The Manchurian Candidate

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

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.

"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)

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).

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.