Monday, October 13, 2008

The Omen

(2006) ***1/2

Too bad this wasn't the original. I hesitated before plugging in a 3.5 score because on the whole there are few things this version of The Omen doesn't do better than the original. My only serious gripe about the new version is that Liev Schreiber isn't Gregory Peck, which I'm pretty sure isn't his fault. Peck in the starring role of the original oozed both sternness and warmth -- as he did in any of his roles. Schreiber brings lightness and subtelty to the role, but lacks Peck's gravitas. He's just not a cleanup hitter the way Peck was.

The most significant improvements are aesthetic ones, of two kinds. First, the cinematography is much better than the original. The visuals are more lively -- that's to be expected in a digital age. The color saturation is really strong, especially with the color red -- this is crucial: the color red is the harbinger of death in this movie in a major way. Also, the composition of the images is much more creative in this version. Shots are set up in a more lively, eye-catching way. My favorite shot comes when Liev Schreiber and David Thewlis arrive in Rome. The characters walk from right to left across the screen as the camera tracks slowly to the left, meanwhile a bicyclist zips across the screen in the opposite direction. The countermovement in this one shot is more dynamic than anything going on in the 1976 version.


Second, any discussion about the aesthetics of the Omen has to include the attractiveness of the cast. This cast just looks better than the original, both more appealing and more appropriate. Take Mia Farrow, pictured above. She plays the sinister nanny hired to look after Damien. Here's a picture of the woman who played her in the original.


The first time I saw her face, I thought, "If this woman offered to babysit my kid, I'd just grab the nearest sharp object and try to kill her with it." I thought the same thing about the kid. Just look at him.


YUCK! Look at that upper lip! Hideous! He reminds me of a kid I was in kindergarten with, named Noel. Noel Had that same upper lip thing going on and it was almost perpetually smeared with snot. That's all I can think of when I look at this kid's face. I've heard film people use the word cute to describe this kid and also the little blonde dipshit from Shane and I can only think, "What the hell are you people on?"


I can't really rate this as high as the original because it doesn't really do anything special. The death scenes are slightly reworked, but it's only slightly more of a re-invent than the Gus Van Sant Psycho remake. But it's definitely more polished than the original. Put Gregory Peck in the starring role and you've got yerself a 4.5 star flick.

2 comments:

miko564 said...

100% agree 50. I think the lack of Peck is the fatal flaw in this one. Although, I don't really understand the whole idea of remaking an exact copy of a movie that is less than 40 years old. Is it really just a complete lack of any original ideas?

DKC said...

Interesting comments, 50P. I haven't watched the original in forEVER so don't really have an opinion either way. Great review!

Malevolent

 2018  ***1/2 It's 1986 for some reason, and a team of paranormal investigators are making a big name for themselves all over Scotland. ...