he original Manchurian Candidate was apparently a very good movie. It was also filmed well over 40 years ago, which means hardly anyone who pays to see movies today has any memory of it. Sorry if that's news to the aging stars, such as Angela Lansbury, who objected to this remake on general principles, but it's a sad truth. No one wants to watch old movies anymore. Some hard core film students will, and they'll probably get a lot out of it, but most of us won't.

With today's attention spans and rapid editing, most people trained on movies since the 80s can't sit through those old ones, with their long takes, lack of background music, slow pacing, etc. I'm not saying this is a good thing; I personally think the Bruckheimer style of machine gun fast cuts and ridiculously obvious musical cues is an abomination, but it's popular, and movies change over time. People like remakes. If they rereleased the 1960s version of this film, it would make about eleven bucks.

Look at it like live music or theater; every opera and every Shakespeare play has been performed a million times since they were first written centuries ago. Theater fans want to see new adaptations all the time. They want to see new actors step into the famous roles, and new directors give their own tweaks to the material. Just because an earlier version of something was well done doesn't mean the next generation can't do it again for a new audience.

Anyway, on to the review:

The Manchurian Candidate, 2004
Script/Story: 8
Acting/Casting: 8
Action: 5
Humor: 5
Suspense: 9
Eye Candy: 4
Fun Factor: 7
Replayability: 6
Overall: 8

This is an excellent film. I have not seen the first one and doubt I ever will, so I can't compare, but since it's been over 40 years since the first movie, and this one was made by an entirely new cast and crew, I don't see why they should even be compared point by point. The political situation in the world is now very different, the technology used for the behavioral modification in the movie is new, the war in question is different, and the motivations of the evil people are new.  So my review is based entirely on this new film and how it works today, and I thought it was an excellent film, and thought it worked very well in today's political climate. What more can you ask for?

A quick run down of the rating categories:

Script/Story

It's plausible, the twists make sense, and it's got a good ending; satisfying as well as wrenching.  All of the characters do things logically and intelligently; no one is just wacky or bizarre since the plot requires it, etc.

The semi-surprise ending is really well done. It's not some twist type ending, where they set you up to think one thing will happen and then something else happens out of the blue. With thirty minutes to go there are a dozen ways the plot could twist, and right up until the critical instant of the climax it's still very much in doubt what will happen next.

Acting/Casting: 8

All solid performances. I didn't think Denzel Washington's lead performance was exceptional, but Glenn Close was awesome in her role, Liev Schreiber (who has starred in an amazing amount of films that no one has actually seen) did a great job as the candidate, and all of the supporting characters were very good as well. This sort of film really hinges on the script, direction, and performances, and all three were very strong.

Action: 5

This isn't a representative score, since it's not an action movie. There are very few action sequences, but the ones that were included were very well done. This rating is hard to input for this type of film, since any action movie has 10x more action, so do I grade it entirely on quality, factor in quantity, or what?

Humor: 5

Much like the action score, this isn't a comedy, and it only has one funny scene. However that scene got a huge laugh in the theater, and comes out of nowhere during a very tense situation, so it's really a 9.5 on the comedy meter. But how can I give a movie with just one funny scene a high score in humor?

Suspense: 9

This is what the film does best, and during the last half hour, I felt actual tension and edge of my seat excitement. I can not tell you the last time I felt that for a Hollywood picture, where I generally know exactly how it will turn out within the first 15 minutes. It's Hollywood, where the heroes always win!

I'm not going to say who wins in this version of Manchurian, but there are twists, and more twists during the tense 10 minute finale, and during it and the time leading up to it, once the plot really begins to thicken, I was sitting there with a huge smile on my face, giddy with excitement that a movie was actually good and that I actually didn't know exactly how it was going to turn out.  I'm not going to quibble over the actual ending; I liked it in some ways and not so much in others, but the fact that it was one of several possible endings, and a damn thrilling one at that, is worth huge bonus points in my jaded eye.

Eye Candy: 4

It's not a movie designed to be visually glorious, so this review category is pretty irrelevant. 

Fun Factor: 7

I wouldn't say it's exactly "fun."  This film is thrilling and tense and very enjoyable, but it's not one you can watch for 30 minutes and enjoy your favorite scene and go on with your day. You really have to get into it and watch the whole thing and let the tension seep into you.

Replayability: 6

Hard to judge this one, since I've only seen it the one time in the theater, but I'd like to see it again on DVD, at least once.

Overall, it's a very good thriller, I strongly recommend it, and if you can avoid bumping into any spoilers in advance, you'll have a great time.

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.