So, thirty years later comes the remake which had one hell of powerful marketing campaign. Script wise, the film is practically a carbon copy, but does have a few minor alterations and better polished quality. It’s not a perfect film, but if my opinions of the original weren’t polarizing enough, I can tell you that I liked this 2006 film more in the first fifteen minutes than I did the whole of the 1976 version.
When a Vatican observatory priest sees the appearance of a prophesized comet, the Church is sure that it confirms the eve of the Armageddon. Meanwhile, the United States President’s godson Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) is informed in the maternity in Rome that his wife Katherine (Julia Stiles) has just lost her baby, and she had troubles with her uterus and would not have another pregnancy. Father Spiletto (Giovanni Lombardo Radice) suggests Robert take another newborn child, who lost his mother, as his own. Robert accepts the child and gives him the name of Damien. After a tragic accident, Robert is promoted to U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, but years later, bizarre occurrences begin to center around Damien (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick). When his nanny commits suicide at his birthday party, a substitute, Mrs. Baylock (Mia Farrow), comes to work and live with the family, but Katherine has come to realize that Damien is evil. Meanwhile, Robert is contacted by Father Brennan (Pete Postlethwaite), who tells him that Damien is the son of Devil. Soon after, photographer Keith Jennings (David Thewlis) shows evidence to Robert that confirm Brennan’s prophetic statements. Thus, they commit themselves to a journey to discover the truth about Damien, and how to ultimately stop him.
What so immediately engaged me into this remake more than the original is the depth of real emotion and humanity in the performances. I really do hold Liev Schreiber in high regard. I think he’s really a fantastic actor with a fine range of talent. I love that you can see the deep concern he has for his adopted son, but also, the internal conflict he has over the secrets he hides from everyone about Damien. That knowledge is always in the back of his head, and builds up a sense of guilt as the foretelling words of Father Brennan become truth. While Schreiber surely doesn’t have the dramatic presence of Gregory Peck, Liev brings something more valuable with that depth of emotion and relatable humanity. He feels like a man with realistic struggles that define him as a conflicted, sympathetic person who only wished to bring happiness to his family, but brought evil in instead.
This remake wisely strengthens Katherine Thorn’s role. She is given so much more emotional turmoil to grapple with over her fears about Damien. Julia Stiles does a hell of a fine job. Where Lee Remick left me with nothing to say about her performance, Stiles brings a strong breadth of traumatic emotion. You can feel her pain seep through the screen with a lot of sorrow. The filmmakers added in a series of surreal and startling dreams for her which are very foreboding as manifestations of her fear. She is so afraid that there is something grossly wrong with Damien that the thought of this child being born from her psychologically and emotionally damages her. This creates further turmoil for Robert who does not know how to tell her the truth without damaging her or their marriage further.
The late and very great Pete Postlethwaite does a far more realistic job as Father Brennan. Instead of coming off as a frayed crazy man, he shows the immense fear and dread in the character. He’s very much a prophet of doom who sells that sense of doom with every fiber of his terrified being. It’s not a big splashy performance, but more subtle and foreboding.
I also enjoyed Mia Farrow’s different take on Mrs. Baylock. She’s very kindly and unassuming, but is actually so nice to the point where it seems like a mentally unhinged disorder. She makes the character the perfect nanny, to a fault. Farrow is much more subtle in how she plays the role, making her evil nature less obvious and more subversive. The performances of both Mia Farrow and Billie Whitelaw are excellent in this role in their respective films, and both work equally as well on different levels.
Unfortunately, David Thewlis’ turn as Keith Jennings is about average. It’s nothing tremendous, but it services the film decently enough. Between Thewlis and David Warner in this role, I would certainly choose the latter, even with that bad 1970s hair style he had. On the whole, the acting in the remake is more dimensional and real instead of the more surface level performances of the original. With a film that’s more heavy on ideas than plot, it is ultimately the performances which have to carry the film, and convince the audience of the validity of everything that is occurring.
On the down side, it is rather distracting how much of the dialogue is taken verbatim from the 1976 original. I honestly would’ve preferred if the screenwriter freshened it up a little. You can still stay true to the spirit of the original dialogue without making radical changes. Say the same thing in a different way is all I suggest. In fact, this screenplay differed so little from that of the original film, Dan McDermott was not awarded a writing credit by the Writer’s Guild of America for his work on the remake’s script.
