SPOILERS for BOTH "Manchurian Candidates":
-
coolaree — 18 years ago(April 09, 2007 08:26 PM)
I know ur not being serious on seeing this movie as the worst remake cause there are at least ten others much much worse. And as for this movie being "dumbed" down and irrelevant to the times, i don't know how u came to that conclusion. Terrorism,war and the fear that is now in the western world, and the desire to limit civil and even behavioural liberties and take on a more dictatorial hardline stance by right-wing politicians for continued "safety" (all relevant topics in the US) was weaved intricately into the story in my opinion (through the charactor Eleanor Shaw). And why is the involvement of the "nefarious corporation" trying to gain greater influence in the government to increase profits (through probably the 'war on terrorism') considered detrimental? Sure its been done before but it is a modern fear(underline modern). Plus obviously the corporation was not working alone, but with some help from the more right wing groups in the government, which to me and i;am sure other people is more likely then say some kind of unholy, Dr. Evil like alliance between some terrorists groups like Al Qaeda and the right wing portions of the US government.
ps. i haven;t seen the original so i can;t really compare the two artistically or what not but i think this was a brilliant adaption/remake, which may not have explored/shown the 'other side'(international terrorism etc.) at all like u claim the original film, or Syriana, did but maybe that was because the filmmakers weren't trying to ie. it reflected the 'times'without the need to do that. -
ecarle — 18 years ago(April 13, 2007 11:56 PM)
Your remarks are well thought out. A movie with Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep isn't going to be awful on general principles. Lots of other remakes are "bad movies."
But I still see this as the worst remake ever made because it is a movie that takes a great film and practically ignores everything about that film that made it great. In its place, came this rather predictable 00's thriller.
The funny thing is, you say you haven't seen the original, and I'm willing to bet when you DO (and you should), you may still like the new one better. For the new one reflects our times, but does so in the ruination of the original's themes and meanings.
One problem I have with remakes of great movies ("Psycho" is such; "The Bad News Bears" is not) is that movies live on in our MINDS. We don't spend all that much time actually watching them. So now there are TWO "Psychos" in my head, and two "Manchurian Candidates," and I sure don't like the crowding.
My opinion. -
salieri125 — 18 years ago(April 22, 2007 05:53 PM)
What about John Carpenter's remake of The Thing? The Thing from Another World (1951) may not be quite on the level of Psycho, The Manchurian Candidate, The Birds, or even All the King's Men, but I daresay that it as much a classic of its genre as they are. The Thing '82 strays closer to the "Who Goes There?" source material (but not too close), but in all ways carries the same basic plot over: guys in snow vs. alien. However, it ignores what is good about its predecessor in the same way Manchurian Candidate '04 does.
Carpenter deletes the following from the original film:
Good dialogue
Interesting direction (Christian Nyby obviously leaning into the shadow of his producer, Howard Hawks)
A sense of comraderie/interaction between the characters, a.k.a. "humanity"
That feminine touch (no women)
Reasonable intelligence on the part of the characters
Humor
Non-gimmicky thrills
Heart
Carpenter ADDS:
"I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off, whatever it is."
His, shall we say, economy of production values
Sweaty guys who grunt at each other
Blood
Typical horror movie stupidity on the part of the characters
A ponderous philosophical ending
Some admittedly bravura special effects
Kurt Russell
Like Manchurian '04, Thing '82 is different enough from the original that the promotions department can label it a "re-imagining" instead of "a remake," but this is a matter for the advertisers and not the audience.
And this predates Manchurian '04 by 22 years.
(I wish I could offer some more and more specific examples, but I just thought of this and I lack a copy of either film. I suspect that the score of each film could also be an easy point of contention.)
"We must not remind them that giants walk the earth." -
ecarle — 18 years ago(April 25, 2007 07:38 PM)
Checking in late to suggest that "The Thing" remake doesn't bother me as much as this one.
Getting very subjective here, but I felt that the 1982 remake stuck (bravely) to an "all-guy" cast (didn't the original have one woman?), and carried its own very intense mood: the thing could be any of the men at practically any time. The for-their-time very weird effects were their own nightmare.
Also: I like Kurt Russell.
But the actors aren't the real issue in these things. I like Denzel Washington, too but I think he turned Sinatra's rattled-and-sweaty performance into a bit too much of a "typical Denzel hero": fast-talking, super-intelligent, confident. -
pogostiks — 18 years ago(June 05, 2007 04:57 PM)
A better example would be The Fly originally a B -film made into something much creepier by Canadian David Cronenberg one of the few remakes that is actually better than the original.
Otherwise, I have to agree that Manchurian Candidate 2 is much inferior to the original. I haven't seen the original for several years but all the way through the remake I was remembering scenes from the original that worked better.
Above all, we really got an idea of how loathsome and cold Raymond Shaw is from Laurence Harvey's masterful interpretation; We even feel sorry for him because of the failed love affair. We realize that he could have been happy once, if only his mother hadn't gotten in the way. In the remake, we never really get an idea of who Raymond is he seems to be all over the place, changing back and forth without any rhyme or reason. In the original, when the various ex- soldiers all talk about how Raymond is the most kind, compassionate person they have ever known, it gives us chills down our spines because we realize the irony of that statement when we compare it to the cold-hearted SOB that we find in Laurence Harvey. In the new version we don't really care about Raymond at all - the entire film is truly centred on Denzel Washington and we barely even care about him, never mind caring for Raymond.
The remake is well-done in general, but just not as satisfying in the long run. -
RParmly-3 — 17 years ago(March 15, 2009 10:47 AM)
"At least part of the point of the multi-levelled original was to juxtapose the American right wing and international Communism. The new one plays it straight down the "one level" line: a nefarious corporation. We've been there before, time and time again. I can only say again: this is a dumbed down version of a classic movie, likely made by people who simply didn't understand the original."
Well said. For me, too, the switch to an "evil corporation" was what completely ruined the movie as well. For three reasons;- It's not "fiction." Every Gilded Age president was a Manchurian Candidate for some business interest or other - it's gotten somewhat better since then, but corporate donors still have and still use this kind of power over politicians all the time (Halliburton and all the Iraq contracts they got because their old CEO was now Vice-President of the United States?)
- It's stupid. A big corporation, kidnap a group of American soldiers, spend all that money on brainwashing technology to manufacture a remote-controlled politician and put him in the White House? Why not find any random politician, bankroll his campaign and have him beholden to you that way - you know, like in real life? Simpler, probably cheaper and a lot less risky.
- It's not interesting. Corruption in government is a story as old as government itself; one more "big business pulls politician's strings" movie wasn't going to make the world look up. The story in the original, by contrast, with America's worst enemy behind it all, was terrifying - at stake were U.S. independence, American democracy and the fate of the Cold War.
In other words, a vastly inferior remake that completely fails to deliver what the original did. Too bad, I'd have enjoyed a movie with al-Qaeda manipulating a Huckabee-style Christian fundamentalist politician. It might have been controversial, but then so was the original - how about that?
"I ought to tell you something."
"Don't get sentimental now, Dad, save it for when we get out of here."
"The floor's on fire."
-
Chromium_five — 16 years ago(May 20, 2009 08:46 PM)
- It's stupid. A big corporation, kidnap a group of American soldiers, spend all that money on brainwashing technology to manufacture a remote-controlled politician and put him in the White House? Why not find any random politician, bankroll his campaign and have him beholden to you that way - you know, like in real life? Simpler, probably cheaper and a lot less risky.
Finally, someone points this out. I re-watched the movie last night and couldn't believe how absurd the plot is, considering the events it depicts have already happened in real life without the sci-fi technology. The al-Qaeda angle wouldn't have required much re-working of the script why not have al-Qaeda brainwash the soldiers with funding from Manchurian Global? In fact, the script ALREADY says that Manchurian Global has ties to terrorists (and is Streep's biggest donor), so why not take this idea further? Did it not occur to the scriptwriter, or did he reach his limit of potential controversy?
I was also surprised by how ham-handed the direction is. I kept wondering, "Where's the director of 'The Silence of the Lambs,' and why couldn't they get HIM to direct this movie?" The set design in the dream sequences and brainwashing scenes is incredibly bland and unimaginative. It looked like they filmed it in my garage.
- It's stupid. A big corporation, kidnap a group of American soldiers, spend all that money on brainwashing technology to manufacture a remote-controlled politician and put him in the White House? Why not find any random politician, bankroll his campaign and have him beholden to you that way - you know, like in real life? Simpler, probably cheaper and a lot less risky.
-
bluestocking-7 — 16 years ago(February 27, 2010 02:56 PM)
RParmly-3
wrote:
2) It's stupid. A big corporation, kidnap a group of American soldiers, spend all that money on brainwashing technology to manufacture a remote-controlled politician and put him in the White House? Why not find any random politician, bankroll his campaign and have him beholden to you that way - you know, like in real life? Simpler, probably cheaper and a lot less risky.
Exactly. This is the sand on which this wobbly structure was built. Very illogical premise.
If the villains which propel the plot do not take "a straight line" but a rather convoluted detour in the execution of their evil scheme, then I see a movie with a very artificial and uncompelling setup.
Still, I don't think this is the worst remake ever made.
P.S. I got a kick of spotting the actors which previously worked with Jonathan Demme in
Silence of the Lambs
.
