The original movie looks vintage 1970s - the cars, the hairstyles, the clothing, the lower technology, etc. The updated remake was released on June 6, 2006, or 06/06/06 - "666", the number of the beast. One noticeable difference with the remake compared to the original is that the remake is an all-around darker movie. The atmosphere and surroundings and overall feel are darker. I think this enhances the effectiveness of the scenes that are meant to be scary. An example is when Robert Thorn meets with Father Brennan under the bridge during the thunderstorm. I found this creepier than how it played out in the original. The thunderstorms during the scene where Thorn is cutting Damien's hair looking for the birthmark add a scariness to the scene. I also like the snowy scenes where Robert Thorn is talking to Bugenhagen and later goes to the cemetery in Cervet with the photographer Keith Jennings.
I found the initial meeting between Thorn and Father Brennan in the lobby was more effective than it was in Thorn's office in the original.
When Father Brennan gets struck by the steel rod that falls down from the top of the church, only a couple of seconds go by from the time he notices the rod until he is actually struck. This is an improvement. In the original movie, a full five seconds goes by from the time Father Brennan notices the rod until he is actually struck. This is ample time for him to scoot out of the way, but he just stands there and watches the rod fall down toward him and he accepts his fate without making an effort to get out of the way.
Another thing I noticed is that the remake took certain scenes and turbo-charged them. An example is the scene at the end of the movie when Robert Thorn is driving with Damien to the church. He's driving recklessly, plowing through gates, skidding and spinning around, smashing into things, all while Damien was putting up more of a fight in the car than in the original. This is more entertaining than in the original, not that this scene in the original wasn't entertaining. It was.
I think the acting in this remake was a little better than in the original. The acting in the original came across as "wooden" and campy at times. In this remake, there isn't a hint of campiness.
One thing that was added to the remake were the brief appearances of demons dressed in red. That was cool.
Now I want to compare the major characters from the two movies and give my opinion on who was the best...
Damien:
Harvey Stephens (1976) or Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick (2006)?
WINNER: It's a tie
Stephens was evil and innocent at the same time, whereas Davey-Fitzpatrick was evil most of the time. I think the 2006 Damien's facial expressions were more evil than the 1976 Damien's. The 1976 Damien really didn't have to try hard to be evil looking. He just was, but in a more subtle way than the 2006 Damien.
Mrs. Baylock:
Billie Whitelaw (1976) or Mia Farrow (2006)?
WINNER: Billie Whitelaw
Billie Whitelaw just, I mean JUST edges out Mia Farrow. It's extremely close. Billie Whitelaw had the role of Mrs. Baylock down, plain and simple. She was evil and very convincing. Mia Farrow did an outstanding job as well. Her facial expressions were plain evil. Again, it's very close.
Father Brennan:
Patrick Troughton (1976) or Pete Postlethwaite (2006)?
WINNER: Pete Postlethwaite
His acting was a little better. He seemed more suited for the role than Patrick Troughton. He seemed to put more heart and emotion into his words.
Robert Thorn:
Gregory Peck (1976) or Liev Schreiber (2006)?
WINNER: Liev Schreiber
Liev Schreiber's acting was better and more convincing and believable than Gregory Peck's. Gregory Peck's acting came across as "wooden" and campy a number of times. He seemed inconsistent throughout the movie, whereas Liev Schreiber was very consistent.
Katherine Thorn:
Lee Remick (1976) or Julia Stiles (2006)?
WINNER: Julia Stiles
Lee Remick gave a decent performance, but her acting wasn't believable or convincing in certain scenes compared to Stiles. Stiles seemed to put more heart and soul into her performance.
Keith Jennings:
David Warner (1976) or David Thewlis (2006)?
WINNER: It's a tie
Both actors gave good performances, so it's a tie.
Bugenhagen:
Leo McKern (1976) or Michael Gambon (2006)?
WINNER: Michael Gambon
His portrayal of the character was slightly better. I realize makeup and camera angles might have something to do with it, but he's the winner.
Dog at the birthday party:
The Rottweiler (1976) or the German Shepherd (2006)?
WINNER: German Shepherd
The German Shepherd looked more fierce and evil than the Rottweiler, plain and simple.
What about the musical score?
Jerry Goldsmith (1976) or Marco Beltrami (2006)?
WINNER:
Jerry Goldsmith
Goldsmith's score is legendary, one of the great horror movie scores ever. However, Beltrami's score is also very good and did an adequate job in the remake.
So there you go. I'm a fan of the remake of The Omen. As I said, it's one of the few horror movie remakes I like. How do I compare it to the original? It's just as good, so I give this remake the same 5-star rating I gave the original.
The Omen - Arnita D. Brown - USA
Robert Thorn is a senior American diplomat whose wife, Katherine, endures a difficult delivery where their newborn child has died. Thorn knows the news will devastate Katherine, who had suffered two previous miscarriages. The hospital priest presents Thorn with another child born that night, whose mother died in childbirth. The priest compels Thorn to take the infant boy as his own; Katherine will never know the truth, and their son, which they name Damien, will be raised as their flesh and blood. As the child turns five, unsettling events begin to occur. Whether you have seen the original or not, see this movie. It is a very good movie, a well-done remake that stays true to the original while adding some more scare to it. The idea of the anti-christ being born on this earth is very scary and this movie brings that possible reality to life once again.
I Believe the Word Is Plagiarism. - Austin Somlo - Vincentown, NJ
Viewed: 3/08
Rate: 1
3/08: *sigh* Webster's dictionary defines the word plagiarism as "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use (another's production) without crediting the source" or "to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source." I don't know what to say when in fact that there is no such thing as plagiarism in Hollywood these days. The remake of The Omen is a lot like the remake of Psycho minus the masturbation scene, and comparing both of them, even though the latter got a rating of `1', the remake of Psycho was better. Watching this turd, The Omen remake is predictably boring because of two reasons: I already saw the original plenty of times (and it was almost word-for-word and I remember it all and there is no fun in it) and nothing seemed to be human about it. There is no creation of real emotion or suspense. It was just fake...fake...fake. Instead of paying the admission price of seeing her to act in anything, I rather want see Julia Stiles be given a Chinese torture. I have a hard time believing in her face because she looks exactly like a teenager in an adult role. Who was the loser that said that Liev Schreiber can play the lead actor? Mia Farrow, your career is officially over. John Moore thought that he was directing a horror flick but instead fails to know what constitutes one. There is an excessive use of thunder throughout the picture, and higher emphasis is placed on the thought of "the gorier, the better." Well, if I must complain, the original, I know it wasn't a great movie, is thousands times better than the remake, and why bother doing a remake when the original had done it already? All in all, The Omen remake is one steaming pile of horsecrap.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment