User reviews

Here's something I never thought I'd say: I enjoyed parts of "The Manchurian Candidate" remake; it isn't as bad as I expected it to be.

And much of the credit goes to the three main players - Denzel Washington as the paranoid veteran, Liev Schreiber as the titular character and Meryl Streep as the power-hungry, Oedipally motivated Senator Eleanor Shaw.

Screenwriters Daniel Pyne and Dean Georgaris reinvent and contemporize Richard Condon's novel and the 1962 film. While John Frankenheimer's film, written by George Axelrod, was the apotheosis of the Cold War thriller and a scathing indictment of McCarthyism, Jonathan Demme's remake is less subtle in its approach and paranoia, but takes barbed jabs at current politics, the corruptibility of our elected leaders and paranoia disguised as patriotism in a post-9/11 America.

The remake also owes a debt of gratitude to Alan J. Pakula's brilliant 1974 paranoia-conspiracy thriller, "The Parallax View."

Although it isn't clear whether Raymond Shaw is a Republican or Democrat - his mother certainly seems more Republican in her outlook and politics - Demme and his writers' point is that all American politicians are bought and paid for by big business. As we all know, we never heeded President Eisenhower's prescient caution about the military industrial complex.

The villainous Manchurian Global clearly was inspired by Halliburton - there's even mention of the company getting no-bid contracts. Pay close attention and you'll hear pointed references about the use of private contractors by the military, malfunctioning touch-screen voting machines and our government's "compassionate vigilance." Also, look fast and you'll see a news crawl about a Wal-Mart-type chain and a newspaper story about our treatment of Muslims.

Washington's awfully convincing as a man fraying at the edges, whose grip on reality seems to be slowly slipping, and there were a few moments where Schreiber almost reminded me of Laurence Harvey.

Streep, on the other hand, proves why she is undoubtedly the best actress this nation has ever produced. Her Eleanor spits venom. We're utterly convinced why Raymond's such a cuckold. We can only imagine what his poor father must have endured. Streep occasionally comes close to being campy, but so completely dominates the screen that she scares us even when she chews ice.

But several other talented actors, including Jon Voight, Vera Farmiga, Dean Stockwell and Ted Levine, are used to little or no effect.

Some crucial plot elements make no sense. The Dr. Noyle scenario, for instance, proves to be illogical, especially when we learn more about him. Neither Pyne nor Georgaris attempted to rectify this deficiency. Also, the mysterious Muslim women are superfluous. I wonder if their bit wound up on the cutting-room floor.

The film contains an unmistakable cynical tone. As much as it's clearly an indictment of big business' control of politics, it also denounces our leaders' insistence on keeping the public on edge with terror alerts. And as Senator Shaw points out, "The assassin always dies. It's necessary for the national healing."

But after maintaining its cynicism for much of the film, it comes apart completely at the end. Demme and his writers cop out with a pointless and weak denouement. That gunshot you hear is Demme shooting himself in the foot.

It's almost as if they gave in to appease some mindless preview audience or dimwitted studio hack. Or, maybe they envisioned it just like this. Given my admiration of Demme, I'd like to think otherwise. Hope I'm right.

John Frankenheimer's "The Manchurian Candidate" is certainly among the best movies of the cinema history, inclusive is rated in IMDb top 250 as #75. This remake is not totally bad, but why remakes such a classic? It seems that former great director Jonathan Demme presently prefers to follow the easiest way trying to reach success instead of risking, but with terrible results. In 2002, he made an awful and ridiculous version of "Charade" with the mediocre "The Truth About Charlie". In 2004, he decided to insult John Frankenheimer with this complicated and totally absurd and unbelievable version of the classic. My vote is six just because I am a great fan of Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep.

Title (Brazil): "Sob o Domínio do Mal" ("Under the Domination of the Evil")

The just released techno-polemic (a new genre), "The Manchurian Candidate," isn't a remake in the sense that recent movies such as "The Italian Job," "The Thomas Crown Affair" or "Oceans Eleven" largely copy their predecessors (for better or worse). Loosely following Richard Condon's novel, on which the first movie was based, this version sacrifices the former flick's chilling story development to today's audience-demanded bizarre science experiments with a gloating mad doctor and the usual contemporary thriller's fast and frequent action scenes.

The original Manchurian Candidate came out when the Cold War threatened to become very hot, fear of the U.S.S.R. and its satellites was great and Americans still hadn't digested the reality of Korean War G.I. turncoats who had been brainwashed, a new, fearful threat in a rapidly changing human landscape.

The cast in the first film was superb and those who only know Angela Lansbury as a slightly dotty mystery-author sleuth on TV should become acquainted with her performance as a mom with a mission - to make her little boy President of the United States: by hook, crook or a sniper's rifle.

In the earlier film there is much evil but it emanates from warped souls supported by foreign enemies very familiar to that day's moviegoer. Like "Seven Days in May," a near contemporary of "The Manchurian Cndidate," some might evilly forsake the Constitution's strictures but in the end the system stands strong because it's inherently good.

In the pseudo-remake the American political system and its dependence on money from a vast industrial conglomerate clearly putting profit before patriotism is hoisted to the forefront and relentlessly indicted. The villainous octopus here is "Manchurian Global," an outfit having no small resemblance to...what's the name of the outfit where the current Veep made his millions? Halitosis, Halli...something.

Anyway we have a patriotic, tough but psychically wounded vet of the first Gulf War, Army MAJ Ben Marks who seems to have been off his meds for a while. A captain during the conflict, he's only one grade higher a dozen years later, sure proof that's he isn't a highly rated officer. He survived an attack on his unit which disappeared for three days before being found sans two men presumed KIA. An enlisted man with an impressive family pedigree, Raymond Shaw (Liev Schreiber, very effective here) supposedly saved the unit from utter destruction for which Marks submitted a Medal of Honor recommendation. Backed up by the surviving soldiers' stories, he gets the nation's highest heroism award.

Fast forward to the present when he's a New York congressman with a hell of a Mommy Dearest, Meryl Streep as Senator Eleanor Shaw. She's determined to see him as her party's vice-presidential candidate and she succeeds. Always a fine actress, in this role she's largely wasted, at least when compared to Angela Lansbury. Where Lansbury showed an incandescently cold determination, this Senator Shaw seems on the verge of offering her beloved son chicken soup or access to her bed or both.

Marks begins to vaguely remember things and as his recollection returns those helping him start disappearing while he becomes the object of, first, investigation and then attempted neutralization. Fortunately he has a Gal Friday, Rosie, played by the not especially talented Kimberly Elise. Anyone who can't figure out early how HER part is going to develop should be barred from movie theater concession stands for a year.

The ending isn't so different from the first movie but what is presented here is a continuing, raw indictment of the American political process. Marks never stops being angry once he suspects that the system isn't on the up and up and he tries to get the audience to share his simmering and, eventually, boiling over rage. Instead of a foreign enemy using an unrealistic model of an existing and rarely effective mind control approach, we have all kinds of diabolical inventions with, of course, an evil mastermind for audiences that need something less subtle than that found in the wonderful initial filmization of the novel.

Overall, Washington's strong performance notwithstanding, "The Manchurian Candidate" is a Message-Film Mess. Partisans of Bush, Kerry and even Nader will leave the theater...unchanged.

If you haven't seen the original (which was pulled from distribution following JFK's assassination), please rent or buy it.

6/10

A fairly watchable movie. The story is pretty tense, as it is common for the "I lost my memories" stories, besides, the idea of soldiers having strange memories and contradicting dreams about the wartime is a gold mine, and it fits just about right in the current political situation. So what do we do? We dig the gold. Right? Nevertheless, after about 15 minutes you can figure out what's happening, and 5 minutes after that you hear it all said in plain English, so there's no much intrigue about it. But between director, cameraman and editor, with some help from the actors, they managed to keep the movie watchable till its end.

The acting is very good, Denzel Washington is amazing depicting a paranoidal soldier, but Meryl Streep's character is so much one-sided that I see nothing to talk about there: good performance, but it would fit better in a comic book adaptation. It's a shame they didn't use Meryl's dramatic talent more, they could have. I think it's about the script and directing.

One thing I'd like to mention: there's a strange theatrical feeling about this movie, kind of similar to Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange". Something grotesque and out of place. Like the director was consciously but subtly trying to convert this somewhat serious script into a farce.

Probably it's because this is a remake of something pretty much old, and here and there you can see the old dusty skeleton under the new flashy clothing. Bizarre. The "secret laboratory" scenes looked like a stylistic tribute to the 60ies' James Bond movies, or probably to the original "...Candidate".

All in all, the movie is pretty solid for a remake, though the farce notes make it look not as serious as it could have been. And it is enjoyable if you can come to terms with how phony it is. I give it a 6 out of 10.

****SPOILERS**** Uneven and confusing remake of the 1962 spine tingling political thriller that goes all over the place trying to connect a Haliburton-like corporate giant, Manchurian Global,in it's sub rosa efforts to try to take over the US government via mind control by controlling the brain of it's future head of state.

Unlike the original "Manchurian Candidate" with Frank Sinatra Laurence Harvey Angela Lansbury and Janet Leigh which was riveting and built up to an almost unbearable tension packed ending that floored you. The new version is as limp and soggy as the instant oriental noodles that Denzel Washington, Maj. Ben Marco, was eating throughout the film.

Replacing the Soviet Union and their Communist Chinese allies in the 1962 classic by Big Business as the villains in this version made the movie far less believable. Since we all know that Big Business can easily, as if it doesn't already, control practically any US politician that it wants from the President of the United States on down. With batches of lettuce and green stuff, you know moolah, or better yet United States Treasury notes. The idea of having to plant a micro-chip in the brain or back of a future President of the United States in order to control him is really quite brainless in this movie.

Raymond Shaw, Liev Schreiber, a two term congressman from New York who's running for Vice President with the challenger for president of the US Governor Robert Arthur, Tom Stechsculte, is all wrong in the part of a brainwashed GI who earned the Congressional Medal of Honor during the fighting in Kuwait in the Gulf War of January-February 1991.

Schreiber blows every scene that he's in by overacting in the part of a man under the influence of outside forces beyond his control and is so obviously strange and weird every time that you see him you wonder why those on the screen, besides Maj. Ben Marco, don't see that too?

Raymond's Mother Eleanor Shaw, Meryl Streep, who made a deal with Manchurian Global to put an implant in her son Raymond's head that will get him to ascend to the presidency is so off-the-wall, even more then Raymond, that you expected at almost any time in the movie to see a number of men in white suits charge at her with butterfly nets to hand-cuff and restrain her and put her into a padded cell.

Denzel Washington who I thought was playing the Frank Sinatra part in this version of the "Manchurian Candidate" changes unexpectedly to the part played by Laurence Harvey in the original movie as the mind-controlled assassin that should have been played by Liev Schreiber?

Kimberly Elise who I thought was playing the part of Janet Leigh, Rosie, changes also unexpectedly to play the part that Frank Sinatra played in the original movie right at the end just before the shooting started? Thats just how confusing the new version of the "Manchurian Candidate" is to those, like myself, who saw the original version of the movie.

Unlike the powerhouse conclusion of the original the new version of the "Manchurian Candidate" was so slow and drawn out that it almost puts you to sleep watching it with both Raymond and his mother in some bizarre dance of death finish. The ending didn't have the shock and jolts that the original had and even the actors on the screen didn't seem that frightened or paralyzed with fear and in many cases didn't even notice what was happening.

The makers of the new "Manchurian Candidate" couldn't just leave well enough alone and have it end right there and then. They had to add on to the film a new "Surprise Ending" which made no sense at all and just prolonged both the grief and suffering to those in the movie as well those watching it. The only surprise that I got from the movie is why on earth it was ever made in the first place?

Why Jonathan Demme's style worked so well was his convincing portrayals of alternate hyper-realities, just slightly tweaked so it's recognizable as a warped mirror of our world. Silence of the Lambs achieved this, and Demme replicates this into a slightly dystopian version of contemporary USA. The public is beset by constant terror threats, news of overseas conflicts omnipresent, this is a much more paranoid society with Orwellian overtones. The first half of the movie is superb in a Alan J Pakuka sort of way as Marco is confronted and slowly uncovers evidence of brainwashing and mind control; the atmosphere gradually grows more and more intense and twisted in a Hitchcock-ian ratcheting of suspense; it almost makes the viewer begin questioning reality along with him, as hallucinations and perceptions become twisted into a guessing game of what is real and what is implanted. The discoveries grow more and more disturbing, but this is where finale becomes predictable. The use of a monolithic corporation pulling the strings is well-worn trope territory as has been said countless times, but that doesn't diminish the fantastic psychological thriller rollercoaster of the first 75 minutes. In particular, Jeffrey Wright gives a wonderful performance as the sadly underused, unhinged plot device that pulls Marco into a nightmarish realm of brainwashing - the sequence in Melvin's apartment is exceptional in its depiction of deranged neurosis. This is where the influence of Silence or the Lambs comes in handy, as it's a convincing portrait of a dark underworld lurking beneath mainstream society's veneer. Washington too gives a superb performance as an anti-hero whose world quickly unravels. What doesn't really develop convincingly is the tragic aspects of the story involving Liev Schreiber's character, and the ending is far too pat even for my unaffected tastes. Streep is given a one-dimensional to work with, but still adds some ham to the proceedings with a Oedipus Rex caricature. But the vision of a corrupted future is nice for fans of science fiction thrillers, and the overall uneasiness of the film gives it some zest despite a lukewarm conclusion.

There's no question that the acting is top-drawer, and Jonathan Demme's visual style has points of interest, but this is a muddled remake that only barely satisfies. A decision was made to switch some key characters around in terms of the roles they play in the drama, most notably for the finale. Anyone who hasn't seen the great Frankenheimer version may find this good enough, but there is far less of the shock value in some of the older film's great moments. Denzel Washington is as least as good here as his counterpart Frank Sinatra. In some ways he's better, more sympathetic. As Raymond Shaw, Liev Schreiber is stuck with a character who doesn't register properly until the final act, unlike Laurence Harvey's brilliantly broken man--a great performance, not always given its due. With Meryl Streep we see a typically committed performance, but one that never rises to the magnificent evil created by Angela Lansbury. Ultimately, this version is worthwhile for the cast and a few scenes that do have some impact, but don't overlook the 1962 masterpiece.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004) version offers a modern take on the classic political thriller.

While the film falls just above average, Denzel Washington's performance stands out with his usual charisma and intensity.

The plot, although engaging, lacks the original's depth, and the pacing occasionally falters. Despite this, the film successfully captures the paranoia and intrigue of its predecessor.

A commendable effort, but it doesn't quite reach the heights of the 1962 version. The cast's strong performances, particularly Denzel's, elevate it, making it worth a watch for fans of the genre.

I preferred Conspiracy Theory :)

During the Gulf War, a unit of soldiers a unit of soldiers go missing for 3 days after an ambush attack. 2 soldiers are confirmed to be killed in action. One soldier receives the Medal of Honor for saving the rest of his unit. That soldier, Raymond Shaw (Schreiber), goes on to become a US Congressman, and a favorite for the VP nomination.

Shaw's army unit was under the command of Major Ben Marco (Washington). Since the events that took place in the War, Marco has been plagued with dreams that tell a different story if what happened during that attack,, and after. Marco, as well as another member of that unit experience vivid dreams of the unit going through some sort of re-education/brainwashing. They are told that Shaw singlehandedly saved the unit, and that he is the greatest American, etc etc. Why would they both experience the same dreams?

This is a pretty good political cover up, thriller kind of movie. I'd give it a 6.8 rating.

I will start out by saying that based on the source material - a brilliant satire taking swings alternately at Joe McCarthy and the Korean War with alternate hilarity and shock - this movie failed miserably. We live in a time when the new communism is Islam and terrorism. We are in the middle of a war many believe is only hurting us at this point, where the cause does not justify the means.

One could see a gold mine of opportunity for resurrecting the satirical spirit of Richard Condon's novel, and John Frankenheimer's classic. When the black-list has been replaced by detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Jonathan Demme strives to walk a tight-rope between Left and Right, making a film that could have spoken volumes about our current climate, and done as Condon and Frankenheimer did, by dissing both extremes. (When the original film first opened, Condon was pleased to see Communists picketing the film in Paris, and American Legion picketing in Orange County, CA) "The Manchurian Candidate" was not meant to cater to all markets. It doesn't still, because certain individuals claim it's hitting out at the Bush camp. And why is that? Because they think everyone's contracted Michael Moore syndrome or something? Or is it just because Al Franken makes an appearance as a news reporter? In truth, Demme's version, while creating a fairly believable alternate world where the same modern situations are occurring in countries with different names than, say, Iraq.

Now to my other point. Sure, the movie could use some of the black humor Axelrod's original script offered up. But it doesn't. Instead, we are treated to a vaguely similar script where events have been reshaped to better fit an unbiased modern America. This would hardly be worth our time if not for some excellent acting.

Denzel Washington has had roles as good as this before, but I've never seen him in such a wildly ambiguous role as our default hero who becomes so completely obsessed and paranoid with the world around him that he even tries to murder his girlfriend! We know he's the good guy, because we know what's going on isn't just in his head, but how far is he willing to go to find out the truth? Admittedly, Sinatra never strived for this kind of psychosis.

Equally good is Meryl Streep as a bitch you just love to hate. She's not the quietly manipulative matriarch Angela Lansbury introduced us to, nor the ambitious seductress of Condon's original book. She is a first-class predator, looking to have her cake and eat it to.

Jon Voight, Kimberly Elise, and Jeffrey Wright also give fine portrayals. But Liev Schreiber, as the title character (or is he?) is woefully underused. What ever happened to the love-hate relationship between Raymond and his mother? What about his close bond to Ben Marco, that here goes as far as Marco biting his shoulder, shrugged off as a man gone mad. Laurence Harvey's Raymond was hard to like, and even harder to dislike. Schreiber, who is usually surprisingly good, is an absolute bore.

In the end the changes to the story don't disappoint for people expecting the same old thing, but there are uneven plot holes to this conclusion, and it leaves one desiring more of an explanation.

I strongly recommend you read Condon's absolutely scathing novel. Or at least give the 1962 version a try.

The 2004 remake of The Manchurian Candidate proves that not every classic film deserves a modern update. Despite strong performances from Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep, the film stumbles through a maze of plot holes and contrived storytelling that leaves viewers more confused than thrilled.

The screenplay, penned by Daniel Pyne and Dean Georgaris, attempts to modernize the Cold War paranoia of the 1962 original by replacing Communist conspirators with an evil corporation called Manchurian Global. This update feels both obvious and nonsensical. Are we really supposed to believe that a massive publicly-traded company could secretly implant mind control devices in soldiers without anyone noticing? The SEC filings alone would raise red flags.

The film's internal logic crumbles under the slightest scrutiny. Major Ben Marco (Washington) somehow maintains his military position despite clearly suffering from severe PTSD and making wild conspiracy claims. His commanding officers seem surprisingly unconcerned about his mental state, even after he destroys his own apartment in a paranoid episode. This convenient oversight serves only to keep the plot moving forward.

Perhaps the biggest stretch comes from the central premise itself. Manchurian Global's elaborate scheme involves brainwashing an entire squad of soldiers just to position one man, Raymond Shaw (Liev Schreiber), for a vice-presidential nomination. Wouldn't it have been easier and more cost-effective to simply lobby and bribe politicians the old-fashioned way? The company apparently has enough money and influence to orchestrate this massive conspiracy, yet chooses the most complicated and risky approach possible.

The film also never adequately explains how the mind control technology actually works. Sometimes it requires a specific phone call or trigger phrase, other times it seems to activate randomly. The rules constantly shift to serve the plot's needs. Even more baffling is how Marco manages to overcome his programming through sheer force of will, while others remain helplessly controlled. This convenient plot device undermines the supposedly unbreakable nature of the brainwashing.

Senator Eleanor Shaw's character (Streep) presents another logical nightmare. Her master plan involves getting her son elected vice president only to have him assassinate the president-elect, making him president. But wouldn't this immediately make him the prime suspect? The film handwaves away such obvious questions. Additionally, her dramatic public kiss with Raymond at the convention should have ended his political career then and there, yet it's quickly forgotten.

The third act descends into complete absurdity. Marco somehow infiltrates a highly secured political convention with relative ease, despite being a mentally unstable military officer who's been making wild accusations about the vice-presidential nominee. The security failures required to make this possible strain credibility beyond repair.

The film's attempts at political commentary feel equally shallow. It tries to address corporate influence in politics but does so with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. The villainous corporation might as well twirl a mustache and laugh maniacally. This surface-level treatment wastes the opportunity to explore more nuanced themes about power, control, and democracy.

While the original Manchurian Candidate was a masterclass in Cold War paranoia and psychological tension, this remake sacrifices coherence for spectacle. It's a shame to see such talented actors trapped in a script that prioritizes plot twists over logic. The film raises interesting questions about corporate power and political manipulation but fails to answer them in any meaningful way, leaving viewers with a hollow exercise in conspiracy theories that collapses under its own ambitious weight.

'The Manchurian Candidate' is a remake of the 1962 political thriller with Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury. This one stars Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep and Liev Schreiber, has some minor and some major differences, but is still about a group of marines captured in battle (this time Guelph) and supposedly brainwashed.

Everyone thinks that Raymond Shaw (Liev Schreiber) fought off the enemy and saved the troops, leading them after three days to safety, but Bennet Marco (Denzel Washington) suspects brainwashing because he has strange nightmares about something different that happened those three days, nightmares that some of the other troops are having. The dreams involve Shaw taking orders from some strange villains and killing the two troops that supposedly died in the battle. But Shaw is now a vice presidential candidate, and Marco has quite a challenge trying to convince anyone of this.

Thrown in are Senator Eleanor Shaw (Meryl Streep), Raymond's mother, who obviously is more than she seems, Senator Thomas Jordan (Jon Voight) a pretty good man whose been bumped out of the vice presidential race by Shaw and Rosie (Kimberly Elise), a nice young woman who Marco meets on a train. As Marco investigates further he becomes more and more shaky and paranoid, as conspiracy theorists always do in movies.

The movie is basically the same as the original, up until the last twenty minutes or so, which is still basically the climax of the original film with some of the characters reversed. I knew most of what was gonna happen, which I guess took away from it for me, so I may have been more excited and involved if I hadn't seen the '62 version, instead of just waiting for it to end. Of course, between the two movies, I'm still glad I took the first.

The '62 version was a masterpiece; it was one of the most exciting, fun, dramatic thrillers I've ever seen; one of the best. It had flair, energy, humor, and was elevated by the powerhouse performances of Sinatra, Lansbury and Lawrence Harvey. It was intriguing, we leaned forward at every twist, but it also had style. The original film had one of the first martial arts fight scenes seen in history (and one of the best). In the original, Shaw would snap into a trance whenever someone said 'How 'bout you past the time by playing a little solitaire', and he'd follow orders whenever he saw a red queen.

Both these elements are absent from this version, there's no time for solitaire and style when you have to shock the audience. That's more what this version is trying, for instance, the Al Melvin character in this film is insane, he draws disturbing drawings and shakes and stutters, whereas the Melvin character in the first was just a regular guy. There are so many scenes in this film trying to shock you or creep you out: a man gets drilled in the head, a man is shot in the head, Marco has some strange visions, he cuts a chip out of his shoulder, lots of blood and heavy breathing.

The first film was shocking too, but in a more subtler, quieter way. There were some really frightening and creepy scenes, but it didn't take itself too seriously, in a way it was satire. This version takes itself way to serious, it's not fun, and it's arduous.

The writing is pretty poor too. The first film was shorter than this one, but still had enough time to establish its characters and deal with the conspiracy. The characters here, with the exception of maybe Streep's, are all one-dimensional and just work as tools for the plot. It tries to create characters, but it fails. We cared deeply for Harvey because we knew him, but we hardly get to know Schreiber, so we kind of welcome his dilemma because we want to see the plot progress (and the movie to end).

Washington, Schreiber and Voight are all magnificent actors, and their performances aren't bad, but they don't have enough material for us to care about them. Streep's character is written the best, and her performance is well executed. There's a scene where she is in a room with a bunch of campaign workers, ordering them around as they all stare in wonder, and we wonder if its is Streep or Shaw that they are admiring (or both?). Because of Streep's endless qualities as an actress she is completely believable as a domineering, powerful, confident politician (and mother).

And there were some other parts I liked, the cinematography was pretty good, Streep was fantastic, the climax was exciting, and Washington's character has some good moments (like when he punches a federal agent whose taunting him). But it still lacks everything that made the original exciting. The original was fun to watch, this film is more of a task.

But, if you haven't seen the original you may enjoy it, 6.5/10.

This remake was always going to struggle to match the excellent 1962 version, and although it is not nearly as compelling, it is still an half decent attempt. Liev Schreiber is acclaimed Gulf War veteran and now Congressman "Raymond Shaw" who is very much in the running for Vice-President of the USA - egged on by his even more ambitious Senator mother (Meryl Streep). Meantime, his wartime captain "Marco" (Denzel Washington) is recovering from an injury sustained during an ambush - only he is struggling to reconcile his memories of that event with those being put forward by "Shaw" and, almost verbatim, by his fellow soldiers. Upon more detailed investigation, "Marco" stumbles upon the most unique of conspiracies that calls him to question not just his own sanity, but the nature of events both past and present. The more he digs, the more doors close before him and pretty soon both he and we know that there is some sort of conspiracy that goes right to the heart of American democracy. The story has been updated from the original and that helps it to stand on it's own a bit more. Washington is effective, as is Schreiber as the plot thickens and the prospects of a terrifying form of psychological warfare begin to loom large, presenting us with a story of manipulation and power-lust that is distinctly Machiavellian. Meryl Streep does OK, but sadly her's is the role that comes off worst by comparison with Angela Lansbury from first time round. The former is undoubtedly an accomplished actress, but somehow she doesn't quite exude the same degree of toxic charm. It also really does take it's time to get going, but once in it's stride it offers us quite an intriguing, if wordy, look at just how the American political establishment might work, and how it might, equally, be up for shrewd exploitation. It's a solid effort and worth a watch, but original is definitely much more sinister and best!

At last watched this movie - Bucketlist or say imdb list completed. Watched for Denzel Washington & Meryl Streep acting. Theme is simple but how he handles and it's great to watch his acting.

It's only been a few months since I watched the original "Manchurian Candidate", and I couldn't get it out of my head when watching this remake. And this isn't a bad movie, but it suffers from that comparison.

The good thing about this movie is that it updates the war setting and branches out into its own thing. I think the dialogue scenes are where the film is most effective. Jonathan Demme has his cast address the audience head-on and it's a deeply unsettling effect. But he also uses this sparingly, so the rest of the movie (aside from the vicious scenes in the operating room) is rather saggy. Couple that with the overly downcast mood, and it's depressing as opposed to thrilling.

Being old enough to have lived through the Cold War, I thought the remake did not generate the intensity of the original, when we were really worried about the Red Menace and the possibility of mind control. The new movie pales by comparison. The brain-washing scenes were particularly tacky.

(And, since the water wasn't running, couldn't Denzel just have opened the trap on the sink to retrieve his chip when he dropped it instead of jabbing at the sink with his knife? Then he wouldn't have had to bite the senator.)

The ending, after the meeting in the school room, was quite unclear in terms of who had what capabilities and motivation. All-in-all, a poor remake of the original.

A massive global corporation is now the latest threat to American National Security. Or at least, that's what Jonathan Demme wants us to believe in his remake of John Frankenheimer's classic adaptation of George Axlerod's novel The Manchurian Candidate. Demme's version is more edgier than Frankenheimer's in so many ways. Maybe I shouldn't say edgier but rather more darker. He makes the film seem more in touch with a post-9/11 world and thus is able to consumate it with a vision of reality. It all begins with Ben Marco, a Gulf War veteran, leading his men into a mission. They are ambushed and are apparently saved by Sgt. Raymond Shaw. Shaw is made to look like the hero, everybody goes home happy, Shaw receives the Medal of Honor, and everything is all peaches and cream. Or is it? You see, the problem is Marco keeps having this recurring nightmare in which Shaw doesn't actually save his unit but rather the unit ends up being captured and brought to some secret location, where they are brainwashed into believing that Shaw saved their unit. The film thus begins to toy with the concept of illusion vs. reality. Which is the illusion and which is the reality? All the while, Shaw is being pushed by his egotistical mother, Sen. Eleanor Prentice Shaw, to run for Vice President of the United States. It seems to make sense, after all, he did win the Medal of Honor and all of his unit seems to believe so. But is this all a fantasy? Is it only a dream where Shaw is but a pawn trapped in his own self-conscience? The film is a mysterious, dark, twisted thriller that keeps you engaged just like the original did. We spend the entire film following Marco, trying to search for the answers. What he finds is a shocking revelation of a global conspiracy between the government and the corporation to assume the throne of power. It all leads up to a thrilling conclusion that keeps you on the edge of your seat. However, Demme's picture will never compare to the original version even though it is a taut, well-crafted political thriller. And I am sad to say that not even the decent performances of Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep or Liev Schreiber can compare to Frank Sinatra, Angela Lansbury or Laurence Harvey.

Lenny's Grade: B

I am referring to John Frankenheimer. If he saw what they done to his child, he'd die of heartbreak. I've always liked Jonathan Demme's work and while much of this Manchurian Candidate sparkles visually, it is a flaccid and tired rehash of the first. The only thing going for it is, like the original, there is not a particular bias for Dems or Reps. Some may see one - but without spoiling I'll have to say that if you do see it, it's a big stretch. Meryl Streep, as always, is inevitably excellent. But Angela Lansbury was better and sicker. And the bad guys? I'm glad you asked. No more movies about evil corporations. You can't make it work. The genre is so dead...

This "updating" failed. For one thing, it is very, very long.... or one should say, one feels time creep by. For another, the script is nowhere as witty and bizarre as the original. Somehow, the villainy of a multinational does not come across as evil or alien as that of the Chinese/North Korean communists. Denzel Washington's character wears his angst on his sleeve to the point of embarrassment; Frank Sinatra was cooler and better able to put the puzzle together (in the new movie nobody seems terribly smart, except Meryl Streep, of course). The very few acts of violence in the original shocked; the ones here are just graphic. There was such cleverness in the original, even fun, none of which one can find here. This was a dead-earnest re-imagining of the plot with a switch at the end; it came out a bore.

This was on my "must-see" list because I love the work of Jonathan Demme, Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep. I loved the original 1962 movie. This new version wasn't awful, and I understand what the movie was trying to do...but it left a lot to be desired in the end.

Although it was not boring, it didn't have the excitement, the edge-of-your-seat suspense that the original '62 picture had. And Denzel Washington is always good, his acting is always above the material he is given. Meryl Streep was OK. I mean she is always an excellent actress, but I guess I had a problem with her doing this role because Angela Lansbury was so awesome in the original film. I personally think Meryl could have done more...just an opinion. Also, I was kind of nit-picky about plot elements and some characters, particularly the relationship between Denzel's and Kimberly Elise's characters. Maybe it is the way it was written into the screenplay and the way it was executed. It just didn't work for me, it was either too far-fetched or over-the-top (for instance the scene when she persistently asks him if he is all right while he is in the bathroom was kind of overdone)

Anyway, I could go on, but that would make this too long...but I'd like to add that I might have enjoyed this better if I hadn't seen the 1962 version. This one really pales in comparison. I would like to see a moratorium on remakes of movie classics. I doubt that will happen, but it would be nice to see original movies that were made in their own time stand on their own. Most remakes are entirely unnecessary. I hate to say that this is one of those cases.

In a world of red alerts, yellow alerts, Fahrenheit 9/11, and a highly politicized corporate structure, a film with the content of The Manchurian Candidate should either snare its viewers with it crazy antics, or make them really ponder upon its "could-be realistic" thought process. This viewer did not fall into either category, but not for a lack of trying and not without giving ample credit to things I believed worked.

An intricate story with an absorbing plot line should ensnare us the audience with a certain level of delicate script-work and careful direction, which in my mind, this film has neither. This story almost as if for no other reason than a phony set-up, begins with a quickly paced war sequence which ends all too abruptly and leaves us with confusion about characters, what we saw, and instead of a confusion where we want to know more, it leaves us non-caring and already irritated.

Denzel Washington in an uncharacteristically subdued performance stars as a captain whose troops in 1991 Kuwait were on a mission scouting and were suddenly attacked. Jump forward in time to the present, where Denzel is visited by one of his troop (Jeffrey Wright, in a chilling and sympathetic performance) prodding him about his memories of this mission.

Meanwhile, the underestimated Liev Schreiber plays another of Denzel's troop. Liev's character, miraculously led this troop to safety, fought solo, protected them, and was thus awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Now the son of a highly opinionated and powerful senator (Meryl Streep, in a spectacularly leveled performance up to the same caliber of Angela Lansbury's original) and despite his lack of passion and desire for the job, winds up on the vice presidential ticket.

Denzel begins breaking down and thinks he remembers fragments of contrary stories through his dreams? What truly happened in Kuwait? And if something different than the record truly happened, then why does everyone believe the record? This would be enough plot but throw in corporate greed, judicial greed, a love story, a quasi-incestuous love story, changing stories, ridiculously tedious dreams, and we are left with one mess of a script.

This remake fully utilizes great Hollywood talent of today, and in an ingenious way, makes the co-stars look better than the headliner. Worth renting for Meryl Streep, Liev Schreiber, and Jeffrey Wright's performances.

6/10