I watched both of these this weekend. I can’t rememeber what the reviews said about the remake, nor any threads on this board.
So I’ll ask now. If you’ve seen both version:
Which do you think was the better film? Which was your favorite version(if different)? Why?
I’ve not seen the original but it is impossible for the original to suck more than the remake. I watched it on Christmas since a friend of mine had gotten it for a present and I mentioned I wanted to see it and it’s quite possibly one of the worst mistakes I have ever made.
I thought the remake had a great Denzel Washington performance, but naught else of value. The plot was confused and fragmented, Meryl Streep as villain-mother was clear from the start so no surprise, and there were some notions that were just too ridiculous to swallow. Replacing a villainous government with a villainous company didn’t hold up. Plus, the Raymond Shaw character was likable, charismatic, got elected to the Senate etc. That completely undermines the whole assassination plot, which makes no sense whatsoever.
The original has wonderful performances, suspense, characters that you care about, and a narrative plot-line that tells a story. Granted, it has some pretty remote coincidences, but it’s meant partly as black comedy and so you accept those.
Not even a question. The original is a top-notch movie, the remake just plain sucks.
Yep.
The remake was terrific- as good as could be hoped for, really. The original, though, is in my top 5 of all time.
I’ll second Ol’ Moody Bastard’s comment. The remake far and away exceeded my expectations. What I liked about it was that it was a snapshot of 2004 – in twenty years, if people want to know what 2004 felt like, they could watch that movie.
The original, however, is unbeatable.
The remake’s biggest flaw is playing directly to the modern suspense genre. It has nothing original or insightful, but damn does Washington turn in a good performance (as usual).
I liked the original more, but in a lot of ways they are not meant to be the same sort of movie. I think that the remake would have done better to start from the ground up storywise, but to pay homage to its obvious ancestors, including the Manchurian Candidate.
The remake didn’t such as much as some Demme’s other recent remake The Truth about Charlie, but it was still a mess, saved only by Denzel, who I will take over Sinatra’s inert performance in the original. I thought the only other thing interesting about it was the “twist” (different than the original), which might have amounted to something if the build-up to it had worked. It didn’t.
Streep was a particular disappointment, but Lansbury’s shoes are about as hard to fill as any character’s in movie history. One of the all-time great villains (and not a cheap Lady Macbeth knock-off as Streep makes it). Ditto the brainwashing sequence, which is insidiously clever in the Frankenheimer, but just overwrought with sensory overload in the remake. Blah.
The remake was okay, but nothing like the original. I will second (or third, or fourth) that Denzel Washington’s performance was great. That was about all it had going for it.
Aesiron, if you have Netflix, you should really give the original a try.
There were some elements of the remake that I enjoyed. I did like Denzel and I liked the expanded role of his ‘girlfriend’. That role in the original film is pretty strange.
The original had a lot of shock value. The final scene and the kiss were just mind blowing. If you had scene the original, than the new version held no suprises for you and that sucks.
That’s my big problem with the original. Janet Leigh’s character seems to be completely superflous, like they put her in there so Sinatra could have a Girlfriend too.
Even worse, she comes across looking like she has real emotional problems. What else should you think about a girl who gives out her phone number and address to some wierd guy on the train, after two minutes of mostly one-sided conversation? She then dumps her finacee for him and comes to bail Sinatra out of Jail after beating up his old war buddie’s cook. What does she do for fun? Go down to the local mental hospital and troll for dates?
I liked both of those movies. :o
I wish the DVD of Manchurian Candidate had included the original as a bonus, like the Truth About Charlie DVD did. The inclusion of Charade in the latter was enough to get me to buy the disc, while I wouldn’t have bothered for Charlie alone.
It’s on there somewhere with a couple dozen other classics. My knowledge of that era of movies is very lacking.
I liked the remake, but I thought the original was much better, for a number of reasons.
[Spoiler]
The death of the Senator and his Daughter means something in the original, because the Senator poses a legitimate threat to Raymond’s mother and Raymond goes to the trouble of explaining how much the Daughter meant to him. In the remake, Killing the Senator just seems stupid(He’s going to go on the senate floor and rant about giant corporations implanting chips in Raymond’s brain. Oh, I’m scared) and killing the daughter doesn’t seem to mean much because she’s not in the movie much.
The Card playing plot device was more interesting then the microchips.
I don’t understand how the hell Ben Marco got into the place where they were having the victory celebration in the remake. He’s supossed to have a restraining order on him and on all sorts of lists(after all, he did attack the Vice Presidental nominee in his office), and yet he strolls right through the front door, wearing his dress uniform and a stack of medals. Not exactly the best way to avoid drawing attention to yourself.
I’d fire every person manning door security that day, since they seem to be incredibly incompetant.
Roise tries to distract them but it seems like it just makes it worse because he had already passed through, when she says “No, back it up”. Roise, if you want him to get through, why are you drawing more attention to him by putting him back on screen for somebody to notice?
Crap. Could one of the mods fix the spoiler tags?