much reading and too many big words for the anti-intellectuals. I credit the dictionary.

  • May 22, 2006, 3:12 p.m. CST

    Its Not That People Are Anti-Intellectual Its That They

    by flamingrunt

    are Anti-Cunts. And you guys acting all superior about art and calling everyone idiots are by the definition "cunts." If you dont know what it means, look it up in that fantastic dictionary of yours

  • May 22, 2006, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Wow, nice attitude from the 'intellectuals'.

    by brycemonkey

    Superior attitude, condescending tone, insults to those educated to a lesser/different standard. What's not to like there? Also I've never heard a self proclaimed intellectual before, most people I deal with have less ego than that... sad fuck.

  • May 22, 2006, 3:26 p.m. CST

    There sure are quite a few pretentious goofballs

    by Orbots Commander

    here on this board defending a grade-Z horror movie. The funniest argument I've read so far is the one defining this schlocky studio horror movie as "art". To each his own I guess.

  • May 22, 2006, 3:27 p.m. CST

    I'd invite you to support your claims...

    by kintar0

    of unfounded condensation and/or "acting all superior" with specific examples. Sorry, if your feelings are hurt when people use big words or have a deeper understanding of a concept, then you are indeed an idiot. My "fantastic dictionary," huh? As opposed to what? I'm a cunt because I can read and I'm not satisfied with a high school education. You've "never heard a self-proclaimed intellectual before?" What, you stopped attending school after kindergarten? Ask any teacher you've ever had if they consider themselves an intellectual. What's a "superior attitude," anyway?

  • May 22, 2006, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Exactly, Orbots.

    by kintar0

    "To each his own." And it's pretty clear that I, in particular, am not defending this film. But, yes, this film, like all other film, by definition, is art.

  • May 22, 2006, 3:30 p.m. CST

    lol kintar0...

    by brycemonkey

    that's funny shit dude! What, you aren't kidding? Really? Well I guess you just proved all my points... weird.

  • May 22, 2006, 3:38 p.m. CST

    Yes, brycemonkey, you're right...

    by kintar0

    I proved all of your points correct by asking you to support your points with examples. You're a genius, just like Joss Whedon and Kevin Smith. Congratulations, dude.

  • May 22, 2006, 3:50 p.m. CST

    kintar0, OK school is in session, take your seats...

    by brycemonkey

    OK, you asked for proof of condescention. You then immediately followed this request with a condescending sentence "Sorry, if your feelings are hurt when people use big words...". A superior attitude would be one where you think you are better than everyone else (in your case this misgiving is based on education). You demonstrate this by trying to imply that people who disagree with you stopped their education in kindergarten. You also use a very generalised and sweeping statement that all teachers above kindergarten level consider themselves 'intellectual'. Really? Didn't do much woodwork or phys ed huh? Also a mark of a decent teacher would be the reply "I consider myself a scholar and or teacher." I would suggest that anyone who replies "I am an intellectual" is probably a wank and a cunt to boot. Lessons over. I take it you are pretty young kintar0? Cos it sounds like you are 15, or is that just your massive intellect?

  • May 22, 2006, 3:51 p.m. CST


    by RobRed1

    I have a college degree. I've been to several museums on two continent. Taken the guided tours, heard the works explained. Read the info on the works. And bullshit smells like bullshit no matter how many syllables are in the words you use to describe it. Defecating on a canvas and writing a 500 word essay on the symbolism of the splatter pattern does not necessarily make it art. Creating a collection of "Mexican Night Diaharia", "Too Much Fiber: The Constipation Log" and "Green Apple Squirt" does not necessarily warrant an exhibition. Psuedo-Intellectual, self-congratulatory, mastabatory, elitist ejaculate on the public consciousness does not warrant the accolades of the public. (Is that enough syllables for you?)

  • May 22, 2006, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Self Proclaimed High What Makes You A Cunt Isnt Your

    by flamingrunt

    Intelligence but rather the fact that you belittle people for being, in your eyes, stupid. Even though you do not know these people, have no experience or knowledge of these people. Yet you are so ready to call them idiots. Or to say they need higher education. It is so easy to play the "oh im an army general with a 200IQ, a certified genius and youre all idiots" card. Especially if youre a fucked up 14 year old bitch hiding in his mums basement. As you are. But what relevence does this have to the movie? What relevance does this have to the "is it art" debate. Why not just give your points for or against and let your arguments show whether or not youre intelligent. Instead of making fun and insulting people youve never even met.

  • May 22, 2006, 4:13 p.m. CST

    The reason they HAD to remake this.....

    by Hairy Nutsack

    It's simple, look at the release date - 06/06/06. It'll be another 100 years before they can do this again.....Now that that's out of the way, I must say I take particular glee in the acts of Islamo-fascist assholes being portrayed as the beginning of the end of the world. If anyone is working for Satan, it's those fucks for sure.

  • May 22, 2006, 4:17 p.m. CST

    No, YOU live in YOUR parent's basement.

    by kintar0

    You so, so got me, flaming runt. You, too, brycemonkey. What's next, "make your own movie!" or "you're gay!" or "you hate America!"? But you're wrong, actually, because I do have both experience and knowledge of "these people." It's right here on this very talkback. Represent yourself as ignorant or misinformed and you will be counted among the ignorant and misinformed. Pooping on a canvas is art. Is it good art? Is it bad art? You decide. Maybe YOU don't think it warrants an exhibition, but someone else might. I love how calling someone a retard or an idiot is unacceptable but calling someone condescending, a cunt, a wank, a sad fuck, a fucked up 14 year old bitch, a psycho killer is perfectly cricket. It's called hypocrisy. I won't bother defining it because you're doing an excellent job already. And for the record, if your feelings get hurt by someone expressing themselves in a manner superior to you own abilities, then that is truly a sorry state of existence. I maintain that if you exclude your PE coach and shop teacher, the majority of the teachers you had would consider themselves intellectual.

  • May 22, 2006, 4:26 p.m. CST

    it's OK kintar0...

    by brycemonkey

    obviously your upbring is to blame for your twisted views, arrogance and allround smarmy, superior attitude. It all comes down to free will and choice and thats fine. I don't doubt that a lot of people are more clever than I am. However, that would not stop me from calling someone out who is being a sudo-intellectual know it all prick.

  • May 22, 2006, 4:29 p.m. CST


    by kintar0

  • May 22, 2006, 4:31 p.m. CST

    That's "pseudo."

    by kintar0

    Not "sudo." Or did you do that on purpose?

  • May 22, 2006, 4:33 p.m. CST

    but I got the "kow it all prick" bit right huh?

    by brycemonkey

    Wow, I am as clever as Kevin Smith. Cool... You just keep making my points for me. Thanks.

  • May 22, 2006, 4:43 p.m. CST

    That's depends, bryce...

    by kintar0

    on what you mean by "kow it all."

  • May 22, 2006, 4:45 p.m. CST


    by brycemonkey

    good point, enough flaming. Lets increase the peace... By hating on this remake! They ought to show the kid's eyes glowing red and then cut to the hijacker's eyes glowing red too. Then the planes hit. Put *that* in the trailer!

  • May 22, 2006, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Ahh, critique of TBers spelling etc.

    by brycemonkey

    The last refuge for Know It All Pricks. Answer your question? You do know this isn't an english essay for your "intellectual" English teacher?

  • May 22, 2006, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Last refuges?

    by kintar0

    I think that calling someone a teenager who lives with his/her own parents is a tad lower and a bit more of a cliche than pointing out simple typos. But whatever. I love you, brycemonkey. I wish you success and happiness.

  • May 22, 2006, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Obviously that teenager remark hit a little too close

    by flamingrunt

    to the bone. how are the folks anyway? fed up with having to suffer your slacker ass? fed up of listening to your bed creaking even though youre the only one in it? fed up of you being an utter cunt that no one likes?

