Customer Reviews

Manchurian Candidate (Special Collector's Edition)

5 star:		(51)
4 star:		(57)
3 star:		(49)
2 star:		(27)
1 star:		(27)

 

 

I'd held off for a bit on seeing this; the original Manchurian Candidate is an all-time favorite movie, and, well, you know...
At the end of this film I scooted over to my bookshelf and grabbed the DVD case of the original. My guess was the remake was no more than 90 minutes and the original must have been at least two and 1/2 hours in duration. Good Lord! They were both exactly 129 minutes long!

There's a profound lesson here. The first film, in that wonderful 129 managed to tell a great story, travel a lot, freak me out repeatedly, stun me with novelty (the playing cards, the whole Republican/McCarthy/Lincoln shtick, the "flower show' interrogation, the "jump in a lake", getting drunk with Shaw, and on and on) work in a great love story, work in a tragic love story, work in a pathological love story, and develop a host of intriguing characters, and thrill me with what seemed to be an unending sequence of marvelous performances. The equally lengthy remake stirred little sympathies and seldom got off the ground. As storytelling, the film spun its wheels. You'd think if you remake a movie, ignore character development, ignore any relationship development, ignore any complex and intelligent commentary on modern goings-on (it was just terrorism and corporate involvement in war handled in the most superficial way)--ignore a whale of a lot--you could bring the thing in at about 48 minutes, maybe 60 with commercials. If I watch it again (not likely) I'll have a stop-watch handy and I'll take notes. It was like some magic trick.

So what happened in that 129 minutes anyway? I'm honestly not sure--Denzel Washington sweats a lot and communicated none of the subtlety and complexity that Sinatra managed, Meryl Streep brought on the heretical thought that maybe she's overrated and maybe Angela Lansbury was underrated, I missed Janet Leigh who delivered the same lines splendidly, I missed the black humor and irony and ambiguity, and who the heck was that bad Lawrence Harvey impressionist? Motivations were lost, the WHOLE POINT that everyone hated this guy but parroted their adoration for him wasn't presented clearly, and the motivation for the entire brainwashing venture was muddled up by the script after first stating that it was all about control. What a mess. Every time the film tried to echo the original, it'd already gone so far off track that it just confused matters even worse.

My serious suggestion is that some professor (and not necessarily a film professor) have a class watch both versions, note what went right in 129 minutes in the original, and what went horribly wrong in the 129 minutes of the remake and then have the students try to explain why. My guess is the answers will be fascinating.

It's a one-star movie but I give it two because it was up against impossible-to-beat competition.

My Dad and I used to have this conversation. If you take some of the great plots of the last 40-50 years and use today's technology, liberal attutudes toward sex, violence and heck, reality, don't you come up with a better product? Look at Double Indemnity and then see Body Heat. Kathleen Turner just scorches Barbara Stanwyck. The answer is absolutely.

Yet we all know of some flops where great technology and acting couldn't carry the show. And this is certainly one of them.

First of all, Meryl streep is fantastic. You might have only expected that but still beautiful, powerful, manipulative, evil, sexy . . . she plays it to the hilt. And Denzel also does marvels with what he has to work with. Laurence Harvey was more sympathetic-creepy as Sergeant Raymond Shaw but Liev Shrieber does a credible job.

That's it. The plot is so convoluted that by the end, you have no idea of what's going on. Holy Cow it was an incredible (as in virtually unbelievable) story (Richard Condon) to begin with but Sinatra (I never thought I'd say this) and Harvey and Janet Leigh gave us a road to follow and we did. Here, by hour number 2, Meryl Streep's having conversations with people that I suppose I'm supposed to understand play a significant role but I can't figure out what it is. Or who they are. I thought they were Republican members of the Senate! And the Oedipal thing. Come on. A little over the top. Really pandering.

Don't waste your money. If you see Manchurian, rent the first one. 2 stars. Larry Scantlebury

Of course, I don't usually watch these types of action movies, but I knew that anything Ms. Streep is in must be quality, and I was right. Yes, I did like this movie, although, I remember reading the novel, years ago, and they really changed the story around in this version. Everyone has to keep up with the times, I suppose. The most entertaining things are the plot twists at the end, where you don't really know what's going to happen next -- and Mr. Washington does keep you on the edge of your seat. This movie is definately for the younger crowd. I will reserve anymore judgement to them. I'm sure they will enjoy it more than I.

