Harefooted Halloween: The Omen (2006)

I’m going to forgo my usual format for this one because we have a very odd duck here.  Normally when people do a remake they keep the core concept but change the details and modify events, sometimes to a significant degree, and introduce or drop certain characters and etc.  It’s a new take, a new perspective, a new approach to the previous material which then becomes its own thing.  That’s the whole idea of re-doing a movie that already exists.  Well with the 2006 Omen they went in a different direction and just made the same exact film again.  Now it’s not a shot for shot remake like the 1998 Psycho (which I maintain is a fascinating experiment that someone had to do at least once) but it’s one step down from that (similar to the ’91 Father of the Bride remake).  All the events, characters, reveals and damn near every specific are the same as the 1976 Omen.

Ok yes, there are a few differences.  They added a couple of brief dream sequences, an extra death in the beginning and they start off with Roman priests talking about the coming of the antichrist because they saw a special grouping of comets in the night sky.  And the methods used to kill two characters are different.  Other than that though the ’76 and ’06 pictures are identical.  Hell, you could cut out the few new scenes they added and it wouldn’t make a difference to the plot.  It would also make the movie that much closer to its predecessor.

So I truly genuinely don’t understand what the thinking was.  If you’re not going to switch stuff up and put your own spin on the story then why bother?  What’s the appeal?  The original wasn’t lost to time or hard to get ahold of or a box office flop that basically nobody saw or anything like that.  Nor was it made so long ago that it was due for a rediscovery either.  The thing was only thirty years old when this remake came out.  Weird is an understatement.

With all of that said, how is it?  It’s good.  It’s a fine film because it’s just The Omen (check out my review if you want more of my thoughts on that version and therefore this one).  And well, if you’re gonna do something like this then I guess avoiding a shot for shot copy is smart.  While still tedious to a degree it’s less so and allows some leeway (however small).  The performances are adequate, the pacing is decent and every once in a while they throw in a neat visual despite the film having a mostly dreary greyish blueish slate type tone throughout (it was popular to suck a bunch of color out back then).  And sure, Mia Farrow (Rosemary’s Baby) as Mrs. Baylock might actually be better than Billie Whitelaw from the original.  And the famous beheading scene is accomplished through better effects as well.  No Jerry Goldsmith score though.  Only a generic sounding one so that’s a real minus.

Boy do I have some mixed feelings about this sucker.  I mean the movie isn’t bad at all but it doesn’t have any reason to exist.  It’s kinda fucked up.  Maybe the best thing I can say about it is it gave the folks who worked on it experience making a major Hollywood motion picture and hopefully they were able to build on that in their career.  Oh and the marketing move to release it on 06/06/06 was clever.  Clearly an opportunity they couldn’t pass up.  Maybe it was all worth it then?