One significant addition to this remake that I felt was very effective were the Vatican scenes. There, a Cardinal recites lines from a prophecy which correlate with real world horrific events. These events foretell the coming of the son of the Devil. I would say it’s more than a little controversial to use images of 9/11 to this effect, but one cannot deny the weight those images hold. It’s a very good sequence that really sets up an ominous feeling that something terribly evil is coming, and it is bookended at the film’s conclusion.
I also like that a scene I felt was poorly handled in the original, where Damien disappears on the Thorns as they take a walk, is revamped into a much more effective scene here. This time, Katherine pushing Damien on a swing set when she gets pulled away by a cell phone call. When she turns around a moment later, Damien is suddenly gone, and she realistically panics. It’s actually Damien playing a mischievous prank on his mom, one seems to take a little pleasure in frightening her with. It’s a much more realistic and tonally appropriate scene that also strongly establishes Katherine’s deep, motherly concern for him. The music here appropriately goes for a tone of dread as opposed to the original’s melodramatic punctuation.
This remake of The Omen does look absolutely gorgeous using a rich but restrained color pallet of ambers, blues, and greens. That coupled with some excellent, shadowy lighting creates a very moody visual atmosphere. While it might look a little too polished at times, on the whole, it’s a very well shot film. Director John Moore also made vibrant use of the color red as a signal of supernatural events which you can take or leave at your discretion. It’s artistic symbolism which I am generally indifferent about.
The score by Marco Beltrami might not be iconic or especially memorable, but it is entirely new and original. He goes for a more traditional score that enhances mood and emotion instead of bludgeoning you with bombastic music cues. It highlights the horror very effectively, and solidly supports the various subtle tones of the film. It is a very good piece of scoring by Beltrami which works immensely better than the overbearing Jerry Goldsmith score for Richard Donner’s original film. While Goldsmith’s would probably be a rousing listen on its own, apart from the film, Beltrami’s does what a film score is meant to do, and that automatically gets my praise.
Another thing that is mostly quite improved are the death scenes. The impalement might not yet be perfect, but it is far better executed with quicker timing and stronger impact through use of digital effects. Katherine’s fall from the balcony, again while not perfect, is vastly improved with a greater sense of the height from and force of which she falls. The decapitation death is pretty good giving us more gore, but it’s not as elaborate or prolonged of an effect. I could’ve done with a little less CGI where some of the latter deaths are concerned, but for the dramatic size of them, there really wasn’t much of an alternative for the filmmakers. Still, many of these deaths did hold more dramatic weight for me between the strength of the performances, and quality of the execution of each one.
On the opposite end of the critique spectrum from the original, the makeup design on this film’s Father Spiletto, the burned priest, is actually taken too far for my tastes. The extreme look feels out of place in the film evoking some sort of freakish ghoul. I can imagine it’s hard to present a burned flesh make-up design that is scary without it looking like Freddy Krueger. However, there must have been a happy medium these filmmakers could’ve gone for that would’ve felt more realistic. Still, what I can merit this version for over the original that the quality of the make-up is vastly superior.
Enjoyable so, this film actually delivered some suspenseful scares for me. This is, again, due to the atmosphere director John Moore forged for this picture. He is able to create some tension leading up to some frightening or traumatic moments. The characters are genuinely scared, especially Katherine, and become more so as events unfold which solidify their fears. Also, I mentioned before that there are a series of dream sequences. They haunt Katherine early on, but eventually, Robert Thorn starts having his own. I really, really liked these. They progressively got more creepy and disturbing. As most dreams do, they are a little hard to read into as what every image means, but on the surface, they showcase very occult and frighteningly evil acts which do feel in line with Damien. The final one, seen by Robert, is probably the best with some very chilling faces and images startling the Ambassador onward to what he must come to grips with.
I also really like that this Damien seems to be more aware of the power he has as he appears to silently conspire with Mrs. Baylock, at times. During the zoo scene, he’s aware that the animals are afraid, and likely of him. He uses his power against a police officer standing guard while Mrs. Baylock is in the next room committing murder. I will state that Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick doesn’t have as strong of a look as Harvey Stephens did in this same role. He can appear a little too dour, but he is able to conjure up an eerie, unsettling expression when needed. He does quite well in the role. If the original film had been written with this more self-aware Damien, I think Stephens would’ve had an even more effective performance. In comparison, I think this Damien is better written while the original’s actor just had a consistently better look.
Now, while this remake generally takes the same amount of time for the same series of events to occur, what makes it work better, in my opinion, is the development of emotional depth and turmoil which establish a foreboding atmosphere. We get characters who are dimensional, and a director who knows how to create an ominous, foreboding tone. This version of The Omen definitely has a more natural flow of events with the emotional weight carrying the drama and horror along with cohesion. You feel the tragedy, horror, and emotion pile up from one scene to the next creating dramatic momentum. It’s interesting that both the 1976 and 2006 versions have about the same runtime, but this remake seems to move along at a smoother, quicker pace. There are even a few new scenes in the remake, and thus, this film is able to traverse a little more ground in the same amount of time. While little extra substance is added into the pages of the script, it really are the performances that add the substance. And while I criticized the 1976 original for taking just as long to develop its plot, the key difference here is that emotional depth which develops the characters, and creates that impending sense of dread that the original sorely lacked. This film always feels like it is building towards something whether in plot, character, or emotion. Robert Thorn has internal struggles he’s dealing with which show through in Liev Schreiber’s performance, and we see Katherine’s struggles very outwardly. The film gives the audience something to invest themselves in as the plot gradually forms.
So, obviously, without question, I do honestly believe that John Moore’s 2006 remake of The Omen is much more effective than the original. It’s better in vastly more ways than it is not. Still, while I believe it is a good film, it certainly did not propel The Omen into greatness in my view. I enjoyed watching this film, and I felt it delivered some very strong, well rounded acting with a real skill for atmosphere and horror. Yet, if ever someone were to revisit The Omen again, I would really like more substance put into the script, and add in some new ideas that enhance what’s already there. Develop things further to build more dire urgency into the plot, and make the stakes bigger or, at least, more real. This remake took some good steps towards that effect, but I think there’s still room for improvement, if ever another filmmaker wants to re-fashion The Omen for a future generation.
The Omen is one of those classic horror films that has received vast amounts of praise over the years. It was widely heralded upon release, and gained a powerful reputation of horror since then. It’s also a film that I have never paid much attention to. I’ve watched it a time or two before, owned the DVD for years, but it’s never really stuck with me. Six years ago, a remake was released that was almost a carbon copy, but I recall it having some things I liked about it. Still, I always felt that both versions came off about equal, in their own ways, but that’s an old assessment. So, on this Halloween, I have decided to take a fair look at both films to judge them apart from and against one another. Which one do I prefer? Which one does it better? I hope I will have an answer at the end of these two reviews.
Robert and Katherine Thorn (Gregory Peck and Lee Remick) seem to have it all. They are happily married, and he is the US Ambassador to Great Britain, but they want more than to have children. When Katharine has a stillborn child, Robert is approached by a priest at the hospital who suggests that they take a healthy newborn whose mother has just died in childbirth. Without telling his wife, he agrees. Years later, after relocating to London, strange events – and the ominous warnings of a priest – lead Robert Thorn to believe that the child he took from that Italian hospital is evil incarnate. The Ambassador is approached by photojournalist Keith Jennings (David Warner) with startling evidence that supports the claims of Father Brennan (Patrick Troughton). From there, both Thorn and Jennings must take a journey to uncover the truth.
After watching this, what I find striking is that, despite all the great talents and potentially ripe subject matter at hand, this film made barely any impact on me at all. I can tell you that the film starts me off on the wrong foot with a score that is way too overbearing and obvious, but I will get to that, in depth, later on. It sets the wrong mood for me right out the gate telling me this is not a film of subtlety, but one of shock moments and broad strokes. Turns out, that’s exactly what I got.
