MovieChat Forums > The Manchurian Candidate (2004) Discussion > This Is, To Date, The Worst Remake Ever ...

This Is, To Date, The Worst Remake Ever Made

posted 17 years ago by ecarle
48 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS for BOTH "Manchurian Candidates":

Probably my favorite movie -- as a matter of personal influence from a young age rather than in direct comparison with modern films -- is Hitchcock's "Psycho" of 1960.

Gus Van Sant made a remake of "Psycho" in 1998 that is reviled by many "Psycho-philes." I consider that movie an "experiment that succeeded by failing." I don't like Van Sant's "Psycho," and his attempt to re-do Hitchocck "shot by shot" failed egregiously.

But at least Van Sant's "Psycho" WAS "Psycho" as best as it could be: same plot, same shots, most of the same lines. Van Sant tried to tell Hitchcock's classic tale (from a Robert Bloch novel) for a new generation.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Demme and his writers went the whole other way when they remade the spectacular and historic "The Manchurian Candidate" from 1962.

The idea seemed to be: let's remake "The Manchurian Candidate" by ignoring absolutely, positively EVERYTHING about the movie -- its plot, its setting, its era, its music, its characters -- that made it such a great movie.

There was a catch: Demme was an Oscar-winning hotshot with "The Silence of the Lambs" on his resume. HIS "Manchurian Candidate" had Oscar-winning star heavyweights Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep in it, and both were quite good here (with Streep earning an Oscar nomination.)

Having two such big stars and such a respected director made the new "Manchurian Candidate" difficult to hate, but not really. Matters got easy when at least one of the stars -- Denzel -- said he'd never even SEEN the original film, and hence didn't care about it.

The original "Manchurian Candidate" was set in the fifties around the time of "the McCarthy era", but released in 1962, at a time when the Cold War was heating up (via the Cuban Missile Crisis) , and US vs. Russian tensions could legitimately have ended the world.

"MC1" was made by liberal filmmakers (director John Frankenheimer, writer George Axelrod, star Frank Sinatra), and made its Joe McCarthy clone ("John Iselin") a right-wing buffoon with a scary right-wing nut wife (Angela Lansbury) but at least posited that the Soviet and Chinese Communists COULD be aggressors.

"MC1" brilliantly worked out the idea of novelist Richard Condon: Joe McCarthy's buffoonish attack on "communists" in the U.S. government could only be the work of a COMMUNIST agent sent to misdirect the U.S. from the REAL Commies looking to take over the nation from within, via brainwashing (a rumored action of the Korean War.)

"MC1" presented its twisted political tale with a classic mix of the sadly tragic (the opening score was almost tearjerking in its suggestion of the sad events about to occur) the funny (the Chinese Commie bad guy chides the Russian Commie bad guy about "making a profit" off of their NYC mental hospital front for brainwashing), and the grandly surreal ("women's garden party speeches" which turned out to be dream memories of Manchurian brainwashing experiments; the brainwash motif of using the Queen of Hearts and the phrase "Why don't you play a nice game of solitare?" as a killer's trigger.)

Demme's "Manchurian Candidate" elected to totally eschew the Joe McCarthy references, Chinese and Russian Communists, the Queen of Hearts motif, the heartrending music, the "garden party" brainwashing sequences -- even the then-new-and-classic furniture-destroying karate fight between Frank Sinatra's hero and Henry Silva's Korean villain in Laurence Harvey's Manhattan apartment.

With all of those classic scenes and motifs gone, Jonathan Demme's "Manchurian Candidate" ends up as a typically unbelievably and insanely overplotted 00's pedestrian thriller, somewhere between "Enemy of the State" and "Deja Vu," more Bruckheimer than Demme. (The Janet Leigh character is really FBI? The Sinatra character is programmed to kill TOO? And what else?)

With the complex Cold War geopolitics of the original gone, the new "MC" substitutes the overused, overdone Faceless Corporation as its villain (hello, Halliburton, which may be true, but still cliche) -- and makes that villain rather toothless and easily overcome. The Commies in the original were terrifyingly efficent.

