Reply
Sat 7 Aug, 2004 06:24 am
The original Manchurian Candidate is one of my all time favorite films. So when the remake came out, I was reluctant to see it. Yesterday, I gave in, and went to the movie.
For someone who had never seen the original, I suppose that you could call the remake a "nice" film. But to me, it sorely lacked the impact of the original.
Understand, that the two films are set in a different time frame. It was made in the 1960's, about the early 1950's when Communism brought the kind of response to people that "terrorism" brings today.
Even the title fit the original. The brainwashing, which was the focal point of the film, happened in Manchuria, so the title made perfect sense. In the remake, the evil company was called, "Manchurian Global", which was very contrived.
Meryl Streep is a great actress, but Angela Lansbury is a tough act to follow in the role of Raymond Shaw's mother. Even Streep's rationale for what she did to her son was contrived. In the original movie, Lansbury was a "true believer", on a mission.
I also found some of the scenes in the remake almost silly. The first time that you see the group of soldiers in the lab, they are wearing headgear that looked like it was pilfered from a 1950's mad scientist movie.
There was one major blooper. In the scene where Shaw goes to the polls, the schoolchildren are running about. Now everyone knows that during elections, when people are voting, the schools are not open for classes.
At one point when Denzel Washington brings the implant to his friend to test, there is a lot of extraneous sounds that seem to come from a rain forest movie. My husband and I thought that we were hearing the sounds from the theater next door. Some moments later, we see that the lab has some monkeys that are being used in experiments, but we had no idea at first.
One aspect of the remake WAS superior. In the original, Sinatra meets a woman, Rosie, on a train. She promptly makes it her businness to take care of him. No rationale is given, and her part does seemed contrived. In the remake, Rosie turns out to be someone from the FBI who is shadowing Washington, which DOES make more sense.
The original black and white film, I thought, had greater impact than the remake's. I think that it leant an air of starkness that is lacking in the remake, with its bright colors, and overwhelming sound effects.
Have any of you seen both films. Any comments?
Well, thanks for posting this, Phoenix. I saw the original and it was very controversial at the time. I haven't seen the remake, but I don't think, now, that I want to do so. I agree with you that the film with Frank Sinatra, Lawrence Harvey, (I think) was powerful and scarey, and yes Angela Lansbury was fantastic. The ending is still imprinted on my mind.
The original was just on one of VOOM satellite's movie channels and we watched it for likely the tenth time. Still a gripping political and espionage masterpiece. I am not running to the cineplex to see the remake despite some favorable reviews. The introduction of Rosie never bothered me as there are plot devices galore in the film. It's surreal and chilling and certainly drives home its point.
Re: The Manchurian Candidate/ I & II
Phoenix32890 wrote:Now everyone knows that during elections, when people are voting, the schools are not open for classes.
While I think the original was better for the most part you are wrong on this account. At least in NC, class
is in session on Election Day. So no, not everyone knows this because it's not entirely true!
Thanks for the review Phoenix. It was insightful
Despite two thumbs up from Ebert and Roeper, the movie isn't doing well at the box office. It could rack up some numbers by attrition.
After seeing MC II, I trotted out my old VHS tape of the original. There is no comparison. Angela Lansbury outpsychobitches Streep by a country mile. The original was far more exciting, and the ending was excruciating.
So........................after I had seen the two flicks within a short space of time, I decided to read Richard Condon's book. I found the book much better than either movies. It delved into the character of Shaw in far more detail, as well as the motivation behind the mother's actions.
It's a great read!
Ack - I daren't see the remake - I loved the original so much!!!
Saw it as a weelowan on telly.
Films often don't have time for depth of characterization and unfortunately that can be the crux of a satire. Purely as a film, it's successful as an adaptation. Still haven't seen the remake but likely will when it reaches cable or DVD rentals.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace