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

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).