This new "Manchurian Candidate" is closer to the "faceless conspiracy" thriller "The Parallax View" of 1974, which was a good movie but which, like this one, lacked the heart and cinematic brilliance of "The Manchurian Candidate." There's something gutless and uncommitted about the new "Manchurian Candidate" that makes it very aggravating to me. Same old, same old.

On the star acting: Frank Sinatra gave, arguably, his greatest performance in "MC 1." He knew President Kennedy wanted to see this movie, and helped get it made. In return, Sinatra CONCENTRATED and gave us a fine portrait of a brainwashed solider whose mind is fighting the wash -- he's a sweaty, quivering mass of melancholy and rage, in alternating doses. Denzel, on the other hand, plays SOME of Sinatra's mental state, but feels more compelled to keep up the usual charismatic fast-talking intelligence of the prototype Denzel hero model. It's nice star acting, but Denzel never seems as damaged as Sinatra did.

The Great Streep comes up against Angela Lansbury's simply horrifying vision of an incestuous Monster Mother (both actresses were Oscar-nominated) and for once,Meryl comes out the loser. Lansbury found the bile AND the sexuality in her character, who gave her son a shocking (and hand-blocked) 1962 kiss on the lips. Streep is too "Streepish" -- all technique and authority in a dry-run for her uber-bitch boss in "The Devil Wears Pravda." Moreover, Streep hasn't been given the great line "Why don't you play a nice game of solitare" to trigger her son's murderous side --instead its a flatfooted and strident "Corporal Raymond K. Shaw!" or something like that (honestly, I can't even remember it anymore.)

Raymond Shaw was Laurence Harvey's greatest role -- he was born to play it: cold, haughty, unfeeling, and yet always sad and victimized. Raymond Shaw as played by Harvey was Frankenstein's Monster with a cold heart grown warm. Nothing was sadder than to see Harvey's Raymond -- already destroyed by his mad mother long before the Koreans got him -- finally find love and then have to kill the same woman who saved him. Liev Schreiber, a fine actor elsewhere, isn't as well cast and isn't given as great a murder scene of his beloved to perform.

To compare Sinatra, Harvey, and Lansbury to Washington, Screiber, and Streep is create the wrong comparison between the two "Manchurian Candidates." All six were/are good actors. There are always many good actors in Hollywood.

No, the atrocity that is the new "Manchurian Candidate" stems from the modern-day filmmakers' complete and utter disregard for everything -- and I mean EVERYTHING -- that made the first movie one of the greatest movies ever made. (And not just in 1962; "MC1" was rereleased to theaters and video after 25 years out of circulation and deemed "the best movie of 1988" by some critics

The outcome was very weird: though it wasn't, the new "Manchurian Candidate" looked like it was made by dummies.

And Jonathan Demme may have made a fatal misstep. Coming after his even more disastrous flop remake of the less-classic but still fine "Charade" ("The Truth About Charlie"), this once-respected indiefilm maker and Oscar-winner is now known as "the man who made two clueless remakes of two classic thrillers."

We'll see if Demme ever gets his reputation back.

[–] Mr_McLaurel 17 years ago

You're right, but to me the worst idea this movie brought to the table was remaking The Manchurian Candidate without involving Islamic terrorism in the plot. This made the remake seem spineless and irrelevant as soon as the enemy behind it all was said to "Manchurian Global" or whatever it was. The original movie is provocative and brave politically for implying through metaphor and satire that those uber-right-wing anti-commies we saw blustering on TV are actually working with the communists to destroy our liberties. Hmm...I wonder if that has any parallels to the political situation of today? Nah...let's just make it an evil corporation, nice and inoffensive.

What's the spanish for drunken bum?

[–] mcslick 17 years ago

Come on! Do you really think this was supposed to be a remake? Maybe you should RETHINK. First of all, as anyone will notice, there is little or next to nothing in common between these two very good movies. This movie should not have used the same name, but probably did, for marketing reasons. Kind of a cheap piggyback, if you ask me. But this movie IS NOT A REMAKE by any definition, so should therefore not be compared to the original. Enough said.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Character names are the same, the plot "basics" are the same -- but all of the elements that made the original special were essentially removed.

