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

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

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…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

This is very cruel, Oskar. You're giving them hope. You shouldn't do that.

Schindler’s List (1993)
(SPOILERS) Such is the status of Schindler’s List, it all but defies criticism; it’s the worthiest of all the many worthy Best Picture Oscar winners, a film noble of purpose and sensitive in the treatment and depiction of the Holocaust as the backdrop to one man’s redemption. There is much to admire in Steven Spielberg’s film. But it is still a Steven Spielberg film. From a director whose driving impulse is the manufacture of popcorn entertainments, not intellectual introspection. Which means it’s a film that, for all its commendable features, is made to manipulate its audience in the manner of any of his “lesser” genre offerings. One’s mileage doubtless varies on this, but for me there are times during this, his crowning achievement, where the berg gets in the way of telling the most respectful version of this story by simple dint of being the berg. But then, to a great or lesser extent, this is true of almost all, if not all, his prestige pictures.

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…

We’re Americans. We read your emails.

Domino (2019)
(SPOILERS) Brian De Palma essentially appears to have disowned his unhappy latest motion picture experience (“I never experienced such a horrible movie set”). He opined that he came in on a script that wasn’t of his own devising (by Petter Skavlan of Kon-Tiki) and did his failing best to apply his unique vision to it. And you can see that vision, occasionally, but more than that you can see unaccustomed cheapness and lacklustre material that likely wouldn’t play no matter how much cash was thrown at it.

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

There’s nothing stock about a stock car.

Days of Thunder (1990)
(SPOILERS) The summer of 1990 was beset with box office underperformers. Sure-thing sequels – Another 48Hrs, Robocop 2, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, The Exorcist III, even Back to the Future Part III – either belly flopped or failed to hit the hoped for highs, while franchise hopefuls – Dick Tracy, Arachnophobia – most certainly did not ascend to the stratospheric levels of the previous year’s Batman. Even the big hitters, Total Recall and Die Hard 2: Die Harder, were somewhat offset by costing a fortune in the first place. Price-tag-wise, Days of Thunder, a thematic sequel to the phenomenon that was Top Gun, was in their category. Business-wise, it was definitely in the former. Tom Cruise didn’t quite suffer his first misfire since Legend – he’d made charmed choices ever since playing Maverick – but it was a close-run thing.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.