  • May 22, 2006, 5:06 p.m. CST


    by kintar0

    C'mon, flaming runt. You can do better than that, can't you? I do enjoy your use of the mixed metaphor, though.

  • May 22, 2006, 5:08 p.m. CST


    by brycemonkey

    I didn't say you lived with your parents. Only that you sound like a 15 year old, with a smarmy superior and know it all attitude. And yes I know this TB has degenerated but I stand by my "last refuge" as "Last refuges" is an oxymoron. See two can play that game! Damn, I've degenerated to your level. Curses! Now, what is this TB about anyway...?

  • May 22, 2006, 5:08 p.m. CST

    Oh And If You Dont Like People Insulting You

    by flamingrunt

    then dont start it off by ragging on peoples intelligence. Remember youre the one who started this by insulting everyone and saying they should all go back to college. So do us all a favour and fuck off back to jerking your little stump in your mums panties.

  • May 22, 2006, 5:17 p.m. CST

    come on Yackbacker!

    by brycemonkey

    Call someone a name. Doesn't matter who... And at least one of my last 10 posts was on topic. Peace. I'm off anyway don't get too wound up folks!

  • May 22, 2006, 5:25 p.m. CST

    In reality...

    by kintar0

    my first post appears somewhere after the middle of the talkback as it exists now, and it was in reaction to other people's posts about the nature and appearance of art, so, sure, I perpetuated the argument/discussion, but I didn't start anything, and I didn't insult "everyone." I wrote "take a class," which doesn't really mean "go back to college," merely that a single basic art appreciation class or a book would help anyone

  • May 22, 2006, 5:33 p.m. CST

    'Mouth Breather' is such an '04 insult...

    by Alonzo Mosely

    Really need to update your insults, or you will find yourself being left out of the cool art-school gang when they hang around being mopey at the non-corporate coffeeshop...

  • May 22, 2006, 5:59 p.m. CST

    by BobWinters5

    They got mad because a film was using one clip from 9/11 to promote their film? Man imagine the uproar if they made a WHOLE film that used 9/11 as a way to bring in profit. Wait a minute...

