Two nun-horror films were released a couple of weeks apart, with more or less the same plot structure. Is this a case of a one-line idea (co-incidentally) navigating the minds of several screenwriters or straight-up idea theft? We'll never know. I'm reminded of a storyline theft issue in the Malayalam industry earlier in May that made headlines. On the bright side, at least Hollywood seems chill about it (or are they?). If it's pure coincidence, then color me intrigued. Because, Immaculate and The First Omen follow the same "plot structure" (not plot). Michael Mohan's film had its merits and flaws, and that's the case with Arkasha Stevenson's too.
The First Omen is a better-looking film visually. It probably has a lot to do with Arkasha getting to work with a $30 mn budget as opposed to Mohan's $9 mn. This is evident from the very first scene - a heady reminder that it's a prequel to one of the most iconic horror movies of all time. Nell Tiger Free's got an incredibly expressive face, and that's a definite tickmark for a horror film protagonist. Novitiate Margaret arrives at an orphanage for girls in Rome, as clueless and excited as anyone that age would be. There are early signs of things going awry, but director Arkasha saves the most startling stuff for the film's second act.
That's also when it proudly bears its "prequel to The Omen" stamp, treating us to ghastly imagery (for sure, will stay in your head for a fairly long time). The film, by nature, has a lot to do with female body horror; therefore, the way the makers execute a particularly disturbing birth scene is worthy of applause. I completely enjoyed some of Arkasha's shot choices, and it's exactly the lighting, the camera positioning, the color palette, and the quick cuts that make it a thrillingly engaging ride (for the most part). The gothic-styled costumes were also an add-on. On the flip side, I didn't find the climax (and the epilogue) all that impressive (which is where Immaculate scored better IMO). It was honestly a writing (and not a performative) mess, until.. until.. until that Damien name-drop. I'd watch a sequel if Free and Arkasha return as the lead and the director, respectively.
The First Omen is a better-looking film visually. It probably has a lot to do with Arkasha getting to work with a $30 mn budget as opposed to Mohan's $9 mn. This is evident from the very first scene - a heady reminder that it's a prequel to one of the most iconic horror movies of all time. Nell Tiger Free's got an incredibly expressive face, and that's a definite tickmark for a horror film protagonist. Novitiate Margaret arrives at an orphanage for girls in Rome, as clueless and excited as anyone that age would be. There are early signs of things going awry, but director Arkasha saves the most startling stuff for the film's second act.
That's also when it proudly bears its "prequel to The Omen" stamp, treating us to ghastly imagery (for sure, will stay in your head for a fairly long time). The film, by nature, has a lot to do with female body horror; therefore, the way the makers execute a particularly disturbing birth scene is worthy of applause. I completely enjoyed some of Arkasha's shot choices, and it's exactly the lighting, the camera positioning, the color palette, and the quick cuts that make it a thrillingly engaging ride (for the most part). The gothic-styled costumes were also an add-on. On the flip side, I didn't find the climax (and the epilogue) all that impressive (which is where Immaculate scored better IMO). It was honestly a writing (and not a performative) mess, until.. until.. until that Damien name-drop. I'd watch a sequel if Free and Arkasha return as the lead and the director, respectively.
Tell Your Friends