The remake is loads better!
-
rayshaw44 — 20 years ago(June 14, 2005 01:30 PM)
I was born in 1959, saw the original in 1979 by accident having never even heard of it. Absolutely loved it and have seen it at least a dozen times since. Read novel which original follows pretty closely. Saw remake out of curiosity. Remake was very different from the original and further even from the book. They were just taking advantage of the name recognition, just like the remake of Planet of the Apes or The Fugitive (both of which I hated). I didn't like the remake at all, although you'd have a tough time finding someone more biased.
-
jhb-4 — 20 years ago(June 17, 2005 07:03 PM)
<"The '62 version is just a mess and greatly inferior to the remake.
Does anyone dissagree?">
Of course I (and most fans of this truly classic film) disagree. The remake was intriguing and well made and I liked it, but it can't hold a candle to the original.
<"You've gotta admit, the acting had to be a lot better in the remake. >"
Nonesense! Streep herself would bow to Angela Lansbury one of the finest character actresses in the history of film!!
May I suggest that you not watch movies made before 1990.
Best,
Joe -
jimmykebab — 20 years ago(June 22, 2005 06:14 AM)
62 version is not as tense as the new one. Its badly paced in that we see what happens to the soldiers at the beginningbut in the remake it shows us what apparently happened, and lets tension set in with Jeffrey Wrights wonderfully paranoid Melvin telling a different story. Overall the first is good but in terms of tension the new one is superior
Even the most primitive society has an inate respect for the insane -
thecooljicster5 — 20 years ago(June 29, 2005 12:00 AM)
this is amazing, the new one is awful. why cant hollywood have anything NEW. all they seem to do is re-makes of the classics that come out as dogs. if they ever re-make Dr. Strangelove, im going to be so pi$$ed
are you gonna bark all day little doggie, or are you gonna bite? -
jimmykebab — 20 years ago(July 03, 2005 09:18 AM)
i agree that hollywood is running out of originality, but i still think that some remakes are good (i enjoyed dotd 2004, Assault on p13 2005, Flight of the phoenix 2005 and manchurian candidate 2005) lets not forget as well some films that are considered classics are in fact remakes the thing, scarface.
But ultimately i wish they could think of sukm new films.
Even the most primitive society has an inate respect for the insane -
fugawz — 20 years ago(July 25, 2005 10:53 PM)
i have not seen the remake but i cannot imagine a film nearly as well done as this. (see Greil Marcus)
i dont think that anyone would try to remake dr. strangelove. kubrick, the cold war, the early 60s you cant remake that and have any resemblence of the same result
dont know if id call scarface an all out classic, or maybe id just not like to -
Lajzerjb — 20 years ago(July 31, 2005 08:25 AM)
IMO, Frankenheimer was one of the all time greatest directors, and The Manchurian Candidate proves it. The ending scence (after the assassinations) is breath taking, and despite Sinatra's acting flaws (which apparently some people see in this film) he puts so much more emmotion into Ben Marco than Denzel did in the remake. Being a fan of the novel, I gotta say that the original is vastly superior to the newer one. Manchurian Candidate needs Manchuria and Johnny Islen; otherwise its just an action movie.
-
criddic2 — 18 years ago(June 17, 2007 03:19 PM)
There are good things in the remake of "Manchurian Candidate," but the original was more, well, original. John Frankenheimer creates a surreal vision of paranoia that works every time I've seen the film. The acting is superb. Sinatra gave one of his strongest performances, Harvey was incredible and Lansbury so wonderfully creepy. The suspense is strong. Audiences today, I hate to say, don't know what suspense is because they have been fed crap in thrillers and horror films that want the jolts quick and constant. I grew up watching suspenseful thrillers like the original classic. I am not yet 30, but I am grateful to know the difference between true suspense and pieces of the story being held back throughout the film. Frankenheimer knew how to pace the film (it was nominated for an editing Oscar).
Having said that, Denzel Washington is one of my favorite actors. He's great in most of his films. This is solid work from him, but not great. Sinatra delved deeper into the character's psyche than Washington seems to here. It's hard to beat Sinatra on his good days. "The Manchurian Candidate" was among his finest hours. -
Jerry-137 — 11 years ago(July 26, 2014 03:25 PM)
There is something in movies I call, "believability". Many of the films made today are really lacking in believability which for me ruins the movie. I can stretch believability for many sci-fi movies but action scenes today which enable vehicles to defy gravity and the stress factors on the machines is just pitiful.
Also, the older folks (like me) remember the paranoia of the early cold war where your neighbors were building bomb shelters in their back yards and when we practiced A-bomb emergency measures in school. Laughable today but real back then. And watching TMC (1962) brought back those memories. The remake is less believable in these times.
My favorite:
-
hawks_senator — 17 years ago(June 24, 2008 05:11 PM)
Yes, I thought so too! Frankenheimer's direction was creative.
I'm not ready to compare anything though, I haven't seen the remake.
"Well, we put in wine because it's less noticeable. When it's in tea it has a distinct odor." -
jg67 — 19 years ago(September 26, 2006 12:19 PM)
If all the hypocrites who scream bloody murder when a movie they like is remade would stop showing up at the theaters,renting and buying the dvds of the remakes maybe they'd stop with the remakes.
"if they ever re-make Dr. Strangelove, im going to be so pi$$ed"
But you'll be there opening weekend.
It's a dirty job,but I pay clean money for it. -
Jerry-137 — 11 years ago(July 26, 2014 03:12 PM)
if they ever re-make Dr. Strangelove, im going to be so pi$$ed
You won't be the only one. I can't imagine anyone being able to duplicate Peter Sellers' three roles. Even if they used 3 different actors it wouldn't be comparable. Then there is the unforgettable role of Sterling Hayden as General Jack Ripperetc.
The remake of TMC is similar to most remakesIf you've seen the original the remake just doesn't make it. Only a few have tried and succeeded at remakes. The younger generation are too spoiled by CGI, color, changing times, and dialog usage.
But even viewed today, "TMC (1962)", is clearly the better movie IMO. Maybe because I first saw it in the theater many moons ago, then again when the DVD came out, and yesterday when I watched it again. Plus, I'm an old dude who likes many of the older films over the 'blockbusters' of today.
It would be interesting to see the ratings of the newer generation of folks of films from the last 10 years compared to old movie 'blockbusters' (and/or 'classics'). Not just remakes but all movies. Admittedly, the quality of the video is greater nowadays when seen on large screen LCD displays but the 'fuzziness' of some of the older films increases the aura of the overall movie.
My favorite:
-
ronin1138 — 20 years ago(August 03, 2005 08:09 AM)
I agree with err 'fishpoo', the remake is alot better. The concept behind the original story is so intregueing and sinister if you will and the original was quite a weak effort. What really struck me was the screenplay, in only a few scenes was it 'passable', it was quite stupid and laughable on occasion. I mean the scene on the train when Marco is clearly acting very weird and is quickly picked up by Janet's character is crazy as well as the scene where she says she's dumped her husband to be.
Sinatra was actually pretty good and was an inspired choice.
Apart from the better angle of the script of the new one, from a conglomerate trying to take full control of the White House, and Streep's power house performance was Tak Fujimoto's camera work. He often works with Jonathan Demme and he makes scenes very confrontastional and nightmareish by useing the 'through the wall' technique of a character talking directly to the camera.
I wish there were more films like this.