Shades of Fahrenheit 911! This superbly crafted and well acted re-make of the 1960s political thriller, "The Manchurian Candidate" bears little resemblance to the original, a taut but relatively conventional psychological drama based on the premise of the selective brainwashing of a platoon of American soldiers during the Korean War by the North Koreans. In the original, the storyline revolves around the nightmare ruminations of a military officer (played by Frank Sinatra) who comes to realize all hinges on a fellow prisoner, the scion of a wealthy, influential, and politically ambitious family becoming a sleeper assassin who will be activated to act out his part in a diabolical plot to stage a deft and ostensibly peaceful coup-d'etat of the American government.

Here Denzel Washington underplays the part of the officer to the point of perfection, yet the story-line is much more of a postmodern twist, involving corporate geopolitical ambitions for a Halliburton-like firm who tries to use the brainwashing during the Gulf War of 1991 to ensnare and brainwash the sleeper agent (played well here by Liev Schreiber, once again the scion of a wealthy, influential, and politically star-crossed family). Meryl Streep plays against type as a brash and arrogant neoconservative senator who uses her bully pulpit to spew imperialistic venom. There are many contemporary touches and twists to the script and the plot that make this a quite artful, albeit obviously fictional, philosophical diatribe on the state of current American politics seen through the eyes of Hollywood intellectuals (or is that a contradiction in terms?).

All that said, there is indeed much beyond these blatant attempts to examine the current state of the American polity to recommend the film for your entertainment. It is a forceful and mind-expanding whirlwind ride through the threats we face both within and without our borders, and it offers a number of interesting and diverting scenes of people swept up by and then caught helplessly within the crosshairs of circumstances way out of his or her control, and in that sense is a timeless statement of how much the particulars describing each of our lives depend in the unique set of historical circumstances we find ourselves enmeshed within. This is quite a rollercoaster ride, and one I highly recommend for your viewing entertainment. Enjoy!

I was getting tugged on multiple sides when I decided to rate and review this film. First, and most obviously, was that I loved the original with Frank Sinatra. I think it was probably his defining role as an actor and was my personal favorite Sinatra movie. Second, I was worried that I might try and draw too many comparisons between this new film and its predecessor and thus end up hating this one. Third, I like Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep, and PRAYED that they didn't put these two excellent actors into roles that they either weren't made for or couldn't live up to.

So basically I stressed out over nothing. The movie was good. Not great, not the best of the year, but good enough to hold my attention and keep me up later than I normally would be.

The film: Denzel Washington takes on the role of Major Ben Marco (Sinatra's old Captain role), a desert storm officer who's come back from the war with terrible headaches, undecipherable dreams, and a member of his team who won the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Liev Schriber plays Raymond Shaw, the powerfully connected Sergeant who wins The Medal. He comes back to the States and is swept into politics. And he's being primed for the vice presidency.

Meryl Streep plays Senator Eleanor Shaw, Raymond's hard-nosed mother who NEEDS to have her son in a position of power. The family name MUST be upheld and put into the history books. Mrs. Streep plays probably her most creepy role to date; I loved it. Her character infuriated me one moment, and then made my stomach turn the next. A perfect performance.

Instead of Manchuria being involved, this time we have something known as Manchurian Global, a company that wants to rule the most powerful nation on Earth by controlling one of its most powerful leaders. But who's behind this global corporation? Does the military know? IS it the military?

Denzel pulls off a decent performance as the conflicted soldier who wants to do the right thing, but is hampered by what's "inside his head". His decline into near insanity is more like a landslide (i.e., felt rushed), and those around him can't hold a candle to his more adept acting abilities (with the exception of Mrs. Streep who practically stole the show).

Will I watch it again? Probably not.

I'll be the first to admit that I've never seen the first Manchurian Candidate made in 1962, or even heard of the novel by Richard Condon, so I viewed this remake without any preconceived notions. The first thing that struck me about this movie is how relevant and topical the subject matter is, especially in times of multicolored terror alerts. The themes of media manipulation, the corruption of power, and the perversion of democracy are all woven into a tightly knit thriller that steadily pulls the viewer in. The Manchurian Candidate is a chilling account of what results when political and technological power converges and is used for the wrong reasons. The idea that private interests can rule government, that research regarding brain science can be used for harm rather than good, and that vast conspiracies can ensure that the public are kept ignorant and uninformed, are all urgently, and incontrovertibly relevant today.

The movie centers on Sergeant Raymond Prentiss Shaw (Liev Schreiber), a Desert Storm veteran and current Congressman who is competing for the U.S. Vice Presidency. Shaw, if elected, will be the first vice-presidential candidate created solely for use by the private sector. A private corporation called Manchurian Global is investing in him and is backed by the prestigious reputation of his family name. Raymond's ever-present, media-friendly mother, Senator Eleanor Prentiss Shaw (Meryl Streep), is a driven, egoistic and self-absorbed politician with a corrupt nature that will do anything to have her son elected to the White House. But Raymond's actions are perhaps driven not by his own motivations to be a good public servant, but from the brainwashing he underwent while serving in Kuwait.

Major Ben Marco (Denzel Washington) is the paranoid leader of Sergeant Shaw's unit in Desert Storm. Marco has never really mentally recovered from his traumatizing experiences overseas. Plagued by devastating nightmares, he embarks in a quest to discover whether there's any truth behind these unsettling dreams. As the pieces of the puzzle come together, Marco discovers that the nightmares are from the effects of brainwashing, rather than from Gulf War Syndrome as was previously thought. Everyone surrounding Shaw does not want to discuss what happened in Desert Storm and even Shaw admits that he doesn't remember performing the heroic acts that handed him a Medal of Honor. As the mystery expertly unfolds, Marco comes to suspect that he and his men were brainwashed in order to place a sleeper into the White House that could one day, potentially, bring about the end of American democracy, as we know it.

The Manchurian Candidate is an actor's movie, and it's refreshing to see three of the finest actors working today delve into their roles with passion and veracity. Streep gives probably the most disturbing and creepy performance. She brings a possibly incestuous, morally evil, surely demented mother, to electrifying life. Live Schreiber gives a well-modulated, unemotional and often scary performance that makes one question his true loyalties. Denzel brings a depth of character and a range of emotion that one has come to expect from the actor, and Kimberly Elise is excellent and suitably spunky as Rosie in a crucial role. Viewers will be treated to a great story and a very well acted movie when they see the Manchurian Candidate. This is probably one of the best movies of the year so far, and is definitely one of the most affecting, disturbing, and powerful political thrillers of the past few years. Mike Leonard August 04.

This movie ranks with the new "Planet of the Apes" as one of the worst remakes of a classic ever made. The original Manchurian Candidate was tightly plotted, perfectly acted, and socially relevant. Its plot was rich and layered, and above all subtle.
This new film loses it all in favor of pastiche. The basic plot, that of a platoon being brainwashed into believing they were saved by the most hated member of their squad, is all that survives. Raymond Shaw is changed from a crooked politician's son to the politician himself, and the transition is not successful on any level. The backstory involving Senator Jordan and his daughter Joslyn is all but absent, rendering one of the most powerful scenes of the original rather tepid. With Shaw now as the candidate for vice presidency, his hatred of his mother is largely superfluous to the plot and so is barely noticeable. Also, Major Marco's role reversal at the end is limp and his turning-the-tables cannot be explained as Shaw's was in the original. The big-business conglomerate as brainwashers does not work. Last but not least, the Queen of Hearts trick is gone, its replacement infinitely less intriguing.
What does it leave? It leaves a simple if suspenseful tale of brainwashing. Meryl Streep is effective as the mother but cannot match Angela Lansbery (in her defense, Streep's role is far less three dimensional than Lansbery's, and her character is simply not as malevolent).
Not worth it. Seek out the original, one of the greatest films ever made, and cast this to the dustbin of cinema history.

If there could be 2 and a half stars, that's the rating I would give this remake. Being of generous spirit, I will resolve the issue by rating it up a half rather than down. The original was the truly gripping version. In the original, the bad guys were communists from Manchuria seeking to take over the government. In this somewaht lame remake, the bad guys constitute a corporation named Manchurian Industries. Without saying more, just think about it ... which premise is the real thriller? In both versions, a brainwshed war veteran is under the control of his domineering mother. Both Angela Lansbury in the original and Meryl Streep in the remake are convincing in that role. Indeed, the highpoint of the film my be an erotic, borderline incestous moment between mother and brainwashed son in the remake. Otherwise, however, the original wins hands down.

The setting and relationship between the characters is much better in the original. There, a braiwashed son of a senator and his wife is programmed to do what is necessary to help his father, the vice presidential candidate rise to the top. It is the mother, rather than the father who has the brains. The father, who is the candisate is merely the dopey sooge. in this remake, however, the brainwashed son of Meryl Streep's character (she plays the senator) is the candidate for vice preesident. Excuse me but yeah right!!! That's really believable, that a zombied out brainwashed, unlikabe cad could actually be a candidate for vice president. Additionally, there are scenes where this vice presidential candidate goes off on his own to carry out orders he is programmed to obey. Again, excuse the sarcasm but puleeze!! That's really believable that a vice presidential candidate who would have a secret service detail can somehow just go off on his own.

The ending of each movie has a slightly different twist brought on by the fact that in one, the father is the candidate whereas in the other, the brainwashed individual is. I can't reveal the ending because it would ruin the suspense. Trust me, however, the ending works much better in the original.

Doing a remake of a first class movie is asking for it. Not only should the remake be at least as good as the original, but the remake has to fight all the recollections of those who saw the original...and, I suspect, of a lot of the recollections of those who didn't.

I thought that this remake did a first-class job for two-thirds of the way, but then lost it a bit. Even so, it's a solid movie in my view with a nice twist on the original.

For me, the acting and emotional impact of the original centered on Angela Lansbury, followed by Sinatra and then Lawrence Harvey. In the remake, I'd put Washington first, followed by Schreiber and then Meryl Streep.

The original seemed to me to be all about paranoia, and made all the more effective because Harvey, as an actor, had such a stand-offish personality. "It's not that Raymond Shaw is hard to like. He's impossible to like!" A lot of people felt the same way about Harvey. I think that's the main reason he was so effective in the role. That, combined with the poisonous ego and ruthlessness of Lansbury's role as the mother, made a real psycho study. Lansbury's kiss on her son's lips created, for me, a "Whoa, wait a minute" moment. Streep's approach to the kiss, but with it not shown, didn't have the same impact at all.

The remake, for me, teetered more into relationships, with Washington more dominant in the movie, with Schreiber next and being more sympathetic and likeable, and with Streep being less poisonous and much funnier. If Lansbury with her performance stole the show in the original, Streep with her performance kind of set the remake off center. I thought the original ending, with Raymond's death and Sinatra speaking what Raymond's real medal of honor citation could have been, had a lot of emotional power. The remake's version (after the twist) was much more conventional.

I hope this turns out to be a turning point for Liev Schreiber's film acting career. He's done a number of films but has never broken through. But the guy is a powerhouse stage actor who can handle anything from Shakespeare to Pinter, and regularly does. Everything I've read about him underlines how he can dominate a stage. Brainwashing is a little old hat nowadays, but Schreiber make's Raymond's situation believeable. He's an actor to keep an eye on.

And while I think Meryl Streep's performance keeps the movie a bit off balance (its such a showboating turn), she genuinely is repellant, funny and scary all at the same time.

Richard Condon wrote the book these movies were based on. If you enjoy paranoia, read another of his books, Winter Kills. It's a good read, and made a good movie.

The Manchurian Candidate is an excellent remake of the 1962 classic starring Frank Sinatra, Angela Lansbury, and Laurence Harvey. I didn't think the original movie could be remade, but director Jonathan Demme has succeeded. During the Gulf War in Kuwait, Sergeant Raymond Shaw saves his squad during an ambush and receives a Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery. Twelve years later, he becomes the Vice Presidential candidate in the presidential elections. His commander during the Gulf War, Maj. Bennet Marco, has been having flashbacks about what he thinks really happened during the ambush and in the days afterwards. Marco begins to investigate his nigtmares, and finds a huge conspiracy invovling politicians, terrorists, and mulit-conglamorate corporations. What makes this movie good is that it does not try to be an exact duplicate of the original. The basic storyline is the same as the 1962 classic with little twists and turns throughout, especially the ending, that keeps the viewer interested. The 2004 version is an excellent movie that can stand on its own and is almost as good as the original. Highly recommended.

Denzel Washington is excellent, when isn't he?, as Major Bennet Marco, the Gulf War veteran trying to find out what really happened on that night in Kuwait. Washington is very believable as a veteran struggling with post-war traumatic stress. Meryl Streep plays Senator Eleanor Shaw, Raymond's mother, who has more than a few aces up her sleeve. Watching her transformation as the plot reveals itself is creepy, although not as good as Angela Lansbury's performance. Liev Schrieber stars as Congressman Raymond Shaw, the Vice Presidential Candidate who wants to believe what Marco tells him, but ultimately cannot. Jon Voight also stars as rival senator Thomas Jordan, who Marco confides in. The movie also stars Kimberly Elise, Ted Levine, Miguel Ferrer, Simon McBurney, and Bruno Ganz. For an exciting, suspenseful thriller with an impressive cast and excellent story, check out The Manchurian Candidate!