37 of 46 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Use this and the original in a film class, March 5, 2006
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Sometimes older is better, January 1, 2005
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
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Very exciting, with some twists., August 31, 2005
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