Billy Wilder Page, Play the Movie Smiley Game
www.screenwritingdialogue.com -
jensen-22 — 18 years ago(April 29, 2007 08:28 AM)
I, for one, and really pleased that Carpenter left out "the feminine touch" which is nothing but irrelevant pandering to sex (and I'm as fond of sex as anyone, in its place) and perhaps getting some females to watch the movie. That travesty happens in almost all movies in which there is no natural female roles. I suppose you are upset that no female characters were artifically injected to spoil The Hunt for Red October.
-
Unclefishbits — 18 years ago(May 21, 2007 11:58 PM)
Saying Carpenter's "The Thing" is a remake of "The Thing from another world" is like saying the "car" is a remake of "the carriage"
Have you seen the Thing from another world? It is like Frankenstein!!!
Two totally seperate films.. plot, story, characters.
The two manchurian's are parralel and intuitively identical.
They are meant to be the same story and all. The Thing was an adaptation.
Who wastes time arguing apples and oranges. Time to walk the dog. -
johnmouse — 15 years ago(December 18, 2010 05:59 AM)
I agree, it is, indeed, a remake, and a feeble attempt at that. Having lived through this period of history, MC1 brings back many memories of the fear of, not just communism, but the REAL threat of nuclear war. President Kennedy came very close to pushing the button. When I was in grade school, we had "tornado drills." We didn't get tornadoes where I lived, and even at that young age, we knew exactly what those drills were for.
MC1 has the "creepiness" factor going. Take a good look at the scene where Mrs. Iselen (Angela Lansbury) kisses Raymond. That was NOT a motherly kiss. It was very incestuous, and was meant that way. Lansbury did so, keeping within the guidelines of censorship at that time. Brilliant!
The movie is a period piece. You can't update history; it is what it is. Ecarle's last paragraph says it all.
I've never seen, nor will I ever see, MC2, or any remake for that matter. You can't improve upon the original masterpiece. and there are no actors today that can hold a candle to the likes of Lansbury, et al. -
Panterken — 18 years ago(May 29, 2007 08:23 PM)
First of all, director Jonathan Demme specifically stated in a pre-release interview that the movie is NOT A REMAKE of the original one. It does have elements in common with the original version: a political background, a domineering mother and a brainwashing angle. Both movies are based on the book but the 2004 version is a very liberal interpretation of the main ideas that were present in the book. So you're completely injust to call this movie a remake rather than a re-interpretation or re-imagining - if you will- of the book.
Second of all, I find it deeply sad that you can not show appreciation for the modern elements that are cleverly weaved into the 2004 storyline. Instead you expect a replay of exactly the same story with other actors; what in god's name is the point of that?? It's not like the original one is so old that it's unwatchable and it needs to be re-shot with different actors. I must say I'm baffled by your post and can not believe dinosaurs like you still exist. Go with the time and stop living in the past. No offense, but it's real easy to criticise modern movies but real hard to acknowledge that maybe there are some good movies that were made after the year 2000.
Third of all I think, and many will agree, that the movie is near to brilliant, especially if you don't try to compare too much with the original movie( what you obviously did). If you had kept an open mind you would have seen that this is a daring political and psychological thriller that deals very much with the current political situation and frightening advanced technology. Not only is the movie very entertaining, it's also a reminder of the subjectivity of the media and politics and the dangers of a presidential hirarchy. Not to mention that the story is fresh and the acting performances are marvellous with the exception of a few less important roles. I could go on and on about why this movie is more then excellent but I'll not bore you any longer since you obviously don't have an open mind.
Kind regards -
Balthazar Bee — 16 years ago(July 25, 2009 08:59 PM)
Third of all I think, and many will agree, that the movie is near to brilliant, especially if you don't try to compare too much with the original movie( what you obviously did).
Precisely. Many of the OP's criticism's boil down to "it's different from the original!" -
kkmmss — 16 years ago(July 26, 2009 02:47 AM)
The problem is not that it's different from the original. The movie is just an average forgettable thriller even if not compared to the extremely superior original.
But it does seem much worse when comparing it to MC1. -
Balthazar Bee — 16 years ago(July 26, 2009 09:32 AM)
I don't think it's average
or
forgettable, but to each
One thing though: Can you name a recent thriller of a similar nature that's superior? I'm not sure I can. Demme's incredible level of craftsmanship has rarely served him better the awkward, in-the-eye close-ups, combined with the uniformly terrific performances and sinister scoring create a feeling more akin to a 1970s style political paranoia thriller. The writing's not bad either.
In fact, I think you might have to go back to The Parallax View or All the President's Men to find something comparable. I think the key is the feeling of genuine dread, the sense that something terrible's going to happen and our protagonist is helpless (as helpless as we the viewer) to do anything about it.
Even worse, we could be a part of it and not even realize again, Parallax.