ROTTEN TOMATOES: Box Office: Audiences Heed "The Omen" In Record Numbers

Box Office: Audiences Heed "The Omen" In Record Numbers

by RT Staff | June 07, 2006

It appears the mark of the beast marks the spot, at least as far as "The Omen" is concerned. The movie's stunt release date of 06-06-06 made for a devil of a box office return -- at $12.6 million, "The Omen" raked in the biggest Tuesday returns in history, beating out "Meet the Fockers" by $4,000, according to Box Office Mojo.

The film, starring Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles, tells the story of a diplomat and his wife who are bringing up a child sired by the Prince of Darkness himself. "The Omen" currently stands at 31 percent on the Tomatometer, with critics saying it adheres a little too closely to the 1976 original (at 84 percent).

As Robert Johnson might say, "The (release) day keeps on remindin' me/ There's a hellhound on my trail."

Related Items

Celeb:	Liev Schreiber
	Julia Stiles
	Robert Johnson
Movie:	The Omen
	Meet the Fockers
	The Omen

(1-19 of 19 posts) | Reply

Teewana writes:
on Jun 07 2006 04:27 PM

[b]Back to the 50's[/b]
Before they even remade the script they knew what date they were going to release it on. It reminds me of 1950's science fiction films where they came up with a catchy title before they even knew what the film was going to be about. Props to The Omen, rediculous marketing ploys are what our society thrives on, it may not be ethical... but who the hell cares.

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on Jun 07 2006 06:49 PM

Fourth film in as many weeks that critics have poo-pooed and audiences have gone to in droves.

(Reply to this)

Saint_Angst writes:
on Jun 07 2006 07:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#837614)
What do you expect? It's summer, people are gonna go to the movies regardless of what's playing is good or not.

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on Jun 07 2006 08:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#837615)
I expect that but what's amazing is they've all performed considerably above expectations. Seriously did anyone think the omen was going to break any records?

(Reply to this)

Elixir writes:
on Jun 07 2006 09:28 PM

summer is all about the youngens who have nothing better to do.

come on, its not that hard to figure out.

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Jun 07 2006 09:30 PM

but its 12million....and a Tuesday...and it was freakin' 6-6-06 that is awesome...probably won't see it, but kudos anyways.

and critics rarely give summer blockbusters good reviews because many of them can't discern a " 'good' popcorn movie" from a " 'good' movie"...there is a difference.

(Reply to this)

Flim Springfield writes:
on Jun 07 2006 10:35 PM

"Biggest Tuesday Ever" really isn't much of a record, considering movies never open on a tuesday, and that the marketing ploy was aimed at that one specific day.

(Reply to this)

killbill82 writes:
on Jun 07 2006 10:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#837619)
[b]Nice![/b]
Actually more than a few films have opened on a tuesday. It beat "Meet the Fockers" and "Ali" so it doesn't matter if you want to acknowledge it or not.[your hate seems to be strong young one] It's a big deal when it beats movies like those.

(Reply to this)

VML writes:
on Jun 08 2006 01:23 AM

Damn, what a waste. The once-in-a-lifetime day (6-6-06) was wasted on a crappy remake. The studios should have released a better Satanic-related movie. (Might as well wait until 2066 to release a good evil movie.)

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 08 2006 05:26 AM

I still contend this is a better remake than some (although still not great). I'd love to be able to do a study to see the effect on the rentals of the original movies after remakes come out. I still believe that's the best reason for remakes, that they might actually make people watch the originals to see which is better.

And look at the bright side. At least with all these record box offices maybe Hollywood will quit whining about how nobody's going to the movies.

(Reply to this)

Hieremias writes:
on Jun 08 2006 05:47 AM

"Actually more than a few films have opened on a tuesday. It beat "Meet the Fockers" and "Ali" so it doesn't matter if you want to acknowledge it or not.[your hate seems to be strong young one] It's a big deal when it beats movies like those."

Meet the Fockers was a comedy aimed at the older demographics, and movies like that pretty well never break opening-day records. They are profitable because they have longevity; older people generally don't feel the need to rush out on opening weekend.

And if I recall correctly, Ali opened on Christmas day--and once again, aimed at the older demographic--so no surprise if it didn't break records.

(Reply to this)

chosenone86 writes:
on Jun 08 2006 06:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#837617)
lol, I'm no "youngen" but I haven't forgotten how to have fun at the movies. Many critics cannot watch a movie from the perspective of the audience. The public knows what it likes. Reviews may be important when it comes to award season, but they are becoming less and less relevant when it comes to box office performance.

