SPOILERS for BOTH "Manchurian Candidates":
-
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. -
koffeenkreame41-1 — 11 years ago(April 12, 2014 12:11 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
^^This. I agree, great post. I really liked both the original & the remake. OP's one of those guys that don't think anything remade can be good or that they need to do EXACTLY what the original did to be good at all.
"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna*beep*wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens. -
OlLineRebel — 16 years ago(May 22, 2009 06:58 PM)
'Joe McCarthy's buffoonish attack on "communists"'
Too bad it was all TRUE. Buffoon? Whatever.
And there's nothing wrong with getting communists out of the government. Communists by definition want to overthrow everything not communist.
Off the soap box.
As to the movies - yes, it seems the concept changed a little too much. I just watched the original and have never seen the new, but from reading reviews and comments, it seems it's focused on EEEEVIL "corporations". As if they have much control over anyone. -
5h4d0w — 16 years ago(August 08, 2009 06:33 PM)
well it might fail as a remake but i have to say - sometimes i think that people get way too involved with whether a movie is a remake, a sequel, based on a novel etc. and not trying to see it on its own.
i guess sometimes it's legitimate to say a movie has failed because it doesn't live up to the original. and i guess it's very subjective where to draw the line whether that makes sense or not. but with this movie and from how you describe the original MC, it sounds like it's so detached from the original that it makes sense to judge it on its own.
and i have to say i didn't see the original but the story of this remake i was amazed by how much of what is portrayed reflects what is going on (and partly just probably going on) in US politics/military nowadays. well not just the US, i suppose
and i'm wondering if we'll see 30 years from now that there was more truth than fiction to this story of if it will be clear that all the connections between big companies and politicians and "fighting terror" and so on really were just coincedental and it never was about slowly creating a totalitarian regime and/or a worldwide empire
so while the original MC had a story that would probably upset me because of its propagandish content (at least it sounds like that), this remake has one that is not about substantiating prejudice against the "bad" people from [insert one of the "bad" countries here] but about taking a good look at yourself for once. i think that's actually a pretty big improvement - if the original really is the way it sounds. -
jdeeq — 16 years ago(August 24, 2009 10:20 AM)
Are ya'll serious in saying this isn't a remake? If it isn't then don't use the same name or use the same basic plot line or have the extremely main characters have use the same names!! A group of men were brainwashed and one of them made out to be a herohaving the last name Shaw (ahemso far, just like the original)in the first movie they were fighting in Korea, the second in Desert Storm (which is logical because it's a newer movie). The mother is a commie in both movies, has incestual feelings for her son and kisses him in both movies. Ok, I could go onit is a remakethey just tweeked some things here and there, but, it's a remake, plain and simple.
-
mstytz — 16 years ago(November 07, 2009 09:46 PM)
Good analysis. The original is so much better in so many dimensions. Better actors, better direction, better script, better choice of scenes, better effects, better conclusion, better depth of characters, and much more suspense. Whoever thought that the movie could be successfully remade was dreaming. The movie did not need to be remade. Good grief, the original had Sinatra, Harvey, Landsberry, and Leigh!
-
ryanoconnor-1 — 16 years ago(March 20, 2010 03:31 PM)
Oscar-winning star heavyweights Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep in it, and both were quite good here (with Streep earning an Oscar nomination.)
Actually, Streep did not earn an Oscar nomination for this role, and there's a reason for that. Streep was solid in the part, but she was not as good as Angela Lansbury (who was nominated for an Oscar for the original movie). -
InternationaleClique — 14 years ago(March 25, 2012 02:18 PM)
This film is actually quite ahead of its time. With such high profile actors involved you know that is no coincidence. This film isn't about what might be in the future, it's about what's going on right now. Maybe not an mk ultraed president, but definitely a puppet for the money power.
-
franzkabuki — 13 years ago(June 23, 2012 11:04 PM)
So the idea is that the more a remake imitates the original, the better it is? Thats kinda absurd, though - I mean, whats the point in remaking it all if you dont bring anything new to the table besides the most superficial elements such as clothing styles and merely settle for copying the earlier film as best you can? Demmes film should have arguably diverted even further from Frankenheimers.
And this 2004 TMC, although vastly inferior to the original, is actually one of the best remakes Ive seen. It does admittedly dumb things down a good deal in changing the whole method in which matters are presented (via lots of blunt exposition here), rendering many things boringly obvious. It also eliminates the humorous, absurdly satirical streak that the the original strived on - as well as the surreal tinge by explicitly stating what Frankenheim administred without explanation. But the remake eventually does grow up to be its own thing and present a different kind of a story pretty well. Even if the acting, and often the dialogue, are also somewhat weaker (in particular, Harvey simply blows Schreiber away and hammy, sub-par - by her standards - Streep never really stands up to Lansburys exceptional performance).
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
peter_t_2k3 — 13 years ago(January 21, 2013 12:26 AM)
I usually hate remakes and haven't seen the original of this but I thought I'd add my thoughts.
The OP mentions the Psycho remake at least staying true to the original and so it isn't as big of a failure compared to this. I have to disagree. The reason the remake of Psycho failed in my opinion was exactly that reason, it was too similar, it was a shot by shot remake.
As the guy previously has posted, remakes should try and bring something new to a certain degree. It's in my opinion the problem with remakes and why they usually fail - they either change too much and ruin the original or change nothing and what's the point in watching a remake if it's just the same film.
I do intend to see the original but found the remake really interesting and well acted. I think a lot of people might actually like the film a lot more if they see it as something else instead of a remake. -
Ithilfaen — 12 years ago(April 13, 2013 11:41 PM)
but at least Van Sant's "Psycho" WAS "Psycho" as best as it could be: same plot, same shots, most of the same lines. Van Sant tried to tell Hitchcock's classic tale (from a Robert Bloch novel) for a new generation.
So your point is that it's ok if a movie is an exact copy of a previous one, only with sexier actors for the kiddies but reinterpreting a movie's plot is just plain wrong?
It's like saying Nina Simone's version of "Ain't Got No" is bad because she's not pretending to sing like the guys in Hair did.
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco -
ItsNotJust-a-flick — 12 years ago(June 15, 2013 11:15 PM)
Though many of the arguments OP stated may be valid, I beg to differ with the opinion that (using) Faceless Corporation as its villain makes that villain rather toothless and easily overcome. The worst villains are those that are unseen, faceless, those inside us, inside the system. They are like cancer that cannot be beaten. Thats much more complex than having typical Hollywood good guys/bad guys dichotomy.
Your point that the notion of the Russian/Chinese communists in the original film working together with the far-right American politicians is much more controversial and interesting is true, but only if you ignore this fact what is really frightening in todays politics is that all the improprieties are pretty much common and acceptable (only hypocrites will state otherwise) and that the border between the good and the evil is completely blurred.
Or you still believe that only the commies and far-right crazies are bad guys?
70s - the time when even Stallone had to make a decent film -
gjordan77 — 12 years ago(July 10, 2013 04:33 PM)
I liked it just fine. You just seem offended at the idea that it wasn't "evil" communists, because an "evil" corporation is too much of a stretch? rofl. Sounds like YOUR delicate senses have been offended, so I guess they achieved that much at least.