Early on, there is an extreme lack of suspense or setup to dramatic or horrifying moments such as the nanny’s hanging. It just happens without any buildup of anticipation or tension, and the traumatic potential is barely dealt with in the aftermath. Events that should have adverse emotional effects on the characters don’t seem to have lasting impacts. Even before that, there’s a wholly unnecessary scene where the Thorns are just walking along, and then, freak out when they don’t see Damien trailing behind them. The score goes melodramatic for a few seconds before they find Damien unharmed just standing around. The moment served no purpose whatsoever, and it was even handled in a very clunky manner. The film doesn’t take its time to craft suspense to setup an audience for the chilling moments of horror. It just sort of drops them in front of you like a bag of bricks.
The thing The Omen really seemed to not take advantage of is building a looming aura. While there are moments which are strongly implied as being supernatural, that feeling is just fleeting. We are never given a lasting sense that there is a subversive, sinister force weaving its way through the background. The film also seemed to lack a natural flow of events in its long first act, and partly because of this, it takes nearly forever to build an atmosphere or sense of perceived direction. It takes nearly half the film until there’s even a sustained sense of dread or momentum for more than one scene. In the second half, for a very long stretch of time, Damien’s not even present for the threat of what he is to be sustained. There’s a simple rule in good storytelling which is “show, don’t tell.” The film takes more time telling us about what Damien is instead of showing us. Anything we are shown feels too disjointed due to that lack of natural flow in the story. Also, I certainly have no qualms about a slow burning film, but it takes until almost the one hour mark before anyone gets motivated into the action of the plot. Until then, it sort of meanders along with mysterious and murderous things happening, but no one really doing anything in light of them.
This happens when Jennings begins to convey the foreboding details behind Damien. The notes of Father Brennan about the child, and the startling evidence of the photographs are revealed to Robert Thorn. These are interesting moments which actually do nicely give us insight into the truth of the matter. Yet, it could have been used to actually create a foreboding atmosphere of terrible dread and urgency, but there’s barely any atmosphere in this film at all. I never got a sense of impending doom or urgency at any point in time. The film becomes so focused on the origins of Damien and what needs to be done about him, almost no time it spent exploring what he’s capable of. While surely the son of Satan shouldn’t be allowed to live, no time is devoted to conveying what he himself will do if not stopped. There are obviously forces around Damien causing all this death and tragedy, but he’s barely done anything threatening. All we get are people repeating the Bible passage about “from the eternal sea he rises,” but no one bothers to translate that into terms a regular person can understand. It is never put into a real world context.
The priest’s death is a tad ridiculous as he just stands there for several long seconds, waiting for the spire to fall and impale him. There’s more than enough time for him to run away from it, but he just stands there. If I look up and see something falling from several stories high about to hit me, I lunge out of the way. This isn’t nitpicky. This is challenging the intelligence of the filmmaking on display. There are any number of better ways to have plotted out and edited that scene for more immediate impact. At times, such as this one, the filmmakers try to overdramatize these death scenes. Other times, they under dramatize them to where they have almost no impact at all. If you want a better example of these sorts of deaths done better, just look at the Final Destination films.
I dearly love the work of the late Jerry Goldsmith. He was a magnificent composer. However, when it comes to The Omen, I don’t think I’ve heard a score more devoid of subtlety in my life. Every single music cue is loud, verbose, and melodramatic to the point of it being obtrusive. It treats nearly every moment as the biggest dramatic, climactic moment in the film. It’s well composed, powerful music, but it’s just too over-the-top for my tastes. It just bludgeons your ears with music. Moments that are shot and executed with a lot of suspenseful tension are ruined by the blunt instrument of the bombastic score. People have praised this score as having made the film more terrifying for them. For me, it kills the mood time and time again, and tries to force more drama upon you than the scene calls for.
Gregory Peck was an immensely acclaimed actor, but I’m a little divided on his performance here. He does have a very good presence conveying a hefty weight of drama. However, I feel he overacts in a few too many scenes. He exaggerates the drama or horror of the moment a little too much, pulling the film out of its grounded sensibilities. It’s another aspect of the film that could’ve used some more subtlety. Following further down that path, actor Patrick Troughton pushes his performance as Father Brennan way too over the top into bad B-grade movie territory. It’s a one dimensional crazy man who is very hard to take seriously.