  • May 22, 2006, 6:11 p.m. CST

    POLL: 70+ Million in US Support New 9/11 Investigation

    by boast Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation Mon May 22, 8:00 AM ET (PRWEB) - Utica, NY (PRWEB) May 22, 2006 -- Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated. ADVERTISEMENT Urges 2006 Reform Candidates to Recognize a Powerful New Constituency ChicagoMiniBanner.jpg The poll is the first scientific survey of Americans' belief in a 9/11 cover up or the need to investigate possible US government complicity, and was commissioned to inform deliberations at the June 2~4 "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future" conference in Chicago. Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure) and 45% think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success" (with 8% unsure). The poll of American residents was conducted from Friday, May 12 through Tuesday, May 16, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/- 2.9. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International. According to Janice Matthews, executive director of, "To those who have followed the mounting evidence for US government involvement in 9/11, these results are both heartening and frankly quite amazing, given the mainstream media's ongoing refusal to cover the most critical questions of that day. Our August 2004 Zogby poll of New Yorkers showed nearly half believe certain US officials 'consciously' allowed the attacks to happen and 66% want a fresh investigation, but these were people closest to the tragedy and most familiar with facts refuting the official account. This revelation that so many millions nationwide now also recognize a 9/11 cover up and the need for a new inquiry should be a wake up call for all 2006 political candidates hoping to turn this country around. We think it also indicates Americans are awakening to the larger pattern of deceit that led us into Constitutional twilight and endless war, and that our independent media may have finally come of age." Poll co-author, W. David Kubiak concurs, saying: "Despite years of relentless media promotion, whitewash and 9/11 Commission propaganda, the official 9/11 story still can't even muster 50% popular support. Since this myth has been the administration's primary source of political and war-making power, this level of distrust has revolutionary implications for everyone working for peace, justice and civil liberties. If we ever hope to reclaim this country, end aggression and restore international respect, we all must finally scrutinize that day when things started to go so terribly wrong. The media and movement leaders ignore this call at their peril, because tens of millions are clearly telling us here they are ready for 9/11 truth." SCOPE: The poll covered five related areas: 1) Iraq - do Americans think the Bush administration exploited 9/11 to attack Iraq? (44% do, 44% don't); 2) Cover up - did the government and its 9/11 Commission conceal or refuse to investigate evidence that contradicts their official story? (only 48% said no); 3) the collapse of WTC 7, which was not even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission and has seldom been reported in the media---had respondents been aware of this collapse and, if so, did they think it should be investigated (only 52% had known about it, but over 70% of this group believe it should have been investigated); 4) new investigation of official complicity - do respondents think we need one? (only 48% said no); and 5) mass media - how do people rate its performance, including its coverage of alternative 9/11 theories, unanswered questions and inquiry issues? (43% rate it positively, 55% negatively). (The poll sponsors see knowledge of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 as a bellwether issue, because if people do not know this elementary fact, they have probably not been exposed to any independent 9/11 research at all. Because the number of respondents who support a new investigation of 9/11 (45%)) is roughly the same as the number who knew about the collapse of Building 7 (52%), it can reasonably be extrapolated that if the entire public were exposed to independent 9/11 research, about 90 percent would support a new investigation of the events of that fateful day.) SPONSOR: is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and answer the hundreds of still unresolved questions concerning 9/11, especially the nearly 400 questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the 9/11 Commission. Initially welcomed by the commissioners as their "road map," these queries cut to the heart of 9/11 crimes and accountability, specifically raising the central issues of motive, means and cui bono (who profited?). The Commission ultimately ignored 80% of these issues, however, opting only to explore system failures, miscommunications and incompetence. The victim families' most incisive questions remain unaddressed to this day. For more information on the Chicago "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming our Future" conference and other developments, see and or contact our media coordinator, Michael Berger, at 314-308-4893. * Numerical computations conservatively based on 2000 Census data citing 174 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 64. Survey Methodology: Zogby America, 5/12/06 through 5/16/06 This is a telephone survey of adults nationwide conducted by Zogby International. The target sample is 1,200 interviews with approximately 81 questions asked. Samples are randomly drawn from telephone cd

  • May 22, 2006, 6:48 p.m. CST

    Can I hire the Taliban to crash into this TB?

    by Doctor_Sin

    Money is no object.

  • May 22, 2006, 7:37 p.m. CST


    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    its kinda fitting that footage of the twin towers on 9/11 pops up in this movie - considering its a movie about an evil being that manages to rise and gain power in the world political arena - isnt that what bush is? - isnt 9/11 is his baby? - he wears it like a raincoat encrusted with diamonds - its the best thing that ever happened to him and that he was ever a part of - the footage of 9/11 in this movie should follow some footage of bush - that would illustrate a more poignant point - especially in regard to the movies theme - if the devils son came to earth he would go into politics and orchestrate cataclysmic events and commit acts of psychological warfare on his own blind followers in order to maintain his popular standing and position

  • May 22, 2006, 9:31 p.m. CST


    by frank cotton

    HELLRAISER, STAR WARS (anh), 1984, and THE BLACK HOLE this weekend. if we insist on doing nothing but remakes, will someone please do a remake of THE BLACK HOLE - it cries out for it!

  • May 22, 2006, 9:35 p.m. CST

    A POLL

    by frank cotton

    how many of you have watched a STAR WARS film with FORCEFX LIGHTSABRE in hand?

  • May 22, 2006, 10:23 p.m. CST

    I assume this is used in a montage of evil things

    by Novaman5000

    that have happened in our world that the film attributes to the devil or something like that. The TV commercials for this film have flashes of genocide and suffering and shit too. This film is supposed to be updated, reflect the times. 9/11 is part of our times and history. It does not seem like the director is using these things inappropriately. DNYG needs to shut the fuck up and get real. I'm sorry he's still so haunted by 9/11 but it doesn't mean that the images and emotions from that day are off limits for everyone else to use/experience.

