Just saw the movie and am confused about some stuff. If you know the answer to any of the following, please enlighten me:
1. Why did Fr. Brennan have the mark of the beast (666 birthmark) on him? I thought only the anti-christ had it?
2. Why did Fr. Brennan want to be forgiven for his sins? What role did he play in Damien's life? Was he the biological father of Damien?
3. Didn't the Vatican know the identity of the anti-Christ? Why did the priests who knew keep it to themselves? Why didn't they help the ambassador kill his son? Surely this was one war that they wouldn't have minded killing for.
2006-06-07 14:44:41 · 8 answers · asked by Trillian 6 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
The spoiler disclaimer was meant for those who haven't watched the original film. This isn't like the Titanic movie wherein it is FACT that it sunk so everyone knows how it ends. Use your head girl or don't answer the question.
2006-06-07 15:00:34 · update #1
I've watched the movie, ok? NO need to give me a synopsis! I just need to be clear on some things in the movie hence the questions.
2006-06-07 15:04:33 · update #2
Not to offend, but it's hard to give spoilers of a movie that is a remake
To clarify, anyone who "worked" for the anti christ had the same mark, just as in the Bible, people left behind will have to take the mark.
I believe Fr. Brennan's sins was knowing what actually happened the night Damien and the Thorn's child were born and knowing Damien was the anti christ and feeling guilty for NOT killing him as a baby.
The vatican didn't know the identity of the anti christ, it was only a few who believed Damien was him, it was hard for his parents to believe it too. By "keeping it to themselves" they may have thought they were safer by ignoring the situation.
The original is a better told story, see it and you should understand it better.
2006-06-07 14:49:24 · answer #1 · answered by pipi08_2000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Robert Thorn is a senior American diplomat whose wife, Katherine, endures a difficult delivery where their newborn child has died. Thorn knows the news will devastate Katherine, who had suffered two previous miscarriages. The hospital priest presents Thorn with another child born that night, whose mother died in childbirth. The priest compels Thorn to take the infant boy as his own; Katherine will never know the truth, and their son, which they name Damien, will be raised as their flesh and blood. As the child turns five, unsettling events begin to occur: Damien¿s nanny hangs herself at the youngster¿s birthday party; a strange priest brings dire warnings to Thorn; a children¿s trip to the zoo results in a panicked frenzy; Damien becomes hysterical during a drive to church; and blurred movements in a series of photographs portend shocking deaths. Enter Mrs. Baylock, Damien¿s new nanny, who seems to have a preordained devotion to the child. Then tragedy strikes closer to home. But only later does Thorn comprehend the truth: Damien is no ordinary child; he is the long-prophesized Anti-Christ. Now, Thorn must make the ultimate sacrifice to prevent the unspeakable terror that awaits the world.
2006-06-07 21:54:48 · answer #2 · answered by sumit_kn 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fr. Brennan was there the night that Thorn's son was born. He knows that it wasn't really complications at birth that killed Thorn's child and wants to right that wrong by helping Thorn see what he must do before it is to late. Hope that helped you with question 2. Sorry i couldn't help with 1 or 3.
2006-06-08 10:37:12 · answer #3 · answered by megster 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
W H A T ? ? ? ? ?
The titanic sunk?????
I was going to watch that today and no you've ruined it for me.
Thanks a lot pal! I could have sworn I heard many times it was unsinkable!!! I never would have guessed.
If I ever catch you I'm gonna shave your head and look for a 6 6 6 .
2006-06-19 10:42:44 · answer #4 · answered by Jenny A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have not seen the newer version of the movie. All my friends and co-workers say that it was pretty good and extremely lame when compared to the old black and white.
2006-06-21 19:34:55 · answer #5 · answered by moonguardianluna 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They really disappointed viewers. They didn't put any effort to make this movie look great. Old ones just rock comparing to this trash.
2006-06-20 18:35:38 · answer #6 · answered by denlun84 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To answer this questions you should see the old version, but I warn you if the remake scared you, the old will scare you even more.
2006-06-20 12:57:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
is it worth watching ?
2006-06-16 20:22:33 · answer #8 · answered by babykatdream099 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