2.5/5 Stars
Director: John Moore
Robert Thorn: Liev Schreiber
Katherine Thorn: Julia Stiles
Length: 110 mins
Rated: R
A great film can be compared to any other film and hold it’s own. It is unique enough to be original, yet it follows, to a degree, the consistencies we’ve come to expect from cinema. If either of these two aspects are abandoned, you get a couple of hours of boring redundancy or an experimental mess that’s too inaccessible to have any real impact on the audience. Or both. These cinematic consistencies are fairly obvious. There must be a compelling story delivered in such a way that it’s constantly moving the audience from point A to point B, visually through editing and cinematography, as well as through character and plot development. The film must be identifiable within its genre, but avoid being bogged down with cliches from it’s categorical ancestors. And the most important feature on the checklist of a great film is the concept of verisimilitude, a sense of believability and authenticity. Not necessarily in the sense that the concept of the film might actually happen in our reality, but considering the world that the story exists in, do we buy it? How do the actors react to death, or birth, or anything? Are there holes in the story? We apply our knowledge of the way things work from our own experiences in real life to this false, two-dimensional world in front of us. Do things progress naturally or does the story completely depend on plot devices arbitrary to the director? The filmmakers can only ask the audience to accept so much fiction before we lose our connection with the film’s reality.
Thirty years after The Omen (1976) was released, apparently someone thought it would be a good idea to remake the bone chilling film about the devil (or son of the devil; it’s not exactly a clear distinction, similar to the whole Jesus being God while simultaneously being the son of God-thing) being born into our modern world. Might it have something to do with the available release date of 06/06/06? Maybe? Definitely. At least Wesley Morris seems to think so, stating, “It's a terrible sign for a movie when the sole reason for its existence is a satanic opening date.” I agree. And as far as the story goes, it’s nearly an exact replica of the original. Both versions of this film have been written by David Seltzer, who, as Morris puts it, “...merely appears to have dusted off his original and handed it in to the studio.” Don’t get me wrong, it’s an excellent story. It’s eerie and dark. Extremely dark. Exploring the most terrifying prophecies of a religion halved by evil. But I’ve seen it before. I know what happens. I know how it ends. A faithful reproduction? Maybe. Seems more like laziness to me.
Remaking a movie can't be easy, especially when that movie is a classic. Since the story remains nearly untouched, this film has to rely on something, everything else to prove it was worth making. Its most obvious strength is the cinematography. The entire film moves effortlessly from angle to angle. Smooth, long pans, often beginning with a close shot of something normal, like Damien’s mother (Julia Stiles) watering a house plant, then backing off to reveal the suspense or tragedy that’s about to ensue.
The cinematography also helps bring forward the gorgeous set design and spot-on location selection. There’s a theme of red and black running through the film, from the obvious, blood, to the subtle passing of someone with an umbrella. The black is mostly embodied by the darkness surrounding every shot. Not that anything was hard to see, but there was often a contrast of dark colors with vivid red accents. Much of this was visually stunning, but sometimes it seemed to go into overkill with the color theme. At the very least, director John Moore gets style points to replace some of those he lost with the lack of invention in the story.
Moore gets some more points for some extremely creepy, quick edits of unnerving visuals. As the relationship between Damien and his mother deteriorates and his evil barometer starts to rise, she begins to see terrifying visions. These are presented as dreamlike sequences. Surreal, with an eerie calmness supplemented by flashes of figures and even Damien himself, well, a much more devilish version of him. The editing makes this look almost like subliminal messaging, which adds a bit of depth to this child’s deviousness. Considering we are supposed to believe that this woman is falling out of love with her own child, that kid better be scary.
As it should, this remake has its moments. But again, much of the impact is lost if you’ve seen the original. The atmosphere is the creepiest thing. Silence is used quite well, it adds a lot of tension, especially when Damien’s ominous stare is involved. It also sets up a few exceptionally startling moments. The story itself plays on the innocence of a child very heavily. When we think of childhood, we want pleasantness, safety, pureness. The idea that evil-incarnate has to grow up the same way our children do, and the fact that you may not know that you’re raising the devil, is disconcerting to say the least. But as far as take-home fear goes, this Omen doesn’t give you much.
Speaking of, Damien is played with genuine lackluster by Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick. Though he may not have the acting chops yet to deliver a convincing performance, he has the sinister-stare down pat. It’s creepy. Really creepy. If they could have figured out a way to keep him completely quiet throughout the entire thing, the film would have been better off. Overall, the acting was tolerable. Most of the secondary and below characters shouldn’t be crossing their fingers for a leading role anytime soon, but this was somewhat balanced by the strong performance of Julia Stiles. Damien’s father, who thankfully wasn’t as eagerly naive as Gregory Peck’s version of the character in the original, was competently played by Liev Schreiber. The most interesting and frightening performance comes from Mia Farrow, who plays the mysterious replacement nanny. This isn’t her first time dabbling with evil children, as her character birthed one in Rosemary’s Baby.
As far as believability goes, you kind of have to buy into the Christian religion to get something out of this concept, but if you allow yourself to accept the mythology as truth, or at least the potential for truth, then this is a very scary idea. The mythology of Christianity comes down to a period of Armageddon. And the “end of days” in the bible is an intimidating and terrifying situation lead by a man, or beast, of pure evil. He/It has many names: Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, Beelzebub...in this case, it’s Damien. Why an American today would name their child after what is commonly known to be one of the devil’s monikers is beyond me. But then again, actress Shannyn Sossamon named her daughter Audio Science, so I suppose Damien is a more conservative choice in comparison.
Applying religious mythology to film is nothing new, especially the darker parts of it. As Roger Ebert calls it, “theological sensationalism,” has become a popular subject matter in feature films. The Exorcist, End of Days, and The Exorcism of Emily Rose to name a few, all manifest variations of the Christian struggle between good and evil. I’m not sure if it’s been due to their measured success or just coincidentally many filmmakers are interested in this subject, but Christianity seems to be the front runner of religion-based horror films. Referring to this 2006 remake of The Omen, Ebert goes on to say:
"...When it comes to dealing with demons and suchlike, Roman Catholics have the market cornered. Preachers of other faiths can foam and foment all they want about satanic cults, but when it comes to knowing the ground rules and reading ominous signs, what you want at the bedside is a priest who knows his way around an exorcism."I would like to point out a very bold move by Moore to use actual footage of recent, devastating events to initiate the plot of the film. It starts off with a meeting among the Vatican’s top religious leaders interpreting a series of events that seem to be straight out of Revelations. Then again, relative to your beliefs, it’s not too hard to interpret reality as theology. But these devastating events JUST happened. They may incite a reaction, but I don’t think I’m alone in thinking how tasteless it is to prey on these tragedies so soon in a work of fiction, especially one evoking doom. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone Magazine, who did not care much for this film altogether (he states, “Not since Gus Van Sant inexplicably directed a shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock's Psycho has a thriller been copied with so little point or impact.”), agrees by saying, “...adds insult to injury by exploiting clips of 9/11 and Katrina as portents of doom.”
Despite most of my negativity, you really need to ask yourself what you want out of a remake of The Omen. If you loved the story, maybe it’s good that it isn’t overhauled. But, outside of a few new startling moments, Moore really just gives the film a face-lift. Like a brand updating their logo every generation to keep up with the times, this production only scratched the surface. This is not a great film, but it’s worth a watch for the atmosphere, or if you’ve never seen the original. But I suggest you buy it used if you insist on owning it.
Posts