More to the point: this new story is essentially irrelevant and detached from its time, unlike something like, say, "Syrianna."

At least part of the point of the multi-levelled original was to juxtapose the American right wing and international Communism. The new one plays it straight down the "one level" line: a nefarious corporation. We've been there before, time and time again. I can only say again: this is a dumbed down version of a classic movie, likely made by people who simply didn't understand the original.

And there are stylistic omissions as well. A brilliant element of the original -- the carefully worked out "dream sequences" in which a women's lecture on flowers became the Manchurian brainwashing sessions (complete with two then horrific murders committed with utter indifference by Laurence Harvey) -- become virtually nothing in this new version.

I'm afraid it is a remake, and, as I noted, the worst one ever made in American film history -- a refutation by Hollywood of one of its own finest moments, an insult to its own history. I'm unshakeable on this, so I'll go quiet now.

And to those who say that the Cold War is over and Communism is no longer the threat it once was (if ever), I say: then the 1962 "The Manchurian Candidate" stands as a brilliant period piece. I mean, what would be the point of moving "Gone With the Wind" to the Vietnam period?

[–] coolaree 17 years ago

I know ur not being serious on seeing this movie as the worst remake cause there are at least ten others much much worse. And as for this movie being "dumbed" down and irrelevant to the times, i don't know how u came to that conclusion. Terrorism,war and the fear that is now in the western world, and the desire to limit civil and even behavioural liberties and take on a more dictatorial hardline stance by right-wing politicians for continued "safety" (all relevant topics in the US) was weaved intricately into the story in my opinion (through the charactor Eleanor Shaw). And why is the involvement of the "nefarious corporation" trying to gain greater influence in the government to increase profits (through probably the 'war on terrorism') considered detrimental? Sure its been done before but it is a modern fear(underline modern). Plus obviously the corporation was not working alone, but with some help from the more right wing groups in the government, which to me and i;am sure other people is more likely then say some kind of unholy, Dr. Evil like alliance between some terrorists groups like Al Qaeda and the right wing portions of the US government.
ps. i haven;t seen the original so i can;t really compare the two artistically or what not but i think this was a brilliant adaption/remake, which may not have explored/shown the 'other side'(international terrorism etc.) at all like u claim the original film, or Syriana, did but maybe that was because the filmmakers weren't trying to ie. it reflected the 'times'without the need to do that.

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Your remarks are well thought out. A movie with Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep isn't going to be awful on general principles. Lots of other remakes are "bad movies."

But I still see this as the worst remake ever made because it is a movie that takes a great film and practically ignores everything about that film that made it great. In its place, came this rather predictable 00's thriller.

The funny thing is, you say you haven't seen the original, and I'm willing to bet when you DO (and you should), you may still like the new one better. For the new one reflects our times, but does so in the ruination of the original's themes and meanings.

One problem I have with remakes of great movies ("Psycho" is such; "The Bad News Bears" is not) is that movies live on in our MINDS. We don't spend all that much time actually watching them. So now there are TWO "Psychos" in my head, and two "Manchurian Candidates," and I sure don't like the crowding.

My opinion.

[–] salieri125 17 years ago

What about John Carpenter's remake of The Thing? The Thing from Another World (1951) may not be quite on the level of Psycho, The Manchurian Candidate, The Birds, or even All the King's Men, but I daresay that it as much a classic of its genre as they are. The Thing '82 strays closer to the "Who Goes There?" source material (but not too close), but in all ways carries the same basic plot over: guys in snow vs. alien. However, it ignores what is good about its predecessor in the same way Manchurian Candidate '04 does.

Carpenter deletes the following from the original film:

Good dialogue
Interesting direction (Christian Nyby obviously leaning into the shadow of his producer, Howard Hawks)
A sense of comraderie/interaction between the characters, a.k.a. "humanity"
That feminine touch (no women)
Reasonable intelligence on the part of the characters
Humor
Non-gimmicky thrills
Heart

Carpenter ADDS:

"I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off, whatever it is."
His, shall we say, economy of production values
Sweaty guys who grunt at each other
Blood
Typical horror movie stupidity on the part of the characters
A ponderous philosophical ending
Some admittedly bravura special effects
Kurt Russell

Like Manchurian '04, Thing '82 is different enough from the original that the promotions department can label it a "re-imagining" instead of "a remake," but this is a matter for the advertisers and not the audience.

And this predates Manchurian '04 by 22 years.

(I wish I could offer some more and more specific examples, but I just thought of this and I lack a copy of either film. I suspect that the score of each film could also be an easy point of contention.)

"We must not remind them that giants walk the earth."

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Checking in late to suggest that "The Thing" remake doesn't bother me as much as this one.

Getting very subjective here, but I felt that the 1982 remake stuck (bravely) to an "all-guy" cast (didn't the original have one woman?), and carried its own very intense mood: the thing could be any of the men at practically any time. The for-their-time very weird effects were their own nightmare.

Also: I like Kurt Russell.

But the actors aren't the real issue in these things. I like Denzel Washington, too -- but I think he turned Sinatra's rattled-and-sweaty performance into a bit too much of a "typical Denzel hero": fast-talking, super-intelligent, confident.

[–] pogostiks 17 years ago

A better example would be The Fly... originally a B -film made into something much creepier by Canadian David Cronenberg... one of the few remakes that is actually better than the original.

Otherwise, I have to agree that Manchurian Candidate 2 is much inferior to the original. I haven't seen the original for several years but all the way through the remake I was remembering scenes from the original that worked better.

Above all, we really got an idea of how loathsome and cold Raymond Shaw is from Laurence Harvey's masterful interpretation; We even feel sorry for him because of the failed love affair. We realize that he could have been happy once, if only his mother hadn't gotten in the way. In the remake, we never really get an idea of who Raymond is... he seems to be all over the place, changing back and forth without any rhyme or reason. In the original, when the various ex- soldiers all talk about how Raymond is the most kind, compassionate person they have ever known, it gives us chills down our spines because we realize the irony of that statement when we compare it to the cold-hearted SOB that we find in Laurence Harvey. In the new version we don't really care about Raymond at all - the entire film is truly centred on Denzel Washington... and we barely even care about him, never mind caring for Raymond.

The remake is well-done in general, but just not as satisfying in the long run.

[–] RParmly-3 15 years ago

"At least part of the point of the multi-levelled original was to juxtapose the American right wing and international Communism. The new one plays it straight down the "one level" line: a nefarious corporation. We've been there before, time and time again. I can only say again: this is a dumbed down version of a classic movie, likely made by people who simply didn't understand the original."

Well said. For me, too, the switch to an "evil corporation" was what completely ruined the movie as well. For three reasons;

1) It's not "fiction." Every Gilded Age president was a Manchurian Candidate for some business interest or other - it's gotten somewhat better since then, but corporate donors still have and still use this kind of power over politicians all the time (Halliburton and all the Iraq contracts they got because their old CEO was now Vice-President of the United States?)

2) It's *stupid.* A big corporation, kidnap a group of American soldiers, spend all that money on brainwashing technology to manufacture a remote-controlled politician and put him in the White House? Why not find any random politician, bankroll his campaign and have him beholden to you that way - you know, like in real life? Simpler, probably cheaper and a lot less risky.

3) It's not interesting. Corruption in government is a story as old as government itself; one more "big business pulls politician's strings" movie wasn't going to make the world look up. The story in the original, by contrast, with America's worst enemy behind it all, was terrifying - at stake were U.S. independence, American democracy and the fate of the Cold War.

In other words, a vastly inferior remake that completely fails to deliver what the original did. Too bad, I'd have enjoyed a movie with al-Qaeda manipulating a Huckabee-style Christian fundamentalist politician. It might have been controversial, but then so was the original - how about that?

"I ought to tell you something."
"Don't get sentimental now, Dad, save it for when we get out of here."
"The floor's on fire."

[–] Chromium_five 15 years ago

2) It's *stupid.* A big corporation, kidnap a group of American soldiers, spend all that money on brainwashing technology to manufacture a remote-controlled politician and put him in the White House? Why not find any random politician, bankroll his campaign and have him beholden to you that way - you know, like in real life? Simpler, probably cheaper and a lot less risky.

Finally, someone points this out. I re-watched the movie last night and couldn't believe how absurd the plot is, considering the events it depicts have already happened in real life without the sci-fi technology. The al-Qaeda angle wouldn't have required much re-working of the script... why not have al-Qaeda brainwash the soldiers with funding from Manchurian Global? In fact, the script ALREADY says that Manchurian Global has ties to terrorists (and is Streep's biggest donor), so why not take this idea further? Did it not occur to the scriptwriter, or did he reach his limit of potential controversy?

I was also surprised by how ham-handed the direction is. I kept wondering, "Where's the director of 'The Silence of the Lambs,' and why couldn't they get HIM to direct this movie?" The set design in the dream sequences and brainwashing scenes is incredibly bland and unimaginative. It looked like they filmed it in my garage.

[–] bluestocking-7 14 years ago

RParmly-3 wrote:

2) It's *stupid.* A big corporation, kidnap a group of American soldiers, spend all that money on brainwashing technology to manufacture a remote-controlled politician and put him in the White House? Why not find any random politician, bankroll his campaign and have him beholden to you that way - you know, like in real life? Simpler, probably cheaper and a lot less risky.

Exactly. This is the sand on which this wobbly structure was built. Very illogical premise.

If the villains which propel the plot do not take "a straight line" but a rather convoluted detour in the execution of their evil scheme, then I see a movie with a very artificial and uncompelling setup.

Still, I don't think this is the worst remake ever made.

P.S. I got a kick of spotting the actors which previously worked with Jonathan Demme in Silence of the Lambs.

Billy Wilder Page, Play the Movie Smiley Game
www.screenwritingdialogue.com

[–] jensen-22 17 years ago

I, for one, and really pleased that Carpenter left out "the feminine touch" which is nothing but irrelevant pandering to sex (and I'm as fond of sex as anyone, in its place) and perhaps getting some females to watch the movie. That travesty happens in almost all movies in which there is no natural female roles. I suppose you are upset that no female characters were artifically injected to spoil The Hunt for Red October.

[–] salieri125 17 years ago

I seem to remember that The Hunt for Red October did indeed have women in it. I also remember that they weren't the ones that spoiled it.

"Who's been carving their initials in the tomatoes?"

[–] unclefishbits-1 17 years ago

Saying Carpenter's "The Thing" is a remake of "The Thing from another world" is like saying the "car" is a remake of "the carriage"

Have you seen the Thing from another world? It is like Frankenstein!!!

Two totally seperate films.. plot, story, characters.

The two manchurian's are parralel and intuitively identical.

They are meant to be the same... story and all. The Thing was an adaptation.

Who wastes time arguing apples and oranges. Time to walk the dog.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] johnmouse 13 years ago

I agree, it is, indeed, a remake, and a feeble attempt at that. Having lived through this period of history, MC1 brings back many memories of the fear of, not just communism, but the REAL threat of nuclear war. President Kennedy came very close to pushing the button. When I was in grade school, we had "tornado drills." We didn't get tornadoes where I lived, and even at that young age, we knew exactly what those drills were for.

MC1 has the "creepiness" factor going. Take a good look at the scene where Mrs. Iselen (Angela Lansbury) kisses Raymond. That was NOT a motherly kiss. It was very incestuous, and was meant that way. Lansbury did so, keeping within the guidelines of censorship at that time. Brilliant!

The movie is a period piece. You can't update history; it is what it is. Ecarle's last paragraph says it all.

I've never seen, nor will I ever see, MC2, or any remake for that matter. You can't improve upon the original masterpiece. and there are no actors today that can hold a candle to the likes of Lansbury, et al.

[–] SteverB 8 years ago

Over eight years from your original comment and I'm still compelled to call your view idiotic. Do you even know what "remake" means?

[–] alphachimp 17 years ago

Queen of DIAMONDS.

[–] samsan_lee 17 years ago

Disagree. Brilliant remake compared to.....

The Wicker Man
Black Christmas
The Grudge

and of course...

the Stepford Wives

[–] Panterken 17 years ago

First of all, director Jonathan Demme specifically stated in a pre-release interview that the movie is NOT A REMAKE of the original one. It does have elements in common with the original version: a political background, a domineering mother and a brainwashing angle. Both movies are based on the book but the 2004 version is a very liberal interpretation of the main ideas that were present in the book. So you're completely injust to call this movie a remake rather than a re-interpretation or re-imagining - if you will- of the book.

Second of all, I find it deeply sad that you can not show appreciation for the modern elements that are cleverly weaved into the 2004 storyline. Instead you expect a replay of exactly the same story with other actors; what in god's name is the point of that?? It's not like the original one is so old that it's unwatchable and it needs to be re-shot with different actors. I must say I'm baffled by your post and can not believe dinosaurs like you still exist. Go with the time and stop living in the past. No offense, but it's real easy to criticise modern movies but real hard to acknowledge that maybe there are some good movies that were made after the year 2000.

Third of all I think, and many will agree, that the movie is near to brilliant, especially if you don't try to compare too much with the original movie( what you obviously did). If you had kept an open mind you would have seen that this is a daring political and psychological thriller that deals very much with the current political situation and frightening advanced technology. Not only is the movie very entertaining, it's also a reminder of the subjectivity of the media and politics and the dangers of a presidential hiërarchy. Not to mention that the story is fresh and the acting performances are marvellous with the exception of a few less important roles. I could go on and on about why this movie is more then excellent but I'll not bore you any longer since you obviously don't have an open mind.

Kind regards

[–] balthazar_bee 15 years ago

Third of all I think, and many will agree, that the movie is near to brilliant, especially if you don't try to compare too much with the original movie( what you obviously did).

Precisely. Many of the OP's criticism's boil down to "it's different from the original!" <gasp>

[–] kkmmss 15 years ago

The problem is not that it's different from the original. The movie is just an average forgettable thriller even if not compared to the extremely superior original.
But it does seem much worse when comparing it to MC1.

[–] balthazar_bee 15 years ago

I don't think it's average or forgettable, but to each...

One thing though: Can you name a recent thriller of a similar nature that's superior? I'm not sure I can. Demme's incredible level of craftsmanship has rarely served him better -- the awkward, in-the-eye close-ups, combined with the uniformly terrific performances and sinister scoring create a feeling more akin to a 1970s style political paranoia thriller. The writing's not bad either.

In fact, I think you might have to go back to The Parallax View or All the President's Men to find something comparable. I think the key is the feeling of genuine dread, the sense that something terrible's going to happen and our protagonist is helpless (as helpless as we the viewer) to do anything about it.

Even worse, we could be a part of it and not even realize -- again, Parallax.

[–] ripplinbuckethead 12 years ago

I don't know if I'd say it's the worst, but it sure is pointless, much like the version of Psycho with Vince Vaughn (which is even more pointless).

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 10 years ago

First of all, director Jonathan Demme specifically stated in a pre-release interview that the movie is NOT A REMAKE of the original one. It does have elements in common with the original version: a political background, a domineering mother and a brainwashing angle. Both movies are based on the book but the 2004 version is a very liberal interpretation of the main ideas that were present in the book. So you're completely injust to call this movie a remake rather than a re-interpretation or re-imagining - if you will- of the book.

Second of all, I find it deeply sad that you can not show appreciation for the modern elements that are cleverly weaved into the 2004 storyline. Instead you expect a replay of exactly the same story with other actors; what in god's name is the point of that?? It's not like the original one is so old that it's unwatchable and it needs to be re-shot with different actors. I must say I'm baffled by your post and can not believe dinosaurs like you still exist. Go with the time and stop living in the past. No offense, but it's real easy to criticise modern movies but real hard to acknowledge that maybe there are some good movies that were made after the year 2000.

Third of all I think, and many will agree, that the movie is near to brilliant, especially if you don't try to compare too much with the original movie( what you obviously did). If you had kept an open mind you would have seen that this is a daring political and psychological thriller that deals very much with the current political situation and frightening advanced technology. Not only is the movie very entertaining, it's also a reminder of the subjectivity of the media and politics and the dangers of a presidential hiërarchy. Not to mention that the story is fresh and the acting performances are marvellous with the exception of a few less important roles. I could go on and on about why this movie is more then excellent but I'll not bore you any longer since you obviously don't have an open mind.