On the other hand, as always, I think David Warner is excellent. He’s one of the finest character actors around, and he really handles the role of Jennings with grace and urgency. I don’t think I’ve ever seen David Warner not give a good performance, and here, he really shows the value and quality he’s consistently brought throughout his career. Also, Billie Whitelaw is exceptionally good as Mrs. Baylock. She is effectively creepy with a definite psychotic edge, and a pair of fiercely evil, chilling eyes. I wouldn’t want that woman roaming around my house.
Harvey Stephens does a fine job as Damien giving him a rather exhuberant fascination that implies his evil. Although, that evil never really manifests in a knowing way. It’s more of a screenwriting issue that Damien himself isn’t very active in the plot. Regardless of that, Harvey mixes both the innocence of a child with an underlying, evil nature. You can tell there is something not right about the child, and that is effective enough for what the filmmakers were going for.
Unfortunately, I was left with a blank impression of Lee Remick. She has so very little to do as Katherine Thorn that I just have nothing to say about her performance other than it was okay. Normally, if I have nothing to say, I say nothing, but I thought it was important to mention this as it ties into a lack of emotional depth in the movie. That is something I will touch on, again, later.
The effects work is a slightly mixed bag. Most of the death scenes have very impressive and somewhat elaborate effects. The decapitation was especially well done. On the bad side, while people were amazed by the shot of Lee Remick’s fall from the balcony at the time of release, today, it looks comical. It’s more like something from a parody of the movie than an actual effect to take seriously. It has absolutely no realistic quality or impact at all. What would’ve improved it is shooting it at a slower frame to generate more motion blur, and thus, creating a sense of velocity and visceral impact. Richard Donner might’ve been going for a slow motion approach, but it clearly wasn’t shot in slow motion, just performed in slow motion. Also, the prosthetic make-up on the burned priest is very primitive by even the standards of the day. It’s terribly unimpressive work. These are only minor gripes, but the film doesn’t have a lot of make-up or visual effects to comment on. That’s neither a good or bad thing, just a statement of fact.
Another real problem I have with this film is that no one is scared out of their minds at any point. I mean, it is the Anti-Christ, the son of Satan they are dealing with, but never did I feel like anyone was in dreadful fear over this reality. At least in The Exorcist, the characters were petrified by the fact that they were facing down a demon, and their fear really carried the weight of urgency and threat in that film. Here, the closest we get is our final moments with Jennings as he tries to convince Robert Thorn that Damien is no innocent child, and that he should be destroyed. Even then, it’s more a matter of conviction than fright There is such a lack of emotional depth present in this movie which results in a very mild sense of fear. This is aside from something like the dogs attacking Thorn and Jennings in the cemetery. I’m referring to people having a deathly serious fear about Damien. The characters are more afraid of Mrs. Baylock, the psycho nanny, than the actual spawn of the Devil. To me, that seems really, really backwards. He might only be a small child, but if the kid is supposed to be perceived as apocalyptically dangerous, I think our fear should be directed towards him, instead.
While the film does have its potentially shocking moments of brutality and death, I think the scary qualities are entirely religious based, and I have no such beliefs. I watched this film waiting for it to give me something to be scared or tense about, but nothing ever came. Even the climax, aside from the violent confrontation with Mrs. Baylock, lacks a driving sense of dramatic intensity. It would seem that the subject matter is what scared audiences, not so much the execution of the ideas. I don’t think the style of filmmaking holds up thirty-six years later. While it’s rather well shot and edited, which I give much credit for to Gilbert Taylor and Stuart Baird, respectively, there’s just a lack of plot cohesion and momentum in The Omen. This film had talents who were masters at their crafts from Taylor and Baird to Goldsmith, Peck, and Donner, but maybe, this wasn’t the right material for some of them to tackle. Richard Donner tried to convince himself he was making a psychological suspense thriller instead of a horror movie, apparently because thinking of it as a horror movie made it uninteresting to him. Obviously, I can’t help but take a serious issue with that point of view. Yet, what he was trying to make was indeed a horror movie, and I don’t think it’s really his forte as a director. He knew how to shock an audience, but demonstrated no ability to even attempt to craft suspense. I think it just comes down to subtlety. It takes no skill to shock an audience. To genuinely scare them through atmosphere and suspense requires quite a lot.