(Reply to this)

lovelykeira writes:
on Jun 08 2006 01:58 PM

I thought that it was pretty good, I gave it a B-. I never have seen the original so I can't compare the two.

(Reply to this)

IMAmoose24 writes:
on Jun 08 2006 07:02 PM

See the orginal. That's a good scary movie for ya.

(Reply to this)

dc00777 writes:
on Jun 09 2006 04:57 AM

In reply to this comment (#837614)
People really dont care what critics have to say. They just dont. If theres a move I'd like to see I see it regardless of what critics say. If you look forward to seeing a movie ( and I mean really want to see it, not theres nothing else playing see it) and you skip it because the film gets ok or bad reviews then I think you need to learn to think for yourself.

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on Jun 09 2006 08:51 AM

In reply to this comment (#837627)
I don't agree with critics a lot of time but rarely do films that critics universally hate do more business than they're expected to. Most people if they read a rave review it makes them more intrested in a movie and if they read a not so good review it makes them less interested in a movie. You may say you don't care about critics but when was the last time you went to a movie having not read or seen atleast one review ahead of time. I know I see movies all the time that I wouldn't have if it hadn't been for a critic reccommending it. Last one that comes to mind is Bubba Ho-tep which I really enjoyed a lot I don't see what's ingnorant about listening to advice even if you don't agree with it.

(Reply to this)

The Paki Don writes:
on Jun 11 2006 03:50 AM

In reply to this comment (#837627)
[b]What does Rotten Tomatoes exist for then ?[/b]
I find it quite dumb to say that critics aren't listened to. You seem to be elevating a critic into something more than he/she is: A movie-lover. So are we, that's why we post on these boards. I'll agree with your statement that if a movie that you're really looking forward to gets bad reviews, you still go and see it. I did so with X-Men 3, and in retrospect, I'm happy I went, because that's what I wanted to, but I also got confirmation that the critics' overall opinion corresponded well within the realms of reason.

I was looking forward to The Da Vinci Code as well, but didn't go see it. Now I'll wait for DVD. Why ? At 23% at Rotten Tomatoes I draw the line between being a fan of Tom Hanks and a fan of good cinema in general. And I respect the opinion of critics, they've surely saved me many times from wasting money at the cinema.

You seem to be lacking the background reason for why people wanna accept the opinions of reviews. It has nothing to do with not thinking for yourself; it's reading through other peoples (hopefully) well-crafted opinions and if they are convincing enough, you accept them. What's the problem with that ?

As my title suggests, a lot of people do use the reviews for something. Forget the Summer period, because this is the time, where people disregard reviews the most; just remember that these are still the same critics, and they wouldn't (shouldn't) change their mind about a movie, just because of it's premiere date.

If you managed to care to read this post, thank you for your time. :D

(Reply to this)

UweBoll writes:
on Jun 11 2006 02:10 PM

In reply to this comment (#837618)
I totally agree, the majority of critics are unable to make the difference between a good and a bad popcorn movie. Like I know the Amytiville remake was not a great film yet it was really enjoyable in a mindless fun kind of way, and it was trashed by the critics the same way some piece of tat like Halloween 8 was.

(Reply to this)

Circe Prankster writes:
on Jun 12 2006 12:23 PM

In reply to this comment (#837629)
I agree that reviews can be a useful way to investigate a possible purchase before committing money and time - one of the problems with judging a movie's success solely through box office receipts is that all those people who bought tickets had to do so before they actually saw the film. Many of them might have disliked it, but unlike with most unsatisfactory commodities they can't return the product in protest and get their money back. So yes, it's important to consider carefully before buying a ticket and voting with your wallet, and reviews are a valuable asset in that process.

But I disagree that critics are just movie-lovers. Certainly most of them must love movies to be in the field. But they are paid to critique a product for a specific publication or website. A New Yorker critic has to consider the readership of the New Yorker: what should I advise this particular group of people to see? The "New Yorker type" will want to know what their friends will have seen, what they'll need to know about to hold their own at the next dinner party with other New Yorker types. I think a lot of reviewers are hamstrung by that requirement of their jobs. I often read reviews and feel like the critic is pandering to some idea of what they think their readers will think is supposed to be good . . . instead of applying an open-minded and insightful critical analysis to the film. Also, they frequently take cheap pot-shots because they're funny and will entertain their readers at the film's expense, even if their nasty comments aren't entirely fair.

I don't like the New Yorker magazine so I don't heed its reviews. But I really like this website, because it gives a general sense of ALL critical response to a film, from a wide variety of sources. You can sample many opinions and choose which seem to correspond best to your own tastes and outlook. So thanks, Rotten Tomatoes, for providing this great service!

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Liev Schreiber

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links