|
"The
Omega Code"
Starring:
Michael York, Michael Ironside, Casper Van Dien
100
Minutes
Rated PG13
1999
TBN Films
[APRIL
11, 2000] This
film convinced me to revise my rating system. In my previous
reviews I have been using stars to convey the quality of the film:
five stars for a wonderful film beyond description, one star for a
film you shouldn’t waste your time on. The average film gets
about 2-3½ stars. Watching “The Omega Code” put me to sleep
three times, and so in addition to my star system of rating, I am
adding the nap system. “The Omega Code” is a three-nap movie.
|
|
Now
it is not that I failed to notice or appreciate the point of the
film. This is an apocalyptic movie depicting scenes and concepts
from the end times. In terms of theological content, it does a
rather good and honest job portraying what some might say is the
dispensational pre-millennial view of the end of the world. And in
keeping with the title of the film, it centers on the concept that
there is a predictive code hidden anagrammatically in the Hebrew
text of the Old Testament. To me this is all very interesting
stuff.
But
“The Omega Code” is only worthy of a deep yawn.
The
first downfall of this movie is the acting. Gillen Lane (Casper
Van Dien) could be a very intriguing character, but in fact is
repulsive, eclipsing and unbelievable because of chronic
overacting. The Antichrist himself, Alexander Stone
(played by none other than Michael York – where have they
been hiding him for the last 20 years?) needs better lines, needed
someone to remind him what his motivation is, and needed the
ability to look diabolical. Dominic (Michael Ironside) tries hard
throughout the movie to look diabolical as he kills people, blows
up things and generally carries out the Antichrist’s plans for
world domination, but instead looks really cheesy.
I failed to notice the director’s name, but he needed to
continually shout from his little director’s chair, “No more
cheese, please!”
|
The
second downfall of this movie was the filming itself. At times it looked remarkably like a home movie of Jerusalem
(look for the bobbling camera, the use of the same rooms and
alleyways to portray different locations, and poor lighting). The
special effects were pitiful (hey guys, go hang around the lot at
Industrial Light and Sound for a few hours and pick up a few
pointers, please). The camera position and angle conveyed the idea
that no one making this film cared about it and the whole thing
left me unable to emotionally connect with this movie.
Finally,
the plot itself lacked clear definition, did not take itself seriously
and failed to adequately explain or deliver on the concept of the code
itself. This might have made a good farcical comedy instead, but it
wasn’t meant to be funny. And this movie ends poorly with the wrong
conclusions (you’ll find yourself asking the question, “Was that
the end?”).
In
defense of this film, it is probably difficult to produce a film
depicting your theological position. Also in defense of this film,
they probably had about $1.57 in the budget and made the best film for
the buck.
And
so, you might ask, why did I spend the time to review this movie at
all? I didn’t seem to have one good thing to say about this movie, I
didn’t even describe the plot at all and I didn’t tell you
anything new about the code or the characters.
Well…. I wrote this review because I felt that many people
might be thinking about renting or buying this video because they were
intrigued by the subject, by the title, or were duped into thinking
this would be a worthwhile film, and I wanted to save them the agony.
Don’t
rent this unless you need some good shut-eye. I give it ½ star, and
three naps.
[midge]
Don’t
agree with me? E-mail me your critique of my critique at midge@lincolndailynews.com.
|