Honestly, I didn’t expect The Omen to hit me as this blunt and shallow of a film, and I know there are going to be people reading this shocked at this severe criticism considering the film’s status as a “classic.” However, no art should ever stand on reputation alone. Time is not kind to all movies, and some do not stand that test of it. Not to mention, for someone who has no religious beliefs, I need more than just the ideas this film presents to scare me. You’ve got to work at it. You’ve got to earn it, and this film didn’t try hard enough. The only thing that did stick with me over the years about the movie were my issues with the score, and so, I did go into the film bracing myself for that. Still, I was willing to give the score a chance to showcase some subtlety, some grace, but there was next to none where it counted. I really wanted this film to give me something impressive, something that really grabbed me, but it gave me nothing. I was almost wholly underwhelmed by the 1976 version of The Omen. At this point, I cannot fathom why I even own this movie beyond the fact that I have it in a beautiful steelbook DVD case. The creepiest thing in the movie is the last shot of the movie, and I do mean by a very wide margin.
Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dennis Rodman. Far too strange of a pairing to ignore. You throw Mickey Rourke into the mix as the villain, and how can you really say no? Okay, so this wasn’t a blockbuster, and even plans for a sequel never materialized. I was not allowed to see the film in theatres at the time, punishment for getting poor progress reports in high school that week. So, I discovered it on VHS, and now, re-discovered it on a decent widescreen DVD. I can understand why this got negative reviews, but the fact is, Double Team wasn’t trying to be anything more than what it was – a fun, exciting, and highly entertaining action film.
Van Damme portrays CIA counter-terrorist operative Jack Quinn who runs one final mission before retirement to start a family with his lovely wife Kathryn. Years later, with his pregnant wife in the South of France, Quinn is paid a visit by an old colleague to rope him back into action to help bring down his old nemesis Stavros (Mickey Rourke). A man who once worked for the good guys when they needed someone with the stomach for dirtier work to be done, but has long since worked for the other side supplying arms and other contraband. In prepping this operation in Antwerp, Jack taps eccentric arms dealer Yaz (Dennis Rodman) who himself “doesn’t play with the bad boys anymore, just the good guys.” They strike a fun chord with one another, making a memorable impression. However, Quinn misses the target, and the mission is a failure. Stavros loses both his son and girlfriend in this violent encounter. In the aftermath, Quinn is sent to an island called “The Colony” where former intelligence agents and assassins work together to counteract terrorist plots around the world. Jack is ushered through this new environment by former operative Goldsmyth (Paul Freeman). However, Jack seeks escape from the seemingly inescapable island after he receives a message from Stavros stating the he has abducted his pregnant wife who is about to give birth to their son. A daring and dangerous escape brings Jack back to Antwerp seeking Yaz’s arsenal and savvy. What ensues beyond this is an unlikely partnership that evolves, through adrenalin fueled danger, into a trusted friendship as Quinn attempts to save his wife and child while trying to burn down Stavros once and for all.
What would make or break this film was clearly going to be how Van Damme and Rodman meshed. The eccentric NBA star was hot news at the time easily coined a bad boy for his antics on and off the court. Here, he is surprisingly funny and likeable without being crass. I found him nicely charming generating a lot of the film’s clean sense of fun and humor. Van Damme holds down the more serious end of things nicely. It’s not anything exceptional, but he inhabits Jack Quinn very well. You can feel his determination and love for his wife and child throughout the film. JCVD has a lot of heart to offer in these roles which I think gets overlooked by the sensational aspects of his movies. As Quinn, it really shows through. And while Rodman handles the bulk of the humor, Jean-Claude dishes out a few quips here and there as banter with Yaz. As a team, they may not be 100% pitch perfect, but their performances balance out the film well. Van Damme and Rodman seem to be enjoying themselves, and their chemistry works out to surprising success to make them a fine, if unlikely team. Of course, there are numerous basketball jokes throughout the movie, but they are handled with a bit of charm. And frankly, would you expect otherwise? A film of this sort with many plot, humor, and character throwbacks to the cliché 1980s action film couldn’t possibly deny those ripe opportunities. Don’t take that as a knock at all. Double Team takes that style and formula, and gives it a nice splash of fresh paint with a late 90s style. A sharper, sleeker design that I thoroughly enjoyed.
