FILMdetail

Thirty years on from the original, this remake of The Omen stays faithful to the plot and characters but lacks the chills and grandeur of the original.

Some bright spark at 20th Century Fox has been eagerly awaiting the date of 06/06/06 so they could release a remake The Omen. There aren’t many films I can think of that have so much of their marketing campaign dependant on an actual date. Indeed, whether by luck or design it is being re-released around the world on this day just as the world is swept up in the religious nonsense of The Da Vinci Code. Fate? A studio selling its soul? Whatever the case it seems like some movie marketing prophecy has finally come to pass.

For the uninitiated, the story involves the US ambassador to Britain who gradually finds out that his adopted son Damien is the antichrist after numerous people around him starts dying in the diabolical circumstances – often in the presence of slobbering dogs and a sinister nanny. The date of his birth? Why, that would be the 6th day of the 6th month of the 6th year. Plus, he also has ‘the number of the beast’ (666) written on his forehead for good measure.

In the original Gregory Peck played the ambassador and Lee Remick was his wife. It is still an effective horror that gains a lot of its power from Jerry Goldsmith’s marvellous score and the serious way in which it treats the extremely hokey aspects of the Bible, in particular the prophecies in the Book of Revelations. In this remake Liev Schreiber plays the ambassador Robert Thorn and Julia Stiles his wife whilst a number of fine actors like Pete Postlethwaite, Mia Farrow, David Thewlis and Michael Gambon pop up in supporting roles.

Director John Moore has gone for a faithful and conventional approach, sticking very closely to the original with a few relatively minor stylistic touches that differentiate it from Donner’s film. Some of these involve some snappy editing and jerky dream sequences that are effective and certain scenes retain their power to disturb. But the problem at the heart of this whole project is that the original Omen is a film that doesn’t really lend itself to a remake. Time and time again as each familiar hanging or decapitation unfolds I was reminded at how much more chilling the first film was.

This problem is further exacerbated by the moderate budget Fox seem to have allocated the film. Despite containing some very good actors, the visual scope of the film is hampered – witness the dodgy CGI London Eye in the background in the scenes at the ambassador’s country mansion and the Czech signs at the climax of the film that reveal the Prague location of the shoot. If you haven’t seen the original then you may enjoy this as it is certainly a cut above recent lazy gore fests like Hostel, but if want to experience the real deal then you should get Richard Donner’s film on DVD.

> Official Site
> IMDb Link
> Reviews at Metacritic
> Buy the original film at Amazon UK

After all the hoopla and expectation surrounding its release, Ron Howard’s film version of Dan Brown’s book is little more than an average pot-boiler.

Given the sales of the book and the recent controversy surrounding the film’s release (much of it the usual bleating from religious organisations) you might be forgiven for thinking that the film version is an exciting event in the film calendar. After all, its not every day a film is based on a book that has sold over 60 million copies. But even by the standards of mainstream Hollywood blockbusters this is a tired and plodding affair.

The action of the film can summed up like this: Harvard professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is called into the Louvre one night to examine a murder scene. There he becomes embroiled in a conspiracy involving shadowy elements of the Catholic church and engages in an extended chase across Europe with a French cryptologist (Audrey Tatou) and a rich historian (Ian McKellen).

On the surface, all of this might sound vaguely intriguing. History, religion and murder could be decent ingredients for a mainstream thriller but director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman have merely crafted a densely plotted and sprawling adaptation of Dan Brown’s novel. Most of the action involves the main characters talking in earnest tones about the ludicrous soup of historical and religious ideas that form the basis for the plot.

It is hard to watch talented actors like Hanks, Tatou, McKellen and Jean Reno given such one dimensional roles and substandard dialogue. At times McKellen livens things up a little with a performance that suggests he knows how ludicrous the whole thing is. Paul Bettany as a killer albino monk (no, I’m not making this up) is another fine actor trapped in an undercooked role. Unfortunately, characters in this film aren’t real human beings but merely mouthpieces for endless amounts of tedious exposition.

The film has achieved a lot of pre-release publicity courtesy of the Catholic Church who have been offended by the book and the film’s treatment of the bible. But don’t let all the pseudo debates about the ‘controversial’ nature of the story convince you this is an edgy or interesting film. Maybe the filmmakers decided to take their foot off the gas, knowing how wildly successful the book was. But given the different elements that make up the plot as well as the talent involved in bringing it to the screen, it may take experts a long time to decipher how on earth it could be so dull.

> Official Site
> IMDb Entry
> Reviews at Metacritic
> The Da Vinci Code at Wikipedia

Although at times it comes across like a big budget episode of Alias, the third instalment of the Tom Cruise spy franchise is an entertaining ride.

A common complaint of the first Mission: Impossible film was that it was too confusing (a lot of critics seemed unable to grasp what a double agent was), whilst the last one seemed to be suffering from one too many script rewrites. For this film producer and star Cruise has recruited JJ Abrams, the co-creator of hit TV shows Alias and Lost, in order to give the series a more humorous and slick feel.

For the most part, the Abrahams makeover has worked. This is a more colourful and coherent action film than might be expected given that this is his debut in the world of film. The set pieces are executed with a stylish efficiency and the addition of a nice undercurrent of humour helps things tick along nicely in between the well orchestrated mayhem.

The story sees IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Cruise) enticed back into action after enjoying a period of domestic stability with his fiance (Michelle Monaghan) whilst training junior agents. When one of his proteges is killed in the field he assembles his own IMF team to uncover the web of intrigue that caused her death.

As is often the case with summer blockbusters, there are some rough edges and frustrating aspects. For example, the situation of Tom breaking into highly secure locations is overused, be it the Vatican or a skyscraper in Shanghai. It was a recurring motif in the previous two films but surely there is more to the IMF than just glorified cat burglary?

Another disappointment is Ethan’s IMF colleagues: Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) is becoming a less convincing computer whiz with each film; all Declan (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) seems to do is fly a helicopter; whilst Zhen (Maggie Q) is just an efficient hired gun. Simon Pegg in the Q-like geek role is a welcome presence but the lines given to him don’t quite ring true (especially the unnecessary one about his “Professor at Oxford” that telegraphs the fact that he is English – isn’t the accent a giveaway?).

Most disappointingly of all the great Philip Seymour Hoffman is underused as the chief villain. His character is left largely unexplored and remains too much of a one-note villain despite the attempts in the trailers to make him out as a cold blooded psychotic. On the more positive side of things, Laurence Fishburne and Billy Crudup are neatly cast as Hunt’s IMF bosses and aided by some polished dialogue, they bring the right touch of gravitas and intelligence to their roles.

But despite the disappointing aspects of Mission: Impossible 3 it is hard not to just kick back and enjoy the slick mindlessness of it all. Abrams betrays his TV roots by shooting a lot of the film like a beefed up episode of Alias (notice the quick transitions to foreign locations and lack of long shots) but he does know how to keep things moving along at a good pace and has helped breath new life into a franchise that seemed to have stalled at the second hurdle.

> Official Site
> IMDB Link
> Reviews at Metacritic
> Director JJ Abrams discusses making the film with the AP

N.B. Just a quick thought on the title for these films. Your mission (should you decide to be bothered) is to figure out how to actually write the title. Is it Mission: Impossible III (see IMDb) or the colon-heavy M:I:3 (see the posters). For such a huge tent pole release it seems odd that there should be so many different ways to write a film’s title. Or maybe it’s all part of the marketing strategy…