The Manchurian Candidate (2004) User Reviews (408)

Politics as Usual.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 6 December 2005]

Richard Condon's novel has its infelicities. The author can suddenly lapse into baby talk. ("Raymond was his mamma's widdle boy.") But he packed his novel with jokes too and was in many ways pretty funny.

The 1962 version followed the novel rather closely and kept its plot clear and no more cluttered than necessary to its comprehension.

This version is longer than the original and is a considerable departure from Condon's story. Gone is the Cold War background, which is too bad because it contained a neat twist. The Commies are going to take over the country by posing as super-patriotic Right Wingers. Well, that's out now. The title no longer refers to a place but to a corporation -- "Manchurian Global" -- and the corporation is all evil and lacks cleverness. The values they espouse sound like they came out of Reader's Digest. "A grandmother shouldn't have to choose between paying for her medicine and paying for her dinner." Platitudes float around during interviews like neon-blue balloons at a political convention. They could have come directly from recent speeches by one of our leading politicians who once announced: "This is a nation that loves its freedom. Loves its country." I kind of miss the irony of the original story.

Something else too. I followed the novel easily. I also followed the 1962 version with no problem. A squad of American troops are led astray by their Korean interpreter, are captured by the Chinese, and taken to Manchuria where for three days their brains are not merely washed but dry cleaned. Especially Raymond Shaw (Lawrence Harvey in 1962) who is given the treatment full blast and planted as an assassin mole in the U. S. The other men in the unit are a bit less warped and the brain washing memory is not quite obliterated. It expresses itself in nightmares. Finally, Major Ben Marco (Frank Sinatra) figures out what's going on and foils the Commies' plot by undoing the rewired brain of Raymond Shaw.

In this version, the brainwashing is done away with and replaced by high-tech devices that we cannot understand. And instead of getting the deluxe brainwashing treatment, Raymond Shaw (Schreiber) has a chip implanted in his brain, along with another in his shoulder. Evidently the other surviving members of his squad also have chips in their shoulders but not in their heads. Or so I thought.

Throughout, Raymond is the only one who seems programmed to respond to commands after hearing a verbal trigger which puts him into a compliant trance state. But somewhere along the way Major Marco (Washington) may have acquired one too because near the end he too responds to the trigger phrase. I missed the first few minutes and that may account for my confusion.

Still, this version, while enjoyable on its own, isn't up to the original. It's in color and it's louder and it's bloodier but it lacks the cohesiveness of the 1962 version. I don't want to give too many examples, but take the relationship between Raymond and Jocie, the girl friend he is forced to murder. In the original, he is an arrogant skunk, but she is the love of his life -- the only love he is capable of because he's been warped by smotherly love -- and Jocie adores Raymond. She humanizes him. They are married and shortly he shoots her.

In this version -- and I have no idea why this change was made -- Raymond once dated Jocie and still has a crush on her 15 years later but she is dismissive of their earlier relationship and more or less tells him to get it behind him. So when he is forced to murder her, it is not a tragedy, not the death of the only thing he has ever loved enough to be human with, but rather an unfortunate accident. You know -- "too bad".

Likewise this version compares unfavorably to the original with respect to the character of Major Marco -- Sinatra there, Washington here. Sinatra was never a bravura actor but he does a good job of conveying Marco's steady decline into neurological shambles because of his recurring nightmares. He drinks, he sweats, he shakes, he reads -- he reads everything. He has a friend in San Francisco who ships him books by the pound, picked at random. Everything from "Diseases of Horses" through "Principles of Modern Banking" to "Ethnic Choices of the Arabs." The scene on the train in which Sinatra meets Janet Leigh while he disintegrates under her intense and curious stare (he fumbles a cigarette and it plops into his drink) is memorable, as is the elliptical conversation which follows.

In this version, Washington is seated on a train and a young woman across from him strikes up a perfectly normal conversation. In the middle of it, he excuses himself, gets up and goes to the men's room and vomits. That's it. It's bland and unimaginative. Washington is a fine actor but he does not "do" an anxiety attack very well, possibly because the script gives him no chance.

The script leaves out other incidents that are hardly unimportant ones. In the original (1962, mind you) the incestuous relationship between Raymond and his mother is made explicit. Angela Lansbury as the mother (who was in reality about Harvey's own age) plants a big smooch on him before the fade. Here, the corresponding scene ends with Meryl Streep staring with what appears to be an expression of concern up at Liev Schreiber's hypnotized face. It's an added dramatic thread in the story that the new version more or less ignores.

I won't go on about it. This version is pretty good, but it does lack the irony, humor, and utter quirkiness of the novel and the 1962 movie.

"I believe democracy is not negotiable."

[classicsoncall · 8/10 · 13 August 2021]

This remake of the 1962 original diverges more from that picture's story line than it does to emulate it. In keeping with the tenor of the times, it's no longer a foreign power that engages in brainwashing techniques, but a multi-national corporation with the unlikely name of Manchurian Global. Personally, I'd be wary of doing business with a company with a name like that, it just smacks of foreign intervention and manipulation. It's also not clear what Manchurian Global's end game was with the hypnosis techniques and the implants. In Frank Sinatra's version, it was the Chinese who utilized sophisticated brainwashing methods to get inside the heads of their targets, and it didn't take much of a stretch to understand that a foreign enemy intended to exert their influence in American politics. But what would a multi-national gain in the scenario developed here? The main thrust of pushing Raymond Shaw (Liev Schreiber) for a spot on the Presidential ticket appeared to be a concession to Shaw's mother (Meryl Streep), who's ambitions for the Presidency failed when her Senator husband died twenty years prior. In that regard, the character of Eleanor Shaw was every bit as manipulative as that of Angela Lansbury in the same role in the earlier version, right down to that borderline incestuous kiss given her son. That creeped me out both then and now.

It's been a long time since I watched and reviewed "The Manchurian Candidate" of the Sixties, but it seems to me that the tension and suspense was greater in the original picture. It was certainly more of a political thriller than it's successor for reasons mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, the performances of the principals was outstanding, even if the motivations of Manchurian Global were suspect. I found it interesting that this film was co-produced by Tina Sinatra who inherited the production rights from her father. What Frank would have thought about the movie is anybody's guess.

Less powerful, less edgy, and less intelligent than the original.

[ramirocardozo · 30 November 2004]

Three months ago I watched the original Manchurian Candidate on DVD. I was amazed on how good this movie is, and how well it holds up after 42 years of its release in movie theaters.

So, yesterday when I watched the 2004 version directed by Jonathan Demme it was impossible for me not to compare the two films.

Without the existence of the original, Demme's effort could be defined as a good (not outstanding) political thriller and it's easy to think that this definition is compatible with the general opinion of today's audiences.

But (a big but) in reality there is an original, and it is so good, so brave, and so well written that this new version almost feels pointless.

In adapting the story to modern day Jonathan Demme made more wrong choices than good ones diminishing the power and intensity of the original.

This remake took out some key dramatic elements that work marvelously in the original film inserting some new and poorly written plot twists changing and damaging the dramatic resolution.

This version is inferior in almost every level (the only exception is the acting). It is less powerful, less edgy, and less intelligent.

Fortunately for Demme the original picture is not as well known as classics like 'Casablanca' and this will allow his film to find a moderate positive acceptance.

Creepy and in a way most didn't realize or comment on

[GuRUCLANdotcom · 6/10 · 23 June 2021]

Spoiler

Raymond's mother was pretty much more than likely a pedophile. She was obviously in love with her son in a sexually attracted way which is obvious in their first scene together. Then it's confirmed when he recalls how she ran off a woman he was interested in and how she got emotional at the thought of him with another woman. And then the bathtub scene??? If she was bathing him like that as a grown man, imagine what she was doing as a child.

Better than most remakes, but not as compelling as the original

[anhedonia · 6/10 · 2 August 2004]

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.

Political thriller with memorable performances , intrigue , thrills and well realized by Jonathan Demme

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 11 December 2011]

Thrilling and chilling film deals with Major Ben Marco (Denzel Washington) , an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army. He served valiantly as a captain in the Kuwait war and his Sergeant, Raymond Shaw, even won the Medal of Honor. Marco has a major problem however, he has a recurring nightmare, one where two members of his squad are killed by Shaw. Raymond Shaw (Liev Schreiver) is an insufferable man, who came back from the Irak War awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor . Shaw for his part eventually becomes a vice-presidential nominee and has established himself well, despite the misgivings of his domineering mother, Mrs. Eleanor Shaw (Meryl Streep). Ben Marco has been having nightmares that lead him to believe that the circumstances that led to Raymond getting the medal are not true. However, Marco learns that another soldier (Jeffrey Wright) from the platoon , has had the same nightmare .While his superiors don't think he knows what he is talking about, he is sent on leave . When he goes to see Raymond, he is arrested ,he aware that also has the same dream. When the officers learn of this they decide to give him a chance to find out what's going on . Some very powerful people at Manchurian Global corporation appear desperate to stop him from finding out. Ben Marco have to face off an enemy with even more sinister designs .

Bold political thriller about the mind control of the prisoners Americans in the Irak War dealing with experiments applied to soldiers to modify behavior patterns. Top-notch acting from main cast as Denzel Washington who gives a superbly controlled interpretation as an Irak war veteran who begins to believe that the honored heroics of a former member of his squad may be the product of brainwashing . Furthermore , Liev Schreiver , Kimberly Elise , Jeffrey Wright and John Voight ; mention special to Meryl Streep as mean mother who executes nasty machinations to promote her son's career , she has some moments of real brilliance . The picture packs thrills , suspense , action , intrigue and is quite entertaining . With an excellent script based on a novel by Richard Condon and George Axelrod 1962 screenplay adapted by Daniel Pyne ; it has a splendid narrative rhythm , the film raises a disturbing theory well performed and slickly developed . The movie that leaves you feeling of having a good cinema. The motion picture is compellingly directed by Jonathan Demme ( Silence of the lambs , Philadelphia , Some wild ) . This exciting political paranoia thriller will appeal to Denzel Washington fans .

This interesting film results to be a remake from "The Manchurian Candidate" 1962, with Laurence Harvey as Raymond Shaw , Angela Lansbury as ambitious mother and Frank Sinatra that only a year later surprised with the the death of President Kennedy , directed John Frankenheimer a producer for its realization, appeared excited Frank Sinatra with a script of "The Manchurian Candidate," which could have a role as an officer of the bunch of prisoners Americans, Sinatra was formed as co-producer and introduced the idea before the president of "United Artists" , this film was rereleased theatrically in 1987.

Par

[=G= · 7/10 · 24 December 2004]

"The Manchurian Candidate (2004)" is a par knock-off of the 1962 classic adapted from the same novel with the usual upgrades and contemporary tweaks. Sporting a good cast and a somewhat cluttered screenplay, the film tells of the plight of a Desert Storm vet (Washington) whose dreams tell a story of what happened to his platoon in Kuwait quite different from the historical account of record with ramifications reaching deep into a U.S. presidential election. A little bulky at two hours, this suspense/drama flick waxes in convolutions and intrigues all the while dangling the "dreams or reality?" question before the audience. With par murmurs from critical corners and mixed commentary from the public in general, this three star flick is probably worth a look for fans of the players or anyone into political thrillers, etc. (B)

Attention Getter. Favorite Oldie

[gamerchick-37180 · 9/10 · 13 April 2019]

15 years later, and I still LOVE this movie. My father made me watch it as a teen, and I actually liked it. I have a teen of my own now and I hope she too, will love it.

Nice Running-Mate to the Original "Candidate"

[Placemat · 7/10 · 2 January 2005]

After achieving only so-so results in reworking an old classic with the timid "The Truth About Charlie," director Jonathan Demme confidently updates "The Manchurian Candidate." Here he prevents the viewer from being distracted into keeping active count of the differences between his film and the original; the viewer can relax and watch an "original" film from the beginning. Demme immediately establishes his own distinctive approach: Bring characterization to the foreground. The original was compelling mainly due to its novel and intricate plot, but the acting was no-frills. Demme and his actors -- Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep, Liev Schreiber (and even minor players like Jeffrey Wright) -- create characters that are fleshed-out and human. They are far from the chess pieces of the original and thus better draw us into the film, offering the viewer an emotional entry point and a rooting human interest from beginning to end. While not superior to the original -- conspiracies in of themselves simply have lost their ability to shock these days -- the new "Candidate" achieves its own success by being a rare thriller: one that is emotionally moving.

Stylishly shot and decently acted but dull and convoluted

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 31 December 2010]

In brief comparison, I adore the 1962 film and consider it one of the best of the 60s. This remake is far from the worst remake in existence(the remake to Psycho should never have been made) plus it does have its good points. The film is well made with stylish cinematography and striking locations. The acting is above decent, Denzel Washington does well filling Frank Sinatra's shoes, Liev Schreiber literally sinks his teeth into his role and Meryl Streep does make an impression as Schreiber's unscrupulous mother. The film does also try hard to evoke a chilling atmosphere and does succeed at times. However, Jonathan Demme's direction lacks subtlety and control. Also the script is pretty weak coming across as hackneyed, the story is extremely complex and too convoluted and the film drags making the (just over) 2 hour film rather dull. All in all, not bad but disappointing. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Solid, Topical and Worthy of the Original

[sinuous · 9/10 · 1 August 2004]

Manchurian Candidate is far closer to the original than you've probably heard, and even though it's not the exact movie, it hardly could have been.

That the original is truly relevant would count little for modern audiences, who seem to have a hard time drawing parallels from anything out of their memory. One glimpse of black and white, and funky old clothes, and most teenyboppers under the age of thirty are out the door. Since they would only sit through a first run update, it's truly fine that they have one. The wonder is, the update stands up to the original.

It even solves some of the problems of the first. Gone are the vaguely foreign looking actors standing in for Russians and Chinese agents. Gone are the poorly choreographed ju-jitsu moves.

And the new film retains the strengths of the original. Every performance is fine. Liev Schrieber is worthy of Laurence Harvey's original gut kicking performance (though it's Harvey by an edge). Washington's craft is more than a match for Sinatra's unevenly inspired work. (One of the wonders of the first is realizing that Sinatra -could- act, that he did things with rhythm and cadence because those were his only tools, and it worked. He was no method actor, but damn.) Streep's scenery chewing is frankly, perfect, because unfortunately, really disgusting people actually do exist, and the real ones are impervious to the critique that their behavior is over-the-top. Seen or heard any Fox commentators recently? Streep's Senator may be over-the-top, but the only thing that distinguishes her from the real thing is - surprise - she's only acting.

Make no mistake, both these films are paranoid thrillers, and the overly literal would say of either, "preposterous". But then, the overly literal don't usually get much out of anything that isn't underlined in Business Week with a magic marker. So if you fit in that category, go rent something less threatening.

On the other hand, if you are the nervous type...

The film's style is less dialog laden, it runs more on mood. But it really does kick in all the same places, the same incredible cynicism offset by the thinnest sliver of a wild, earnest Patriotism.

Prefer the Classic – Jonathan Demme Prefers to Follow the Easiest Way Trying to Reach Success

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 12 October 2005]

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")

A Mediocre Remake for Our Mediocre Political Times (SPOILERS)

[ecarle · 2/10 · 1 August 2004]

(SPOILERS for both the original and the remake)

This was not a bad movie on its own terms. Good cast, stylish direction by Jonathan Demme (though now in his trademark style: huge close-ups of people looking right at the camera), some nice suspense.

But everything – and I mean everything – that made the original 'Manchurian Candidate' an unforgettable classic has been forcibly removed or revamped into dumbed-down mediocrity for our sped-up, sound-bite-ridden, politicized times.

Part of the problem, indeed , is that we can't make a 1962 movie today. We're way in the future now, and the quiet, rather straightforward simplicity of the original could not be put on the screen today (Van Sant tried it with his shot-by-shot 'Psycho' and it didn't work.)

So instead of beginning (after a brief prologue) with a brilliant credit-sequence and David Amram's deeply sad and aching score, the new one begins with a herky-jerky burst of loud rock music and a helter-skelter barrage of images of war. It's 2004, kids, enough of that quiet emotional crap.

From the start, the original had emotional resonance via its music and credit portraits of the pensive lead players alone. From the start, the new movie has no emotional resonance at all. The biggest shock is how the emotion has been sucked out of the story, entirely.

In the original, when Raymond killed the Senator and his daughter, the daughter was Raymond's new wife, the woman he deeply loved, the only person in the world who might possibly save Raymond from the pre-programmed horror of his life. Raymond's killing of those two people was the turning point of the entire film – and filmed by John Frankenheimer as a dazzling Wellesian cinema sequence with the symbolic wit of the film's dark comedy (the milquetoast liberal Senator dies shot through a carton of milk, his bleeding heart bleeding the milk of human kindness.)

All gone now in the remake's bizarre attempt to merge the murder scene with Raymond's great 'jump in the lake' scene from the original. The Senator's daughter (who looks oddly like Marilyn Manson) barely cares about Raymond anymore. His killing her is of little emotional pain.

The karate fight is gone, which means the new film is action-free, but something else important is missing:

In the original, Raymond sees his 'houseboy,' and doesn't recognize him as the man who betrayed and tortured him. Marco sees the same 'houseboy,' recognizes him on sight, and launches his furious payback attack.

There was a POINT to that. Raymond was weak, controllable. Marco was tough; his brainwashing didn't take. The contrast of tough Marco and sneering, weak Raymond, and their bonding as fellow brainwashees, was emotional and meaningful. The new Marco and Raymond prove, near the end, essentially interchangeable.

The simply magnificent 'garden party' dream sequences of the original have been removed and replaced with generic herky-jerky mind-bend sequences (we saw just last week in 'The Bourne Supremacy.')

The wonderfully symbolic playing cards/Queen of Diamonds theme has been replaced by the old microchips-planted-in-my-brain canard (we saw just last month in 'The Stepford Wives.') There is no longer a visual linkage between the Queen of Diamonds and Raymond's mother.

The wonderful trigger line: 'Why don't you pass the time by playing a nice game of solitare?' has been replaced with a banal 'Sergeant Shaw. Sergeant Raymond Prentice Shaw' – so that when Streep utters the words, she had to bark them like some sort of nutcase drill sergeant (Lansbury simply offered the chilling invitation to her son.)

Classic movies bring the right actors together in the right combination. As good as they are, none of the four leads here – Washington, Streep, Schreiber, Elise – make the emotional connection that their four forbears made.

Streep is the worst, indulging her usual tics and self-referential mannerisms to make Mrs. Shaw a one-dimensional political ogre rather than the grand monster that Angela Lansbury was (here,the Manchurian Global baddies look at Steep near the end as if thinking 'We hired this idiot politician to front us?') Times being what they are, Streep will get an Oscar and mumble speeches like "For little old me? I don't deserve this." She doesn't.

Washington is a highly skilled actor who captures this version of Marco well – but Sinatra's Marco was a tougher character (that karate fight) rendered far more sad and soulful in Sinatra's best performance. Sinatra was always a great singer of lost loves and causes – he carried that emotion forward to his work as Marco. Washington can play tough, but doesn't really get to, here. Washington's fierce intelligence also neutralizes his emotional connection to the story. It's not whether Sinatra or Washington is the better actor (both won Oscars), its Sinatra's fitting the tale better.

Liev Schreiber has it in him to match Laurence Harvey's singular performance in the original (so unlovable – and yet so sad; a killer beyond his ability to control it), but the new script doesn't give Schreiber a chance.

And yes, Rosie is explained in this movie – as a character we've seen in 100 movies and 1,000 TV shows. The mystery is gone. Kimberly Elise is given nothing new to play. And she is not the star -- yet -- that Janet Leigh was when she played the role. Identification with Leigh (right after "Psycho") was more intense.

The ending of the new film mangles the meaning of the original. The switch of assassins requires the elimination of the tragedy of the original, and forces a expository epilogue in the modern 'gotta explain it all" tradition.

And the loss of Joe McCarthy, World Communism, the Chinese, the Russians, and the Koreans in favor of gutless Hollywood PC villainy (an evil corporation, white guys smoking cigars, and a South African white scientist) is standard issue. We've seen this movie before – and it wasn't 'The Manchurian Candidate.'

That the new 'Manchurian Candidate' is worth seeing at all is because the source material is so good they can't totally wreck it, and because the star actors are interesting enough even if they never soar where the original took its characters.

It's a three-star movie of four-star plus material, and in destroying virtually everything that made the original such a special film and great classic, the new 'Manchurian Candidate' deserves a drop of at least another star.

Meryl, you're no Angela Lansbury

[jeffgramny · 17 August 2004]

While the 2004 remake of "The Manchurian Candidate" is ensemble acting at its finest, Meryl Streep seems to be having a bit too much fun playing the villainess Eleanor Prentiss Shaw. She doesn't have the same blood-curdling constitution as did Angela Lansbury.

"What was I supposed to do, call a MEETING?" she exclaims as her wimpy male colleagues in the shadowy Manchurian Global upbraid her for ordering someone killed without consulting them. Problem is, she was radiantly glowing when she uttered the line, which produced laughs in the NYC theatre I was in.

When she showers Liev Schreiber with overly affectionate kisses and hugs, one again suspects Meryl was having a bit too much fun on camera with someone she finds quite attractive -- don't we all? -- in real life.

On its own, the 2004 remake is fine cinema. But the problem with all remakes is the inevitable comparison with original. And sadly, as much as I like the 2004 version, my vote goes with Angie Lansbury and Laurence Harvey.

VERY WELL DONE, AND THE ACTING IS EXCELLENT

[iohefy-2 · 7/10 · 26 July 2004]

Being old enough to remember the original version of The Manchurian Candidate, I found that is was on a par with the original, as far as the acting was concerned. Liev was very good in the part, as well as Meryl Streep, and I like Denzel in most any film he is in. I did find that I liked the original screen play better, as this one seemed to inject the latest in mind rendering features. My recommendation is to go see this one for a very good story. and some great acting. I think that this will be this weeks blockbuster!!!!!

A Big Remake

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 23 May 2017]

In the midst of the Gulf War, soldiers are kidnapped and brainwashed for sinister purposes.

As with any remake, it is more or less impossible to live up to the original. Even here, with plenty of major stars, a bigger budget and an Oscar-winning director, it would be wrong to say this is better than the original. Maybe as good, though that is doubtful. Certainly not better.

Updating the plot from Korea to Iraq makes sense and is a wise move. I am not as thrilled about the science fiction aspects. My memory (though it may be faulty) recalls the original being mostly brainwashing and triggers. It does not recall any actual removal of brains and wildly futuristic surgery. This, to me, takes away from the film, and especially because it is revealed so early on (within ten minutes).

Good remake as long as you can stand remakes

[blakedw · 7/10 · 9 December 2022]

I normally don't like remakes of films I like but this is not bad. Denzel Washington is excellent as the troubled Army officer having nightmares about the mission helped into Iraq. Meryl Streep gives a knockout performance as his mother. It is very different from Angela Lansbury's dark incestuous brooding. Streep takes to heart the old Shakespearean adage the one can "smile and smile and be a villain." In fact she doesn't just smile; she bursts out laughing in her enjoyment at being bad. Which makes us want to see her downfall even more.

Lieberman Schreiber has the most difficult role as Meryl Streep's son and her makes a better job of it than Laurence Harvey did. One thing like to divide the generations is that this film is in colour. For those who grew up in a black and white world, this has drawbacks. Washington politics is something people used to watch on b/w television, where colour wa slow to spread. So older viewers don't demand colour in the way that new viewers do now. They might even be put off, just as colorised footage of World War II somehow feels less real.

Given a choice where I could only see one version I would go for the original 1962 black and white with Sinatra and a great cameo by Janet Leigh. But this is highly skilled film making and well worth a look.

Enjoyable if you can come to terms with how phony it is.

[alex_imdb · 6/10 · 8 January 2005]

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.

Manchurian Update

[jon.h.ochiai · 8/10 · 6 September 2004]

I have not seen the original John Frankenheimer's "The Manchurian Candidate", which is considered one of the best political thrillers ever made. So it was curious that Jonathan Demme (a great director whose previous work included "The Silence of the Lambs") chose to remake the "The Manchurian Candidate". Still basing the story on the novel by Richard Condon, and the 1962 screenplay by George Axelrod, screen writers Daniel Pyne and Dean Georgaris have updated the Cold War political thriller to the global nuclear terrorism threat on our homeland, and introducing the clandestine presence of a ubiquitous corporation like Manchurian Global. Demme along with reinventing a contemporary storyline, assembled a powerful cast, Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep, and Liev Schreiber. Streep as Senator Eleanor Shaw, the mother of Vice Presidential candidate, Raymond Shaw (Schreiber), is absolutely powerful and compelling. She is playing against type-- her Eleanor Shaw is a Machiavellian Lady MacBeth. She is ruthless and smart. Streep's performance is awesome.

During the Gulf War Sgt. Raymond Shaw (Schreiber) saved his fellow soldiers when his CO, Maj. Ben Marco (Washington) is knocked unconscious. Shaw receives the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery. Back to the present day, Eleanor Shaw (Streep) imposes her sheer will and brokers the Vice Presidential slot for her son, the War Hero, on her Party's ticket. Eleanor has political ties with the very powerful Manchurian Global corporation. Meanwhile, Maj. Marco is plagued by incoherent memories of what happened in Iraq. Were his memories actually manufactured? His investigation seems to point to brainwashing and a conspiracy. And what is the ultimate goal?

Demme is a good storyteller. He keeps the story taut and paced. He also enlists effective performances from his talented cast. Denzel Washington is good as Marco. He is also playing somewhat against type. His Major Marco is a broken man regaining some of his honor, and he plays it very close to the vest. Marco is a not a charismatic character, but Washington imposes his own force on the character. Schreiber is amazing as Raymond Shaw. Outwardly, he might have played a puppet in an elaborate power play; however, he gives Shaw a strength of character that is riveting with internal conflict. Meryl Streep really steals the movie as Eleanor Shaw. Her performance is so commanding. Even in her ruthlessness and singularity, she can not be dismissed as plain evil, because ultimately her intentions are noble. That conflict embodied in her character makes "The Manchurian Candidate" worth watching.

Fine acting saves a dodgy script

[ZaWolven · 7/10 · 22 December 2004]

Just how close this is to the original I couldn't say as I haven't seen the 1962 Frank Sinatra original, but as a stand alone political conspiracy thriller it definitely exceeded my expectations.

The first thing that you notice about this film is the acting - superb from all participants. Denzel Washington gives a typically solid performance in the lead role and Liev Schrieber impresses as Raymond Shaw, but most credit must go to Meryl Streep for her highly chilling turn as the mother of a vice-presidential candidate. Her brilliantly psychotic performance is surely worthy of yet another Oscar nomination, and with good reason.

But the acting has to be up to scratch as the script isn't. There are several moments in the film in which you really will have to suspend disbelief as the film climbs to new heights of implausibility, and the film's central premise - that an army unit has been brainwashed and that Raymond Shaw is being controlled by a global corporation - would surely not have got through the first production meeting had this been an original idea.

But since when has a dodgy script stopped a film from being any good? If you're prepared to forget the real world for a couple of hours and forgive the weak ending, which suggests that the scriptwriters missed their deadline and were given an hour to think of an ending, you should find this an engrossing political thriller.

7/10

If It Ain't Broke ...

[Fenrir-5 · 1/10 · 8 January 2005]

Although the marketers insist that it isn't a straight remake of the original, it obviously is – all they key elements are the same. The new twist is supposed to be a post-modern take on America, because every liberal with a camera loves to point at the United States and laugh. Yet somehow it just feels simple and lazy. All the observations are obvious; the supposedly sly political commentary is about as elevated as Al Franken pulling a funny face, or Michael Moore ingratiating himself to Canadians by assuring them how stupid Americans are.

Denzel Washington is the epitome of cool. I don't think he can give a bad performance. He gives this movie all his effort, and I would say that his performance and the brief one by Jeffrey Wright as Al Melvin are the best parts of the film. But even Washington can't overcome a scenery-chewing, cringe-inducing overacting seminar given by Meryl Streep, the exercise in blandness that is Liev Schreiber, and a generally inconsistent, heavy-handed, and patently ridiculous storyline.

The movie starts off on the wrong foot with a jarring and poorly-constructed opening. We are subjected to about five minutes of soldiers playing cards in the back of an armored vehicle, while different loud rock tracks cut in every few seconds. This is the credit sequence, and it is not crucial to the movie. But it completely fails to draw the viewer into the atmosphere the filmmakers are trying to set (Wyclef Jean destroying John Fogerty's "Fortunate Son" doesn't help).

Then we have brief action in Kuwait and a sudden jump cut to the present day. Raymond Shaw is running for the Vice President position, and everyone believes he heroically rescued his entire squad in Kuwait. Marco is on the lecture circuit, speaking to Boy Scout troops about his time in action. He is confronted by former squad mate Melvin, who tells him that he is having bad dreams and who shows Marco a journal of drawings and notes. Marco reacts strangely to this – rather than admitting that he has these bad dreams himself, he holds Melvin at arms' length. We all know at this point that Melvin will turn up dead later in the movie, so it's best to say your goodbyes now.

This is where the first plot hole of the movie shows up. Suddenly Marco is completely involved in this conspiracy theory, merely by seeing Melvin's journal and having some more bad dreams. Are we expected to believe that in the years following the incident in Kuwait, the men of the unit never got together to discuss what happened? That none of their superiors found it odd that they gave the same word-for-word description of what supposedly happened, or had the same nightmares? Marco tries to speak with Shaw, who is busy with his campaign and incredibly controlled and domineered by his mother. On the way to speak to Shaw, Marco is approached by a woman named Rosie (the required love interest) who mysteriously invites him to her New York apartment. Here we have another plot hole, as Marco discovers an implant in his shoulder while showering (so he never touched his shoulder for over ten years before this?) but loses it down the sink. Marco then arranges a meeting with Shaw and in a curiously homo-erotic scene bends him over a table and bites his back. This allows him to steal Shaw's implant, which he then gives to crazy scientist friend Delp (another plot line that goes nowhere) who for some reason gives Marco a massive electric shock to the head. I'm sure he explained why he did this, but his accent was so damn thick I couldn't understand a word, and in the end it makes no difference whatsoever.

More of the conspiracy is revealed as the presidential election draws near. Marco continues investigating, clicking a Google link as dramatic music plays. Turns out that Rosie may be a federal agent. Shaw himself waffles (he's a flip-flopper!) between robotic guilt and robotic ambition. Meryl Streep eats a couch. Shaw wades into a river in a full suit and kills a man with a kayak, then drowns his one true love. Nobody finds this suspicious. Then suddenly the federal agents who didn't believe a word of Shaw's story completely trust him and escort him to a private room with the man, on the eve of the election; both men are triggered and start the assassination plot … which has a bizarre twist at the end.

There is one aspect of the storyline – a dropped plot line – that particularly frustrated me. In the original movie, it was killing his childhood sweetheart that caused Shaw to rebel. In this version we are subjected to a few torturous scenes of Shaw insisting that Jocelyne was his one true love, despite the fact that the two actors have absolutely zero chemistry (to be fair, what woman could love a robot). Then Shaw offs her in a river with her dad and the entire plot line is dropped. This just makes no sense. In fact, the entire scene where Shaw kills the Jordan family is ridiculous – killing a man in the open in his kayak? This screams screenwriter phobia.

Why go to all this trouble just to get a guy elected president? It doesn't appear to be very hard to do, particularly if you have the right last name. But at this point in time the demonizing of Americans has become a cottage industry, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. It doesn't seem to matter to the people who buy this stuff whether or not the story is believable, coherent, or even entertaining. As long as it's critical of the United States it's in. If that's your mindset, I suggest you cozy up with this tepid remake and lather up your back for a good patting. Otherwise it's just more grist for the cable TV mill.

Enjoyable Remake

[slightlymad22 · 8/10 · 28 September 2023]

Continuing my plan to watch every movie in Denzel Washington's filmography, I come to his second movie of 2004, the remake of The Manchurian Candidate.

As a fan of the original, I skipped this upon release. This was my first time watching and I'm glad I didn't watch the above trailer, as it gives away some big reveals.

This isn't in the same league as the original, but it's a damn good movie, in its own right. It keeps the same plot, but changes key elements, which helped make it seem fresh.

This would be the last time Washington was directed by Jonathan Demme (Philadelphia, Devil In A Blue Dress) who does a great job.

This is superbly acted by a great cast, that includes Meryl Streep, Jon Voight, Liev Schreiber (who worked with Denzel in The Hurricane), Kimberly Elise (who played Washington's wife in John Q), Jeffrey Wright,, Dean Stockwell (Al from Quantum Leap) and Charles Napier (Murdoch from Rambo: First Blood Part 2) pop up, as does Verna Farmiga and Anthony Mackie in one of his first big screen roles.

Random fact 1: Tina Sinatra, who was instrumental in deciding to remake the film, inherited the production rights from her father, Frank Sinatra, who played Bennett Marco in the 1962 version.

Random fact 2: Denzel Washington admitted before making this remake that he had never seen the John Frankenheimer original movie.

The Manchurian Candidate grossed $65 million at the domestic box office and was the 45th highest grossing movie of 2004.

The New and Unimproved "Manchurian Candidate": A Stealth "Fahrenheit 9/11?"

[lawprof · 6/10 · 30 July 2004]

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

Senator Streep

[filmquestint · 1/10 · 24 March 2005]

The one and only reason to see this new and much weaker Manchurian Candidate is Meryl Streep. The little space allocated to her character makes the film rise to undeserving levels. True, I would pay to see Meryl Streep do the weather but that's quite besides the point. Even so, the memory of Angela Lansbury's performance in the role towers over Meryl Streep's, mostly because the original Frankenheimer's Manchurian Candidte towers over Demme's. What a silly idea, really. To update the story doesn't contribute a thing to the results. No matter how many monitor screens and details about the experiment we're let into. We, quite simply, don't care. We care about the drama of that mother and son. Of the soldier's and their nightmares. But those elements are treated in a sketchy, sluggish way. Frank Sinatra gave a sterling performance in the original and we believed in his torment. Here Denzel Washington floats throughout the film without giving us the chance to connect the dots of his journey. Liev Schriver is a credible Raymond Shaw but the script doesn't help him to go where Laurence Harvey had ventured. After "The Truth About Charlie" I was fearful of what Jonathan Demme (the great man behind "Silence of the Lambs") would do with this classic black comedy but I went to see it anyway, because Meryl Streep was in it and because it was Demme again working with Dean Stockwell after that lovely romp they did together "Married to the Mob" but Stockell's work in Manchurian Candidate, how can I put it? If you blink you miss it. How strange. How disappointing. However, the scenes with Senator Meryl Streep are worth the price of admission.

Don't Get Caught Up Making Comparisons!

[Zen Bones · 25 August 2004]

I have to admit, I was horrified to see that someone was remaking the 1964 near-masterpiece. I had no intention of seeing it, but then I happened to catch Demme and Washington on "Charlie Rose", and Demme put my mind to rest that he was not trying to remake the original picture. I was still skeptic, but I decided to have an open mind and check it out for myself. I'm glad I did.

The only thing this film has in common with the 1964 film is a political background, a domineering mother, and the brainwashing angle (which is done significantly differently here). This film is about what's happening now, and it's as gutsy as any film in today's political climate can possibly get. The story is told through the inflamed, paranoid POV of a Gulf War veteran who tries to unveil a plot between a corporate hierarchy (that's involved in the defense industries and medical technologies among other things) and certain politicians who want to stake their influence on a vice presidential nominee. This 'influence' is achieved through the brainwashing of the nominee as well as several soldiers who had been stationed with him in Kuwait.

Political machinery and defense industries have always been dangerous bedfellows, but when the politicians actually have worked in, and have personal interests in those industries, the motivations of such a partnership can be used to exploit the public in all sorts of ominous ways. This film brilliantly places the sort of paranoia that can derive from such precarious matches as a sign of our times. Consciously or subconsciously, conspiracies are on all of our minds. Today, because there is so much secrecy in the current administration, no one knows just how terrible OR innocent these guys might really be. And where there is secrecy, there will be conspiracy theories galore. Paranoia is so commonplace in such a society that it is technically very easy for plots and lies to thrive healthfully. We tell ourselves, "the government is honest and probably has good reasons to keep secrets from the public, so those who see plots and conspiracies must all simply be deluded and paranoid. Right?"

The fact is that politicians can easily lie, and the media, instead of demanding the truth, puts outrageous spins on those lies claiming to present them as 'facts'. This becomes an almost intolerable static that begins to blot out all meaning. One of the most ingenious things about this film is in its use of that kind of static. Throughout much of the film, there is a cacophony of radios and TV spewing out their obligatory spins simultaneously, as well as the nearly constant sounds of traffic and people talking over one another. The people in this movie can hear, but no one is listening. There's also a proverbial static between science and technology and the moral questions that remain elusive. The survivors of the brainwashing experiment mentioned above, have little chips implanted in their backs that somehow aid the brainwashers. The chips could be some sort of homing device, or perhaps some sort of hormone moderator that's supposed to keep the men in the mental state that makes them more easily susceptible to hypnotic suggestion. Well, chips that can serve as homing devices, or that can regulate hormones and amino acids such as tryptophan, are in the experimental phase today. In other words, this isn't way-out science fiction here!

Okay, I know I'm sounding like I'm paranoid and that I'm saying that everything in this film can and will happen. Don't worry, I know this is just a movie and that the events depicted in it are EXTREMELY unlikely to ever take place. What I'm focusing on is how well the film takes themes, facts and situations that are topical and at least emotionally legitimate, and presents them in the context of a whopper of a good thriller. The film is fresh and audacious and honest in all of its approaches, with the one exception of Meryl Streep who seems to think she's in a Bette Davis movie. In the original "Manchurian Candidate" Angela Lansbury played her role, and she was appropriately icy, deliberate, and almost iconic in the way she carried her power. For some reason Streep tried to go to self-consciously comic proportions (you can almost see her winking at the audience saying "don't you just LOVE how bad I am?"). The rest of the performances however, are appropriately sober and solid. I never caught Washington acting, and Schrieber is masterful in the way he consolidates the conscious and subconscious friction of his character's agony into an invisible but palpable tension. The score by Rachel Portman is eerily reminiscent of Howard Shore's score for "Silence of the Lambs", and just as exciting and effective. And I can't help but thrill over Wyclef Jean's fantastic rendition of the CCR song "Fortunate One": a version as appropriate to this decade as the original version was to the late sixties (check out the lyrics: replace 'senator's son' with 'president's' son, and see if George W. Bush doesn't come to mind!).

Finally, is this film as good as the original version? They're so different I honestly can't compare. I can only say that this film is as appropriate to the political and sociological climate of today as the original was to its day. Don't forget both versions were based on a novel, so comparisons should be made in that context more than anything else (I haven't read the book so I can't comment on that). There are some loopholes in the current film's plot, and I do love the cinematic style of the original film more than this one. But as I was only a kid when the first film came out, this film has a slightly stronger emotional impression on me than the other one. I only hope all it stays science fiction!