Mickey Rourke could play a heavy without even trying, but as we’ve seen in recent years, he has a wide range of acting talents. Here, he doesn’t need to stretch far, but Stavros is a solid villain with a fine array of henchmen and assassins. He has a clear plan of revenge that he handles calmly and confidently. He keeps his cool throughout because he’s got the game nicely strategized for Quinn to follow his lead. Mickey has a smooth coolness wrapped up with a tough bad ass edge which suits Stavros perfectly, and gives Quinn a hell of an enemy to combat.
Rounding out the meat of the cast is Paul Freeman as Goldsmyth. The role has some nice British charm mixed with a touch of humor and shadiness. He’s both ally and adversary to Quinn, and he shifts from one to the other with a bit of grace without losing his likeability. Goldsmyth would rather not have to be an adversary, but circumstances deem it necessary for him to be as such. In the end, Goldsmyth is given an upbeat final note to go out on. Freeman handles the role smoothly.
The action, of course, is very well handled. Competently shot with a dash of style, and nicely edited to maintain energy and pace without sacrificing the clarity of the visual storytelling. I have not seen even most of Van Damme’s movies, but this has a nice mix of action sequences that should satisfy his fans. He does plenty of hard hitting martial arts fights mixed with shootouts and explosions to keep the film exciting and varied. The climactic action sequence is flat out AMAZING with a tiger set loose on Quinn in the Roman Coliseum with a field of hidden landmines, and some daring motorcycle antics by Yaz. It’s an explosive, rather original double edged ending that also gives Rourke the chance to show off his impressive physique. Mickey Rourke trained rigorously to be up to Van Damme’s level for their fight scenes, and certainly holds up his end providing a formidable adversary. This being a film from the late 1990s, there’s some splashes of John Woo style action, but in general, it’s solid work. The European setting is a very nice touch giving a different style to the film in many ways. It helps the movie to stand out a bit more with a fresh flavor.
Other elements of fun definitely come from Rodman’s character. He handles some brief, but enjoyable and entertaining action sequences. Being an athlete already, I’m sure it was an easy fit for him, and the role is written in such a way to maintain a sense of sly humor. It all fits for his character’s style, and supplements the more hard hitting action that Van Damme offers. Another fun bit are Yaz’s “cyber monks.” A group of monks in Rome that Yaz has befriended with the gift of modern technology. They are an endearing bunch which provide some additional smiles and chuckles for a brief period late in the film. The humor present in the film really does help balance out the heavier dramatic and action aspects, and gives Double Team its endearing charm. There’s some cheesy dialogue, but it’s all handled in good fun.
Again, the cinematography offers up some style that is very telling of the time it was made. Dutched angles here and there are used more to add a stylistic composition to a few shots than create an artistic off-kilter perception. Unlike in Thor when it was used to no purposeful effect, here, it just feels like a sign of the times. Dutch angles in action films were used as a stamp of “cool.” You would shoot a subject with an awkward angle, and they take on a more skewed “cool” look in combination with the sleek, shadowy lighting. It’s nothing I take issue with, but it is indeed a trademark of late 90s action films that a modern audience wouldn’t be so used to.
The plot is pretty standard fare that was practically a decade old by this time. That was brightly highlighted in the Nostalgia Critic’s review of the movie, which is what sparked me to check it out, again. However, as I’ve said, I think the storyline is handled well with doses of humor, Van Damme’s unique action stylings, and the European setting. While the film does have its humor, it’s never used at the expense of the drama. It’s very nicely balanced for both to co-exist without clashing. The movie is well cast with actors who bring distinctive personality to their characters, and make the ride one worth taking. There are certainly gaps in logic with the screenplay, and some things on-screen are a bit ridiculous. Still, like I said, this was meant to be a fun thrill ride. It never takes these elements are serious, and are usually brief gaps.
I watch Double Team again now, and I just wish they made a sequel. It’s so much fun with enjoyable, colorful characters, and nicely energetic and slightly over the top action sequences. Plans were considered for a sequel, and while its box office take did exceed its production budget, it wasn’t a huge success. Every film, generally, should be judged on its own merits, and based on the genre and style of film this is, I think it’s definitely worthwhile. Plenty of big action to be had along with some solid laughs.