  • May 22, 2006, 10:51 p.m. CST

    The first X-Men blatantly used Holocaust imagry.....

    by Jimmy Jazz

    and I didn't hear anyone bitching about that. Is it just a matter of timing or do some people actually believe that you can pick and choose what can be used and what can't in a fictional narrative?

  • May 22, 2006, 11:02 p.m. CST

    excellent point Jimmy Jazz...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    how many died during the holocaust - youre right - and within the context of that movie that scene was great - the first xmen flick is still the best - frank cotton, as to your poll - i have - the anakin episode3 model - im getting the new obi wan episode3 saber next - then ill watch them with one in each hand

  • May 22, 2006, 11:09 p.m. CST


    by maximusdecimus

    The original wasn't even slightly scary. What makes Mr Moore think he can better it. Think i'll pass on this one. The 911 stuff was probably in poor taste as well. But I wont know anyhow. So roll on another crap summer of movies and the studios will be scratching their heads wondering why their figures are down again this year.

  • May 22, 2006, 11:36 p.m. CST

    "The poll was from Friday May 12-Tuesday May 16, 2004"

    by Triumph poops!

    What the fuck? Nice going, Boast. In order to show how people "feel", you're citing polls from TWO YEARS AGO? Gee, if we can pick and choose willy-nilly and cite polls that way to make a case, I guess those who see things opposite from the 9/11 government-conspiracy whackos can just point to polls taken right after 9/11 that had Bush with a 80-90% approval which point, your whole argument that people distrust the government takes a total flying fuck. Which, frankly, is what 9/11 conspiracy theorists SHOULD take.

  • May 23, 2006, 12:12 a.m. CST

    Today's horror movies just aren't scary

    by Orionsangels

    They're too easily manufactured and full of computer graphics. There's no mystic behind the making modern day horror movies, take movies like The Excorsist, Amytiville, Poltergeist. You hear about creep things that happened during the making of or the movie has a curse. That gave them this creepy tone about them. That today's disposable horror movies just can't match.

  • May 23, 2006, 2:21 a.m. CST

    thats because...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    ...todays horror movies are made primarily for dim witted teenagers (largest ticket buying group) that have little to no taste - especially when it comes to movies - and specifically horror movies - honestly - was "hostel" scary? - it was gory - but was it "scary"?

  • May 23, 2006, 3:11 a.m. CST

    the whole point of film is to use images...

    by The Ghost of Marcus Brody

    .. to engage emotions. Everybody needs to fucking relax.

  • May 23, 2006, 10:28 a.m. CST

    I'm back! And I'm over my Monday blues...

    by brycemonkey

    Yeah, I appologise for getting a bit worked up yesterday. Anyway what's done is done. I find this movie a sad and strange affair. Like the Pycho remake it seems competent enough but pointless. I wonder if the makers have addressed why they made it in the first place? (other than the obviou$ an$wer)

  • May 23, 2006, 1:28 p.m. CST

    So this movie has Dumbledore and Lupin?

    by minderbinder

    Too bad Brendan Gleeson or Robbie Coltraine wasn't available, they could have had the trifecta.

  • May 23, 2006, 4:59 p.m. CST

    forcefx lightsabres

    by half vader

    That was a euphemism, right Frank Cotton?! BTW good to see you spelled it with an "re".

  • May 23, 2006, 5:31 p.m. CST

    Remember Richard Burton's THE MEDUSA TOUCH ?

    by Spacesheik

    That was a British OMEN clone about a man who could *will* disasters. In one scene he *wills* a 747 to crash into an apartment complex. Vicious film..i think Trevor Howard was in that too, it was some disaster flick.

  • May 23, 2006, 6:05 p.m. CST

    Sure, bad taste, but...

    by monorail77

    Sure, including a burning twin towers image in a shit horror remake is hideous taste, but is it wrong? Should the images be forbidden in all but "pure" uses? Can't help but think of the way Isalmics reacted to the Dutch cartoons involving images of Mohammed. Most non-Islamics agreed the cartoons may have been offensive, but didn't agree with the outright ban on use of the images, citing freedom of expression. Is this any different?

  • May 23, 2006, 11:24 p.m. CST

    This just in...

    by Neutron

    Hey, conspiracy asshats: your pal Osama had this to say about the Moussaoui conviction: ............... "He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the speaker, claiming to be bin Laden, said in the tape posted on the Internet. "I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers. The al-Qaida chief said the Sept. 11 hijackers were divided into two groups, "pilots and assistants." "Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden said. "It knows this very well," he added.******* Question: how does this Saudi dissident know anything about the planning behind the Bush/Mossad 9/11 plot? The mystery deepens.

  • May 24, 2006, 12:29 a.m. CST


    by Posthumos1

    After going through about 60 or so of the posts on this TB, I have come to one conclusion. NO ONE fucking reads or understands anything in this country unless they are hit in the fucking forehead with a super sized hammer and then shown the content of what they read by some talking head on the six o-clock news. OKAY I get it. 9/11 was bad. It hurt all of us. No one will forget exactly where they were when it happened. Just like John Lennon getting shot or JFK or Hiroshima, for those really old guys. The somewhat intelligent ones have posted that this is IN FACT history, and because of that it will be used in film, books, magazines, politics, and bad "news" shows. SO THE FUCK WHAT? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, if you are a senstitive ninny boo boo bitch who can't handle a 2 second dissolve of a picture of history then your problem can be easily solved by not watching the movie. In fact for all of you little panzies who can't handle seeing a bit of history I suggest you write to our blowhard preisdent and ask him to make a Warning label similar to the one on CD's warning all of us poor misguided liberal democrats that the movie we are going to see might involve a short scene depicting 9/11. I am a patriot and an American and 9/11 hurt me too. But I don't fear it and I agree that whether The Omen remake is bad or good; it is actually RELEVENT in the context of this story to show a modern tragedy. Before you all start to bash me, please take a few minutes to let this one stream of thought sink in and filter out your uber-patriotism. Let's look at what this premis of this film is: The anti-christ is here. And Biblically speaking the forecomeing of the Anti-Christ may involve some semblance of bad things happening, and on that list should not the worst thing happening in the nation that the story is set in recent times be among those things? I say why the hell not. Showing an image of that poll smoker president stealing another election probably wouldn't have the same dramatic effect and would utterly confuse the 32% of "real americans" who support him. So tell me if you could establish a better one picture image of badness and turmoil in this country for a bad things happening montage, what image would you use? I love the original Omen and honestly I am looking forward to see a modern slant on it. I understand, to a point, why Hollywood rehashes SOME movies; mind you, I DO NOT agree with MOST of the ideas, but hell what can I do about it. They remake movies like the Omen because a LOT of younger people A) Haven't even heard of the original; no .....really. B) would posively HATE watching an "OLD" movie from the 70's; not enough CG. And C) would be disconnected from it because of all the rubbish movies that come out that are propelled into the spotlight as "groundbreaking" and "bold" which in fact are mediocre and are meant to be watched only once and therefore suck balls. I say leave this guy alone and if you don't want to see the 9/11 blip in the movie then either cover your eyes and hide like a 9 year old or don't watch it; but if you don't watch it then don't waste my time by posting about it. The movie has a decent cast and seems to be sticking to the original's storyline so it may actually be watchable, just give it a shot. Look at The Hills Have Eyes remake. A remake of a schlocky 70's horror movie that did abysmal figures at the box office but gained a cult following. IMHO it wasn't a terrible remake and it had a bit of a heart to it. BUT SLITHER ROCKED THE HOUSE!!!!