ROTTEN TOMATOES: Photo Gallery Update: New "X-Men" Pics, "The Omen," and More

Photo Gallery Update: New "X-Men" Pics, "The Omen," and More

by RT Staff | April 14, 2006

With the studios releasing their summer 2006 previews these days, we've got some new photos from the big pics of the summer and beyond, including "X-Men: The Last Stand," "The Omen," and "Open Season."

20th Century Fox has released two new stills for the most anticipated mutant comic hero movie of the year, "X-Men: The Last Stand." Click on the image below to peruse our full photo gallery, including individual character shots of mutants good and bad, old and new.

Horror fans will be geeked to see this summer's "The Omen," an updated remake of the cult classic about an evil little boy with some evil little plans. "The Omen" stars Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, and newcomer Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick and comes out -- when else? -- 6/6/06.

And lastly, one for the family: "Open Season," featuring the vocal talents of Martin "You So Crazy" Lawrence and Ashton "Punk'd" Kutcher, will bring a duo of animated forest creatures to the big screen September 29, 2006.

For more of the latest photo gallery updates, check out our Latest Additions, here.

Related Items

Movie:	Open Season
	X-Men: The Last Stand

(1-6 of 6 posts) | Reply

I Am Remote writes:
on Apr 15 2006 04:50 PM

[b]Why?[/b]
Remaking the Omen is an obvious, unnecessary addition to the recent trend in movies that tap into a Christain viewership. The original is great. Leave it alone.

(Reply to this)

IMAmoose24 writes:
on Apr 16 2006 09:06 AM

I agree. The Omen was an amazing movie. There was no reason for a remake, but after i saw the new trailer during Scary Movie 4, im kinda excited.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Apr 16 2006 01:57 PM

Remote and Moose are basically speaking for both sides of the Remakes argument here. Neither side is truly "for" remakes, but while one side takes offense, the other will see it anyway based on the trailer or press surrounding it, as they would any other film. As long as that latter side exists, remakes are (and have been) profitable.

I'm not sure if my own findings are 100% correct, but when I looked this up, I found that there were 12 remakes made last year: "Amityville," "Assault on Precinct 13," "Bad News Bears," "Charlie," "Dark Water," "The Fog," "Fun With Dick and Jane," "House of Wax," "King Kong," "The Longest Yard," "War of the Worlds," and "Yours, Mine & Ours." Admittedly, some of these are far more high-profile than others, but at any rate, they grossed a domestic grand total of $1.184 billion, accounting for 13% of 2005's domestic box-office. Since these 12 movies only made up 7% of the American, non-documentary releases that year, it seems like remakes are going to be a permanent part of Hollywood's output, and though we may decry it, like reality TV, we're still going to watch them. I myself saw four of these movies, even though I think remakes are a creatively poor choice.

(Reply to this)

IMAmoose24 writes:
on Apr 16 2006 03:49 PM

Dont get me as a remake fan. I dislike most remakes. Execptions from that list were kong, war of the worlds, and amityville. When i first heard the remake of the omen, i was not too keen on the idea. All i meant by im excited is that i hope this is one remake that will do the orginal some justice. And remakes will ALWAYS be part of the movies. There's no way around it.

(Reply to this)

lavatory love machine writes:
on Apr 16 2006 05:02 PM

I wouldn't count war of the worlds as a remake, it's a new adaptation

otherwise the lord of the rings would be a remake of the 1978 animated movie

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Apr 16 2006 06:39 PM

Oh, I'm not counting you as a remake fan, Moose. Neither am I. We both saw those movies you listed, by the way, but I'd imagine we didn't do so with disgust because on their own merits, they seemed worth the ticket price (Spielberg, Jackson, etc.). I'm merely saying that you are giving the "Omen" remake a chance, and so will many people.

And it's a tricky gray area when determining what counts as a remake or an adaptation. I included "Worlds" in that list of remakes because it had far less to do with H.G. Wells' novel than the 1953 original, apart from Wells' text which bookends the film. It seemed like an evolution of the basic concept with the same title. Because of this and other reasons, for most people watching Spielberg's version, their frame of reference includes only the 1953 movie. So, literal definitions aside, if it looks like a remake, sounds like a remake, then it is. The animated version of "LOTR" is, in my opinion, a different bag of hammers on several counts, most notably because one is (so I'm told) unfinished, all-but-forgotten and less faithful to the text than the other. I certainly didn't know about the animated version until Jackson's installments came out.

"Amityville," "Dark Water," "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "King Kong" could be taken out as well if we were thinking along your terms (which we very well could), but I believe that the inspiration and compulsion to remake both films comes from the success and/or fond memories of the films, not the original source material, however important the latter's existence may be.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com