I could write an entire essay about why this film is such a letdown. There are things wrong with it that start at its inception: The film was, by several of its production company members' admission, commissioned to take advantage of its self-promoting release date: 6/06/06. There was little other need for a remake, and in so many instances this is practically the same movie. Little is capitalized on with what always was more of a suspense film to start with; Advances in technology or filmmaking had little to offer an update. The plot, for the 4 or 5 who don't know, has to do with the Antichrist being passed into the care of an unsuspecting couple. Inevitably, the truth comes to light far too late for anyone to stop him, in spite of the fact that he's still a small child and entirely unaware of his true nature. With the exception of a couple of shocking deaths administered by malevolent but unseen forces, the original Omen is a classic suspense film where you watch people try to come to grips with what we already know: The small, seemingly innocent child really is the antichrist, and must die. The premise and conflict is made believable through its circumstances: The leads (Gregory Peck and Lee Remick) are a successful couple who've never been able to have children and are late enough in their life to possibly never succeed at it. A stillborn child prompts Peck's father to take an orphaned child from the hospital staff and just tell Remick it's theirs rather than crush her with the truth. Of course it's the antichrist. And of course its minions start to emerge to protect and insure its survival. Peck is told he must kill the child, which....well, it's not a defense that would hold up well in court, is it? And of course, you're not going to convince a parent to just kill a child over a pint, are you? The remake....there's so much wrong beyond just being literally the same script. (LITERALLY the same script. It's not a shot for shot remake, but it's line for line at some points.) The problems that a suspense film will encounter when it's just retracing the original's steps all come down to the only suspense being "Are they REALLY going to just do the same film?" A suspense film with no suspense is bad enough.... But they didn't stop there. The leads were cast younger, and Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles barely look a day over 27. It makes it difficult to believe Schreiber as an experienced US Ambassador (who's then given more prestigious assignments - I MAY have accepted it as his first appointment) but it also begs us to accept these two as desperate enough for children that they settle for taking an orphan in secret. Really? They've tried everything? And at 27? Do they just strictly procreate in their spare time? Because being an Ambassador isn't really a 9-5 weekday gig.... The remake completely sabotages its believability and in turn its effectiveness as a suspense film, which, if you've seen or heard of the original (and its sequels, which make it clear we get a teenage and adult antichrist) then there was no suspense to begin with. ARGH: I've some personal beef with this one, because it FORCES you to remember the original in ways that remind you that you're watching a rehash at best. Schreiber talks like he's just been given a mouthful of peanut butter, which makes him sound like Gregory Peck, kinda. The original's score was a stellar effort from Jerry Goldsmith and won an Academy Award (Considering that it sounds like a black mass and praises satan in Latin, that's no mean feat). The remake has a maudlin run-of-the-mill horror movie score that nonetheless QUOTES the original at times, reminding you that they probably couldn't pay the Goldsmith estate for the proper score. Lastly, there's a scene where they dig up the grave of a small child, and discover it was killed by a blow to the head. It's the SAME prop corpse from the original. You know what would've been less trouble? Just rereleasing the original on 6/06/06. IRREPLACEABLE ELEMENT: Well, I'm a sucker for that score. But staying on task with this article's theme, this movie's a solid argument that casting younger doesn't always work. Schreiber looks like he's an assistant or an aide at most, and his Peck-voice makes me feel like I'm watching a school play of "The Omen". The sole inspired casting was pulling in Mia Farrow (Who had already birthed an antichrist in "Rosemary's Baby") as a wicked nanny. Everyone else is so out of their depth that you wonder why they even bothered and just didn't remake the film shot for shot. That'd be silly though. Who'd do something like that?
In a parallel universe where game shows' final jackpots and consequent fortunes depend on knowledge of obscure music trivia and Jon Pertwee/Tom Baker Doctor Who episodes, I've probably gone rich, insane, and am now a powermad despot. But happily we're not there, so I'm actually rather pleasant. Really.
