The remake is loads better!
-
Merkin4pres64 — 20 years ago(December 11, 2005 01:57 PM)
how the hell did Streep get a Golden Globe nomination for the remake. That performance was absolute beep. Lansbury should have won the Oscar, (mumbling) stupid Patty Duke
We were going to have children, but that would have severely drained my power crystals -
solman_66 — 20 years ago(March 28, 2006 08:09 PM)
You are out of your mind. My god, the 2004 version was trash, like most remakes. It had no heart, no soul, no passion, no intensity, no genuine 'feeling' and poor writing, poor direction, and a chickensh*t ending. You have unbelievably bad taste.
-
arittner — 19 years ago(September 23, 2006 06:44 PM)
Although Meryl Streep did a good job in the remake, it was a terrible movie while the original was excellent, perhaps a great movie. And as good as Streep was, she was certainly not superior to Angela Lansbury who created one of the greatest characters in screen history.
There are many things wrong with the remake, one of which is it complicates the story unnecessarily and focuses on Marco's illness rather than on the actual story. Note that in the original, we get Marco's nightmare and his crackup on the train, but after that, the entire focus is where it should be, on Raymond Shaw and the plot.
Oh yes, and by the way, the original is genuinely funny. The remake is a ponderous mess. -
scorpio19th — 19 years ago(September 23, 2006 07:40 PM)
Just saw the original on TV, for maybe the tenth time. Each time I manage to pick up on some slight thing that I've missed in my other viewings.
Lansbury should have won the award for her performance. In fact, I think it's her best ever.
A remake, in color, with such a different storyline, and more advanced film technology available nothing could possibly compare to the original.
Never do anything halfway ! -
I_donthavefb_lol — 18 years ago(May 29, 2007 01:07 PM)
The remake is not perfect by any means but its a more nuanced piece of work which confronts the truth as the original did not: the US was no innocent bystander when it came to mind control experiments. It was a leader of experiments that were outside any regulation or supervision by Congress.
-
saraannepotter — 18 years ago(June 17, 2007 02:16 PM)
I won't go so far as to discount everything made after 1990that'd be an entirely different post. I do disagree; the original took my breath away, and I thought the acting was spot-on. I appreciate a film that makes its audience pay attention and won't spoon-feed it, and Angela Lansbury still chills me every time. I can't listen to her sing "Beauty and the Beast" or play Jessica Fletcher in quite the same way after that. Also, it was a much riskier film to make at the time than in 2004. Maybe if you'd seen the original first?
And I don't mean to bash the remake. I'm just tired of remakes in general and thought the original was extremely well done and dared to be demanding of its viewing public. -
elk-run — 18 years ago(June 28, 2007 07:34 PM)
I rhought the remake was WAAAAAAAY better. I much preferred the Bee Gees and Frampton's version of Sgt. Pepper to those nasty Beatles as well. And while we're at it, the PT Cruiser is far superior to the Chrysler Airflow. I way like Clinton's job of being Jimmy Carter way more than Carter's. But I do think Reagan did a better Reagan that Bush does. But that's just me.
-
onepotato2 — 18 years ago(December 14, 2007 03:25 AM)
I saw the 2004 version of the film about a month before the original and I was very dissapointed with the original.
The '62 version is just a mess and greatly inferior to the remake.
You've gotta admit, the acting had to be a lot better in the remake.
by - fishpoo on Tue Jun 14 2005 03:26:09
Ugh all your taste is in your mouth. The remake is crap.
-
raymondsmother — 17 years ago(May 20, 2008 10:39 PM)
even if i didn't hold the remake up to the near impossible standards of the book and the original
the "dramatic moments" were so forced, so self-important, so "PAY ATTENTION THIS IS IMPORTANT" full of crap that i couldn't possibly take it seriously.
i actually tried to give it a second chance, but half an hour into it i gave up and watched the original again. it was much more satisfying.
Ladies and gentleman of the juryI'm just a caveman. -
JohnnyWeissmuller — 17 years ago(August 31, 2008 10:09 AM)
The remake of The Manchurian Candidate isn't bad and the performances are mostly good, but it's not a patch on the brilliant original emphasis on the word "brilliant." The tension, immediacy, wit, editing, direction and acting are stellar in the original. This film, in so many ways, had it all Be it an ace director with his finger on the pulse, terrific acting talent in the form of Lansbury, Harvey and Sinatra and a once-in-a-lifetime script brilliantly realised.
The Manchurian Candidate is nigh-on flawless It had an underlying humour that the original lacked and if the script is a bit preposterous THIS, along with the calibre of acting on show and the dedication by all, counters that keeping the thrills high, the jokes in and the end result unique.
==SPOILERS==
It would be hard to imagine this film being bettered, and the remake failed not only to better it, but to add anything of worth allowing it to genuinely stand alone. Again, it's a good film, but no more e.g. was Janet Leigh ever better? Even in psycho She was still at her gorgeous best here and was well suited to a strange role that she delivered on. Laurence Harvey was always a good actor, and if he was prone to being wooden he was perfectly cast here because Raymond Shaw was wooden, straight and unremarkable, the latter, unlike Harvey's performance which was splendid. Angela Lansbury has always been a fine actress and this could be her finest performance, the wicked queen, seething and manipulative, a towering achievement. Sinatra had one of the best acting resumes of the decade prior and he shone here also, oozing star-watting and, as he always done with his better material, reigned in a brilliant performance Maybe his best he should also have been Oscar nominated, IMO.
NOW TARZAN MAKE WAR! -
Engage_With_Zorp — 17 years ago(October 01, 2008 12:02 PM)
I actually saw the remake first, and hated it. It was a confused mess. The acting was decent, especially from Streep and Liev, but other than that, it was just bad.
I therefore approached the original with some amount of trepidation, but common sense told me it had to be good, otherwise it wouldn't have been (badly) re-made.
And boy was it good. Amazing, even. It's in my top ten favorite films. Lansbury blows Streep out of the water with her brilliant, understated performance, which, while not as flashy as Streep's, is about a hundred times more menacing and evil.
I'll confess I haven't seen the original in quite some time - but then, I don't think I ever will again. If I thought it was bad before I saw the superior original, there's no telling how awful it would be if I approached it now. Even the good parts (the acting) would seem bad in comparison to the original.
To sum: the original is a classic that will resonate with audiences for decades to come. The remake, thankfully, has already been forgotten.
If that's a veiled criticism about me, I won't hear it, and I won't respond to it. -
rvita — 17 years ago(October 02, 2008 12:12 PM)
The remake was beep was just a means to condemn and hurt W when he was running for reelection anyway..stupiddidn't work
Nothing could compare to the original, Lansbury and the black and white filming really created a moodterrific..looked like those 60's newsreels during the Kennedy era
One question, however, whenever John McGiver's character is presented, there's a spread eagle placed in back of him in two scenes, one when he and his daughter are tending to Harvey's snakebite and two, when Harvey shoots McGiver in the kitchen..when the bullet pierces the quart of milk that McGiver is holdingit seems that the eagle is placed there for a purposeis it supposed to be the symbol of the liberal and Democrat McGiver and his party or whatSinatra was a Kennedy Democrat at the time, I would assume that Frankenheimer was too..
Lanbury was presenting the Republican party, there was a bust of Lincoln whenever she was talking to her puppet of a husband -