“The most recent version of “The Omen” (2006) isn’t terrible, but by being so faithful to the original makes one wonder why you wouldn’t go to the source. “

I recently visited my local Giant, looking for something work-related, when I stumbled upon a bin filled with previously-viewed movies, virtually all of them costing $3.99.

The majority of them were drek, though a few interested me. One of those that did was John Moore’s 2006 remake of Richard Donner’s 1976 film, “The Omen.”

I enjoyed the original immensely, and was curious how the remake compared.

I shouldn’t have bothered, because while not a shot-for-shot remake, it differed only enough to make me miss how much better the original film was in comparison.

Moore’s film not only brings nothing new, but is really hard to justify why anyone would have bothered in the first place.

By way of comparison, John Boorman’s sequel to William Friedkin’s “The Exorcist,” Exorcist 2: The Heretic”–while not a remake–could have took the same material, and played it safe.  Instead, the movie went ape shite crazy.

Was the second ‘Exorcist’ film successful?  Depends upon who you ask, though I thought it was a bizarre and fascinating take on the subject matter.

But Moore almost literally (except for a few mildly effective dream sequences) makes the same film as Richard Donner did, except less well cast, which is a good place as any to start.

Katherine Thorne, played by Julia Stiles, feels too young to be the matriarch of a well-connected and influential political family.  She’s easy on the eyes, but lacks the gravitas or sense of authority to pull it off.  For instance, about midway in the film she orders Mrs. Baylock (Mia Farrow) to get Damien (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) ready for church.  Baylock does, though reluctantly.  If you’re familiar with the original film you know that she’s reluctant because Satan has unresolved issues with that whole ‘Christianity’ thing.  Here, it feels like she’s being difficult just because she can.

In the original you could feel the tension between Mrs. Baylock (Billie Whitelaw) and Katherine Thorne (Lee Remick).  In that film Katherine Thorne was clearly unaccustomed to being challenged, though she has no idea that the person doing the challenging is essentially a handmaiden for Satan.

Robert Thorne, originally played by Gregory Peck, holds himself together, but you can see him visibly fraying at the edges by all the death that goes on around him.  Liev Schrieber in the same role seems too distant, too restrained, almost as if he has better things to do, and can’t wait to get back to them.

And speaking of Mrs. Baylock, the casting of Mia Farrow was clever because she she has more than a little experience dealing with demonic children.  Yet, despite the credentials she brings to the role, she doesn’t have the quiet menace that the original Mrs. Baylock brought to the role.

David Thewlis plays the reporter, Keith Jennings, a role that originated with David Warner. He seems almost perfectly cast, visual speaking, though he buys into the idea of his camera is picking up who’s marked for culling by the devil way too easily.

I don’t know how casting directors for the first film found Harvey Stephens, who played Damien, but what made the character work was that he didn’t try to play scary. In fact, he acted just like any other little boy, unlike the more recent Damien (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick). He’s a cute kid, but seems to know that  his daddy is Old Scratch, which undermines the innocent child theme the original film worked with so well.

Then there were his attempts to appear scary or ominous, which came off a bit silly.

As I mentioned a paragraph or so ago, what made the first film work so well was that Damien–at first–had no idea of his lineage, which made him in a way as much a victim as anyone else in the film.

They even get the dog wrong because, when his nanny kills herself at his birthday party, she’s entranced by a black dog–as if just because the dog is black somehow makes its evil almost tangible–which looks vaguely like a black collie.

Hardly what I imagine a hound of Hell to look like.

Marco Beltrami’s music hits all the right notes, but isn’t nearly as memorable as the work Jerry Goldsmith did for the first film.

Then there’s John Moore’s directoral style. He uses a lot of close-ups, which was the opposite to what Richard Donner did.  Donner created distance between viewers and the characters by using relatively few close-ups, which I thought worked well to show that the Thorne’s are not like other people (even before it is revealed that their son is not quite theirs).  Watching Moore’s film, it seemed to want me to relate to the Thornes, despite the fact that they exist in a world that I have no real concept of.

The death scenes play like those from the  ‘Final Destination’ films, by which I mean that they feel needlessly elaborate, like if designed by fans of Rube Goldberg.

Another thing about this version of “The Omen” is that there is an over-reliance on symbolism, which the original film never dealt with.  For instance, there are some dream sequences that appear for no other reason than to reveal that Damien is evil, which the movie poster revealed longer before anyone even entered the theater.

The most recent version of “The Omen” (2006) isn’t terrible, but by being so faithful to the original makes one wonder why you wouldn’t go to the source.