Kind regards

^^This. I agree, great post. I really liked both the original & the remake. OP's one of those guys that don't think anything remade can be good or that they need to do EXACTLY what the original did to be good at all.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.

[–] jrv-3 15 years ago

I'd say that it is indeed a very poor remake, but as the previous poster stated there are far worse remakes out there

Wicker Man is a perfect example

I'd also add Van Sant's Psycho remake

[–] OlLineRebel 15 years ago

'Joe McCarthy's buffoonish attack on "communists"'

Too bad it was all TRUE. Buffoon? Whatever.

And there's nothing wrong with getting communists out of the government. Communists by definition want to overthrow everything not communist.

Off the soap box.

As to the movies - yes, it seems the concept changed a little too much. I just watched the original and have never seen the new, but from reading reviews and comments, it seems it's focused on EEEEVIL "corporations". As if they have much control over anyone.

[–] gjordan77 11 years ago

ROFL. WHAT?!

The only one nation doing that, since world war 2, is the united states, *beep*

[–] 5h4d0w 15 years ago

well... it might fail as a remake but i have to say - sometimes i think that people get way too involved with whether a movie is a remake, a sequel, based on a novel etc. and not trying to see it on its own.

i guess sometimes it's legitimate to say a movie has failed because it doesn't live up to the original. and i guess it's very subjective where to draw the line whether that makes sense or not. but with this movie and from how you describe the original MC, it sounds like it's so detached from the original that it makes sense to judge it on its own.

and i have to say... i didn't see the original but the story of this remake... i was amazed by how much of what is portrayed reflects what is going on (and partly just probably going on) in US politics/military nowadays. well... not just the US, i suppose...
and i'm wondering if we'll see 30 years from now that there was more truth than fiction to this story of if it will be clear that all the connections between big companies and politicians and "fighting terror" and so on really were just coincedental and it never was about slowly creating a totalitarian regime and/or a worldwide empire...

so... while the original MC had a story that would probably upset me because of its propagandish content (at least it sounds like that...), this remake has one that is not about substantiating prejudice against the "bad" people from [insert one of the "bad" countries here] but about taking a good look at yourself for once. i think that's actually a pretty big improvement - if the original really is the way it sounds.

[–] jdeeq 15 years ago

Are ya'll serious in saying this isn't a remake? If it isn't then don't use the same name or use the same basic plot line or have the extremely main characters have use the same names!! A group of men were brainwashed and one of them made out to be a hero...having the last name Shaw (ahem...so far, just like the original)...in the first movie they were fighting in Korea, the second in Desert Storm (which is logical because it's a newer movie). The mother is a commie in both movies, has incestual feelings for her son and kisses him in both movies. Ok, I could go on...it is a remake...they just tweeked some things here and there, but, it's a remake, plain and simple.

[–] mstytz 14 years ago

Good analysis. The original is so much better in so many dimensions. Better actors, better direction, better script, better choice of scenes, better effects, better conclusion, better depth of characters, and much more suspense. Whoever thought that the movie could be successfully remade was dreaming. The movie did not need to be remade. Good grief, the original had Sinatra, Harvey, Landsberry, and Leigh!

[–] ryanoconnor-1 14 years ago

Oscar-winning star heavyweights Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep in it, and both were quite good here (with Streep earning an Oscar nomination.)

Actually, Streep did not earn an Oscar nomination for this role, and there's a reason for that. Streep was solid in the part, but she was not as good as Angela Lansbury (who was nominated for an Oscar for the original movie).

[–] Freedom1981 12 years ago

I thought Streep did an excellent imitation of a Hillary Clinton-like politician.

[–] InternationaleClique 12 years ago

This film is actually quite ahead of its time. With such high profile actors involved you know that is no coincidence. This film isn't about what might be in the future, it's about what's going on right now. Maybe not an mk ultraed president, but definitely a puppet for the money power.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]