‘Omen’ remake an homage to original

I’ve met a lot of young children who behave like demons, but what happens if your plucky little monster really was fathered by Satan? That’s the central issue in “The Omen.” This is a remake of the 1976 horror classic that made the name Damien synonymous with the son of the Devil.

This version of “The Omen” is a shot-for-shot remake of the original. It faithfully follows the original script, with the exception of the film’s first 10 minutes. Director John Moore added footage to the beginning of the movie to bring the foretold arrival of Satan and Armageddon into a modern context.

The conflict in the story arises from whether Robert and Katherine Thorn (Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles) will discover who and what their son Damien (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) really is. The clock is ticking. Each day, Damien becomes more powerful, and that puts Robert and Katherine in greater danger.

As foretold in the biblical Book of Revelations, Damien bears the mark of the beast. Somewhere on his body and the body of his protectors is the number 666. This number was also the date of the film’s premiere (6/6/06) ? a clever bit of marketing that helped get the studio to buy into this project.

Every child of wealthy parents needs a nanny, and the Thorns think they’ve found a winner with Mrs. Baylock (Mia Farrow). She seems as sweet as Mary Poppins, but she also seems to be concealing something very dark. Farrow does everything with a pleasant smile and a caring demeanor, both of which make her even more ominous. When she tells the Thorns that a bloodthirsty hellhound seems to be a good playmate for little Damien, she sounds very loving and caring.

In 1968, almost 10 years before the release of the original “The Omen,” Mia Farrow had a similar problem with gentle and caring people who were obviously concealing something from her. It’s fitting that the mother of “Rosemary’s Baby” has finally become Satan’s nanny.

What makes this movie interesting ? and in some ways more captivating than the original ? is John Moore’s art direction. The dream sequences are haunting and surreal. He uses lush bright reds on pure white background as a way of communicating an omen, trying to tell the characters that something is desperately wrong.

In addition to Farrow’s amazing performance, Schreiber and Stiles both do first-rate work in this film. Stiles actually did all of her own stunts, including the falling sequence that has been featured in the film’s trailers and commercials. Schreiber is a powerhouse whose unflappable demeanor magnifies the intensity of the characters surrounding him. Sometime in the near future he’ll become a household name.

The most popular trend in recent horror films has been borrowing the title from an old classic and then using that title as an empty marketing ploy. Because the stories are obviously not remakes of the original films, the studios call them “re-envisionings.” It’s nice to see a film buck this trend and be a genuine remake of a great movie.

In a conversation I had with Director John Moore, he said that he didn’t see a need to change a script that was already a classic. He noted that, “If you’re doing Shakespeare, it doesn’t make much sense to update the text.”

Obviously “The Omen” isn’t Shakespeare, but it’s a story that has remained strong since the original version starring Gregory Peck and Lee Remick was released 30 years ago. The combination of great performances and great art direction make this new version well worth seeing.

Fans of the original will enjoy this version’s updated production values, and the movie is great fun for people who are just discovering this story.