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…

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

They make themselves now.

Screamers (1995)
(SPOILERS) Adapting Philip K Dick isn’t as easy as it may seem, but that doesn't stop eager screenwriters from attempting to hit that elusive jackpot. The recent Electric Dreams managed to exorcise most of the existential gymnastics and doubts that shine through in the best versions of his work, leaving material that felt sadly facile. Dan O'Bannon had adapted Second Variety more than a decade before it appeared as Screamers, a period during which he and Ronald Shusett also turned We Can Remember It For You Wholesale into Total Recall. So the problem with Screamers isn't really the (rewritten) screenplay, which is more faithful than most to its source material (setting aside). The problem with Screamers is largely that it's cheap as chips.

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

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

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …