SPOILERS for BOTH "Manchurian Candidates":
-
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.
-
ecarle — 10 years ago(April 26, 2015 02:25 PM)
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.
No, I think corporations can certainly be evilthey've outlasted the Communists and the right wing as a power basebut Demme's Manchurian Candidate ruined EVERYTHING else, too:
The music.
The characters. (Sinatra's broken hero; Lansbury's evil plotterDenzel and especially Streep missed the point entirely.)
The plot. (The one after the other twisty machinations at the end.)
The great "garden party brainwashing scenes."
The great Sinatra/Korean fight(simply removed from this version.)
The mix of sadness and comedy and Goth.
But more to the point, The Manchurian Candidate is timelessly of its time, when Communism was seen as End-of-the-World bad and yet right wingers capitalized on it to the ruin of good Americans.
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. -
MrJJay — 10 years ago(June 21, 2015 09:00 AM)
The OP is clearly a troll. The fact that he called this movie the worst remake just because he didn't like it proves this.
What kind of an argument is this? You want the exact same plot, scenes, characters? Watch the original one. -
goldpink23 — 10 years ago(July 09, 2015 02:56 PM)
@ecarle.Not to me.This is one of my favorite movies.I gave it a 9 rating.I like all of the performances.However Meryl Streep and Denzel Washington gave the best performances.That's just my OPINION and I'm not the least bit surprised people on IMDb would rate this so low.
-
AndrewGS — 9 years ago(August 09, 2016 08:52 PM)
I like the remake a lot more than the original (maybe in part because I saw the second remake first but I think there are a lot more reasons).
Both movies are pretty blatant in their political ideas but in the original I really didn't see how the Communists would want to get an intensely (even if insincerely) anti-Communist politician elected.
What was wrong with Marco also being programmed to kill? I liked that the remake cut out the buffoonish stepfather character and instead just made the war hero the candidate and Marco made sense as the assassin.
The corporation may have been too faceless and underdeveloped but its motives and goals, increasing U.S. militarism for profit, were hardly bland.
The remake also had some, and effective, surrealism although more focused around paranoia-Ben thinking he sees the implant doctor and then him really being there and Ben being lucky enough to find it soon after, Ben and Melvin repeating the same words about Shaw and Melvin imagining Shaw as with snakes coming out of his head, Shaw admitting that he knows what will happen on the mission but doesn't remember it happening, not revealing for a while that Ben got Shaw's implant out but kept it, the confusions and suspicions about if Rosie is part of the conspiracy or against it or just a checkout clerk.