input: The first question that springs to mind after watching this rubbish is who on earth gave these idiots the right to use the Omen name on this movie? It is a shambolic , embarrassing, pathetic atempt to carry on the Omen franchise. When the film starts the backing music sounds like it has been lifted straight from a Bugs Bunny Cartoon and from then on the film gets worse! I dont know who wrote the script but i bet they got a E - for it when they took it back to show their teacher! It is difficult after a while to tell if this is a comedy because what happens is so funny and so un true to the original Omen it beggers belief. The acting is laughable , especially from the leading lady Faye Grant. she keeps pulling silly faces or is she finding it difficult not to laugh? It's hard to tell. THE worst sequal i have ever had the misfortune to witness. 1 out of 10.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Had this been the original 1914 version of TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY (also starring Mary Pickford), I probably would have rated it a lot higher, as this sort of extreme melodrama and sentimentality was pretty typical of the teens. However, by 1922, this film was already starting to show its age. And, compared to many of Ms. Pickford's other films (such as DADDY LONGLEGS, SPARROWS, MY BEST GIRL and SUDS), TESS comes up a tad short--and not every Pickford film merits a 10 (even if she was "America's Sweetheart"). Now this isn't to say that it's a bad film--it certainly isn't. But, I just can't see how so many have given this film a 10.

The film has a very long and complicated plot--especially because most films of the era were shorter. A rich old crank builds a mansion at the top of a hill next to the river. At the bottom of the hill are some dirty squatters who he hates but who he cannot evict. So he tries to come up with a variety of ways to get them off the land. One ends up in tragedy, when his daughter's fiance is killed in a scuffle with the po' folks. The man accused of the murder is dear old Mary's father, though he is innocent. To make things a lot worse, the only witness to the real murder won't talk AND the dead man had gotten his fiancee pregnant! So, at this point, we have an innocent man in prison waiting to be executed and a pregnant lady afraid to tell her sanctimonious father she is "in the family way". There's a ton more to the film, such as the crank's son falling in love with Mary, but it's best you just see the film for yourself.

The film excels in some ways. The plot, while very complicated, is also rather interesting and the cinematography is top-notch. The very final scene is also pretty cute. However, there is so much overt sentimentality you can practically cut it with a knife. Mary is SO good and SO sweet and So plucky, at times the viewer might find it all a bit hard to take. While it worked great in 1922 (making her the biggest star in the world), today it's very dated. This is NOT true of all her films, but this one certainly is.

By the way, the Image Entertainment DVD is of decent quality, though a few scenes are badly degraded--something that isn't very surprising considering the age of the film. Also, the only extras included are a brief filmography.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.

Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The first mystery is to guess what Welles' original film was like. That makes this a real adventure -- to see an incomplete skeleton and using cinematic forensics, imagine the beautiful woman it once supported.

If you do, you will both see and experience perhaps one of the best film mysteries ever. As mysteries go, the narrative is rather ordinary: a simple diversion, one jealous husband as red herring.

What's rather miraculous is Welles' placement of the story in an artificial eye seeing a dark, dark multifaceted world. The first real noir, but even darker. It's not an obviously twisted world, unless you think about the camera. What we can see firsthand is someone creating a vocabulary that would later become common.

For all the celebration, Kane was a success because of the great drama and story. The camera's eye was shocking, but experimental. Welles would go from there to explore the mystery narrative and the self-reference of Shakespeare with this eye. Othello and MacBeth are both begun in this period, and I consider them part of a single vision with this.

The noir feel here hinges on the notion that people are not in charge of their lives, even a little -- they are manipulated by random factors in the environment. So in telling this story, Welles has to make the environment into a character. Several characters as suspects in the mystery.

Thus we have the famous lighting, blocking and angles we know (and have since seen countless times). And we have the deliberately closed sets: the park, yacht, picnic area, aquarium, dock, courtroom, Chinese theater and funhouse. I am certain that what was cut by the barbarians was lots and lots of 'external' narrative dealing not with character but with these strange environments.

My own solution to the mystery is that the funhouse did it, among the other character-environments introduced as suspects. In other words, the manipulation of Black Irish (who we know from notes and one scene typing at the union hall was an aspiring novelist) was neither: a force of human conspiracy (the park or the civilized version, the courtroom) nor of nature (the picnic or the civilized version, the aquarium).

Instead it was a matter of deliberate caprice by the gods for amusement. This is of course a self-reference to what Welles is doing: putting these people (including himself) through hell for our own caprice, a matter underscored by the Peking Opera set with Welles doped up. And of course leading to the funhouse where the environment directly tinkers with perception.

More about the self-reference: surely there is conscious comment on his relationship with his soon to be exwife. But I believe there is strong subconscious comment on his own taunting the environment in which he worked, the studio environment. Surely Welles was as much screwed with, and in much the same way, as his character. And that screwing took the form of the murder of this film, leaving the rotting corpse mentioned at the beginning of this comment.

That poor Rita comes from China ties up the whole thing, the Chinese theater, the expected rape from above, the loss of the woman. The investment in environment beyond all.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive