Skip to main content

What's wrong, sweetie? It's just a church, that's all.


The Omen
(2006)

One can’t necessarily blame Fox for remaking The Omen. It represents a name brand, and every studio in town had been going through any horror franchise with even vague clout. Most of these have met with middling-at-best critical reaction. Meanwhile the box office has just about justified the expense but the telltale drop off following the first weekend that indicated none of them were successfully reinvented for a new generation. The Omen isn’t just a horror franchise, however. For Fox it represents a horror blockbuster, perhaps not in comparison to the likes of Spielberg and Lucas, but nevertheless one of their Top 10 films of the 1970s.

The mainstream horror movie was really born with The Exorcist in 1973, a phenomenon in the genre that has still known no equal forty years later. The key to films of this ilk was psychological terror; a non-corporeal, rather than visceral, dread that manifested in the everyday. Families were afflicted by intangible evil, taking possession of, or incarnating in, their children (The Exorcist, The Omen) or setting up residence in their homes, the centre of all that is holy in an increasingly areligious society (The Amityville Horror, Poltergeist a few years later). Was this a reflection of growing affluence and comfort; with the means to raise a family the average middle-class American now had the luxury to attend to the rot at the heart of the nuclear family? Possibly, but horror has always been the genre most welcoming of diverse readings and subtexts (even more than science fiction).

But The Omen also had apocalyptic portentousness going for it. Couching itself in Christian end-times lore of the coming of the Antichrist, it took its cues from the Catholic guilt of The Exorcist, but appropriated a more epic canvas. Its protagonists were not merely affluent, but rich, and they lived on the world stage, not a pocket of suburbia. Gregory Peck played the US Ambassador to Great Britain, and little Damien was expected to rise to the presidency. It featured set piece deaths, just like the previous year’s Jaws (by impalation, by decapitation) but it was a glossy kind of horror; I hesitate to say “family friendly”, but a far cry from the gore and dismemberments of Romero’s zombie series or the extreme terrors created by Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper. Further softening the horror hammer were elements of one of the decades rising sub genres, the conspiracy movie; the worlds of politics and church congregate as dark forces conspire to put Satan in office. 

And so, Fox made two sequels (the finality of David Seltzer’s script for the original was resisted by Richard Donner and Alan Ladd, Jr.) to diminishing returns. And that seemed to be it. But Fox has generally been marked out by the tatty approach it takes to its properties (the odd TV movie aside). But Fox always had an eye to resuscitating its franchises. The success of Rise of the Planet of the Apes was more through luck than diligence. One only has to look at the rocky paths of the X-Men, Die Hard and the Alien and Predator series to see that knocking out undiscerning product has been the main a priority. True, other studios are also guilty. But Fox has made crapping on much-loved originals the norm.

The announcement of David Moore, Fox’s in-house pet director (he has made all five of his features with the studio, suggesting some kind of demonic pact in itself), spelt concern from the off. Moore recently crapped on the Die Hard franchise (time will tell if it spells the death knell for the series) and had previously helmed an unnecessary and tepid remake of Flight of the Phoenix.

Curiously, The Omen appears to utilize David Seltzer’s original script (if it has been given a once-over it isn’t evident), inviting comparisons with Gus van Sant’s Psycho remake (but without the shot-for-shot gimmick to at least justify the claim that it was only ever intended as an expensive art experiment). But why? Surely, it represent a golden opportunity to tap into fears over 2012? Instead, Fox have binned their franchise for another 20 years by plain not giving a shit.

Moore’s one inspiration appears to have been to make the Thorns significantly younger. If ever there’s an example of decent actors unable to salvage an utterly bland film, it’s this. Liev Schreiber is usually the best part of any film he attaches himself to (invariably as a supporting player) but here he manages to be near forgettable. Julia Stiles is likewise hamstrung. David Thewlis makes a serviceable David Warner replacement (Moore has even cast a similar “type”). Mia Farrow is probably the standout as nanny Mrs. Baylock, going for a different tone to Billie Whitelaw. Pete Postlethwaite is earnest but all at sea, and has none of the impact of Patrick Troughton’s Father Brennan.

Most damagingly, Seamus Davey-Fizpatrick is absolutely terrible as Damien. Apparently no one informed him he was playing evil incarnate, which may be why his “Damien face” is suggestive not so much of Machiavellian machinations as trapped wind.

It’s difficult to tell if Moore just doesn’t care, or he’s working to the best of his abilities and the results are never better than plodding. Every choice he makes is artless, tiresome and obvious. Showing the elapse of time as Damien gets older? Break out the faked home movie footage. Trying to instill shock/fear? Quick, insert a few flash cuts and some jarring strings on the soundtrack. He manages to eke the life and tension out of any given scene, as if it’s a test of how poorly one can render source material. Damien’s freak-out on the way to church is unintentionally hilarious, as are the headlines showing “Priest killed in bizarre tragedy”. Technically, the revisited decapitation sequence is very good. But like every other aspect of the film, it is predictable and tension-free.

The Omen remake is worse than a really bad film in some respects; it’s an utterly banal one. It has no reason to exist other than the (weak) box office returns its name guaranteed. Oh, wait. There was a reason; they opened it 6/6/06, didn’t they? That makes it all worthwhile. At least a cynical reimagining would have been something. Whether if stumbled or not, it could have claimed to be attempting a fresh angle rather than repeating every plot beat verbatim. John Moore is three-for-three on fumbling Fox properties now. I’m sure it won’t prevent them from allowing him to defecate afresh on whatever archive material they carelessly wish to disinter next.

*1/2 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Life is like a box of timelines. You feel me?

Russian Doll Season One
(SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Dollis good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

We’re not owners here, Karen. We’re just passing through.

Out of Africa (1985)
I did not warm to Out of Africa on my initial viewing, which would probably have been a few years after its theatrical release. It was exactly as the publicity warned, said my cynical side; a shallow-yet-bloated, awards-baiting epic romance. This was little more than a well-dressed period chick flick, the allure of which was easily explained by its lovingly photographed exotic vistas and Robert Redford rehearsing a soothing Timotei advert on Meryl Streep’s distressed locks. That it took Best Picture only seemed like confirmation of it as all-surface and no substance. So, on revisiting the film, I was curious to see if my tastes had “matured” or if it deserved that dismissal. 

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

We’re looking for a bug no one’s seen before. Some kind of smart bug.

Starship Troopers (1997)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required t…

Even after a stake was driven through its heart, there’s still interest.

Prediction 2019 Oscars
Shockingly, as in I’m usually much further behind, I’ve missed out on only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees– Vice isn’t yet my vice, it seems – in what is being suggested, with some justification, as a difficult year to call. That might make for must-see appeal, if anyone actually cared about the movies jostling for pole position. If it were between Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody (if they were even sufficiently up to snuff to deserve a nod in the first place), there might be a strange fascination, but Joe Public don’t care about Roma, underlined by it being on Netflix and stillconspicuously avoided by subscribers (if it were otherwise, they’d be crowing about viewing figures; it’s no Bird Box, that’s for sure).

Now we're all wanted by the CIA. Awesome.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015)
(SPOILERS) There’s a groundswell of opinion that Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is the best in near 20-year movie franchise. I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, but only because this latest instalment and its two predecessors have maintained such a consistently high standard it’s difficult to pick between them. III featured a superior villain and an emotional through line with real stakes. Ghost Protocol dazzled with its giddily constructed set pieces and pacing. Christopher McQuarrie’s fifth entry has the virtue of a very solid script, one that expertly navigates the kind of twists and intrigue one expects from a spy franchise. It also shows off his talent as a director; McQuarrie’s not one for stylistic flourish, but he makes up for this with diligence and precision. Best of all, he may have delivered the series’ best character in Rebecca Ferguson’s Ilsa Faust (admittedly, in a quintet that makes a virtue of pared down motivation and absen…

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.