Too Many Flaws To Be a Great Movie
-
Percivalx — 16 years ago(June 11, 2009 11:23 AM)
Sorry buddy but you are wrong. She did wear that costume "just for kicks" because there was NO explanation for it. The question is why did she wear that particular costume? Was she in on the evil plan? Did Mrs. Iselin give it to her? Of course not! It's pure coincidence. It was arbitrary plotting by the writers. It's silly and I don't have to accept coincidence in storytelling. The only coincidence an audience will accept is the one that kicks off your story.
"Mr. Rawitch, what you are I wouldn't eat."
"How dare you call me a ham?" -
Nikon11 — 16 years ago(June 12, 2009 05:11 AM)
So, it wasn't a costume party?
My point was that if she just happened to put on a QoD costume in the middle of the day to hang out in, yeah that would've been completely stupid.
So, she had a reason for a costume, so it wasn't just for kicks. You just didn't buy the coincidence that she'd pick that costume. Fair enough. -
sawyertom — 15 years ago(June 24, 2010 11:15 AM)
Sorry OP, but this is a great movie. One of the all-time greats. AFI thinks so. You are comparing today to back in 1962 during the height of the cold war with the Cuban Missile Crisis going on. You cannot compare today to then. Like another poster the said it was coincidence that Raymond's future wife dressed like that. In some sense it was irony. As thrillers go this is one of the best. I suggest you ask someone who lived during those times about it. Let's not forget that just about a year late our own president was assassinated supposedly by a man with communist leanings. Taken in the context of those times is it really so hard to believe? The world dodged nuclear war when the Cuban Missile crisis was resolved, we had a president assassinated, and later his brother another presidential candidate and a civil rights leader all murdered within five years. So, yes it is a beleievable movie.
-
Strausszek — 15 years ago(July 25, 2010 05:21 PM)
It's not expertly paced or super-tightly scripted in the way a Hitchcock film is, it bustles woth fantastic, ironic scenes and juxtapositions in a way that kind of blurs the back story. I love it, but i can see why it didn't make a big success in the theatre - this is a movie you need to see several times to really appreciate it in full.
At the audition I had to karaoke to "Smoke On The Water". I was 45. A very lonely experience. -
Jaybone23 — 15 years ago(September 04, 2010 05:45 PM)
Now why on Earth would "brianoh2" create this post and not come back to answer its critics? It invalidates everything he said.
I only hope that his reason for not returning doesn't involve deathhis own or that of someone close to him, because then I'd feel REALLY guilty! -
LightningLad — 15 years ago(January 26, 2011 08:05 AM)
I love this movie but can see a lot of the points made. I tend to regard it as more of a symbolic movie than anything else and don't exactly believe all the technical points of the plot. For one thing it would be a bit odd for the entire plot to involve having the stepson of the guy they wanted to be president assassinate him. He would probably be caught, and once the relation was found out it would actually be pretty scandalous, so much so he would almost certainly have to resign, bringing about a swift end to the scheme.
What I do enjoy about this film is as an expressionist portrait of very damaged person, and how the sympathies of the audience gradually do shift over to Shaw, as unlikable as he is at first. I kind of a view it as a nearly surreal gothic dysfunctional family portrait. But I realize that won't be enough for some people. But for me, there might be more technically convincing thrillers, but few with as much emotional power.
I also love the mood of it. There's just something so early sixties about it, but that of course is purely sentimental (I was born in the seventies, though - guess it's all those reruns when I was a kid.).
Reason is a pursuit, not a conclusion. -
lubin-freddy — 15 years ago(February 09, 2011 01:37 AM)
I was at the 1964 Democratic Convention in Atlantic City, even though I was a kid. This was the year after JFK in Dallas, and I was able to walk almost anywhere in the Convention Hall, and got up close to several politicians, including Humphrey. I agree that the security was lax in the film, and yes, not entirely credible, but things were different then, and we can't compare with today's security.
We could have high times
if you'll abide -
ConDeuce — 15 years ago(February 24, 2011 04:32 AM)
Have to admit it, but that "brianoh2" is correct about the flaws but NOT that it precludes "The Manchurian Candidate" from being a great film. The fact is that the film is flawed but still manages to be one of the most exciting, inventive, perceptive and funny films EVER made. As far as political thrillers, not one single movie since has matched "The Manchurian Candidate".
-
DD-931 — 15 years ago(March 29, 2011 08:28 PM)
Try watching this film as a satire and some of you naysayers might get it. A very, very DARK satire, yesbut definitely a long way from the docudrama expectations some of you seem to base your criticisms on. Seriously, how can anybody watch the matchless garden party/brainwashing scenes without catching some of the almost Brechtian heights this film achieves? Another poster's brilliant observation about the liberal Senator's "milk of human kindness" pouring out as he diessame vein exactly.
And of course one of the most telling satirical ironies the film explores is the fact that McCarthism so totally undermined legitimate anti-communist activities with it's monstrously hypocritical totalitarianism and ludicrous degrees of paranoid accusations that McCarthy himself might as well have beena communist agent. -
Squeeth2 — 15 years ago(March 30, 2011 11:19 AM)
Have viewers overlooked the Oedipal relationship between Raymond and his mum?
PS 'Iselin' = 'Liens'. In law, a lien (UK: /ˈliːən/; US: /ˈliːn/) is a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation. The owner of the property, who grants the lien, is referred to as the lienor and the person who has the benefit of the lien is referred to as the lienee.
The etymological root is Anglo-French lien, loyen "bond", "restraint", from Latin ligamen, from ligare "to bind".
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010. -
Sandro-88 — 13 years ago(July 20, 2012 02:57 PM)
I don't agree with the "flaws" you mentioned, in my opinion the movie just hasn't aged well.
For instance the fight between Marco and the Korean translator in Shaw's appartment. For a second I thought I was watching Inspector Clouseau duking it out with Cato.
Also I've been hearing a lot people giving Sinatra's performance grief but I'd have to disagree, though he's not a brilliant actor I love his performance in this film. If there was anyone who annoyed me it was Harvey, with that irritating posh accent and 40's, rigid style of acting.
'88 -
kelsey_153 — 13 years ago(November 13, 2012 03:20 PM)
Of all the posters on this board I agree with you the most, SandroSandro.
I had problems with the film, but they're probably due to my own taste and/or general mood before and while watching it.
Though it was so great to see that some of you resorted to ad hominem to further your viewpoint I'm not surprised the original poster hasn't responded. -
ObscureAuteur — 10 years ago(December 11, 2015 08:19 PM)
The only thing I had real problem with was Shaw using a revolver with a silencer when he kills Jordan and his own wife. That is not a matter of artistic license but a pure technical error (it is such inaccuracy still required by the code at that time?). It is a great movie. If you don't believe me, take it up with Roger Ebert when you get the chance.
CB
Good Times, Noodle Salad