*** Official THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE Discussion Thread (2 Viewers)

[Patrick Sun]

CD, I gave the film a B- in spite of the 3rd act overstaying its welcome. The performances were all around pretty good, I think they should have done a little more snipping to pare down the film.

 

[Matt Pasant]

One thing that escaped me was:

How did Shaw figure out that he was programmed? In the original it was made very clear, Marco used the 52 queens to "bust up the joint"... but in this one, Washingtons Marco was never able to get inside his head completely. His mother had the last talk with him while he was under, even so much as to handing the phone of to Denzell and that towel scene. So when he was on stage and missed his steps and then embraced his mother, how did he figure out to do so?

 

[Alex Spindler]

Matt, I think the discussion that Shaw had with Marco in the campaign office may have seeded the doubt in Shaw's mind that something was strange. Perhaps seeing the few pages of the other soldier's book also had more of an effect than he let on, perhaps jogging his own memory like it had Marco.

I will admit that the foundation for the final scene is kind of spotty. At least how it's played, it really seems like Shaw is fully aware that Marco is in the rafters and that he intends to kill the president. It would only be possible if Shaw had realized he was currently brainwashed and then understood that a brainwashed VP is nowhere near as valuable as a brainwashed President and that they would eliminate the president that night for his actions and behavior to make sense.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

I thought the movie was very entertaining. It was a good ride and the performaces were top notch. This is one of the better films I've seen this year.

 

[Holadem]

Just about the only thing I liked is Rosie, who actually has a purpose in the remake (and doesn't break her engagement over a stranger...).

The rest, I found was tedious and uninvolving. The baddies, while more believable (I shall say no more ), are nowhere close to being as sinister as the commies.

If it is, it sucks nuts. I absolutely hated it and found it overused. To be honest, I though it was a throwback to the original, where I do remember Sinatra looking into the camera in a similar fashion, but I could be wrong.

:star::star:/4. Meh.

--
H

 

[Ashley Seymour]

I figured that such a highly political subject as THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE; both the original and current would generate a predictable response from our most political film critic, Roger Ebert. Roger, you never fail to come through. His current review states;



Roger you are so predictable. Again, I have to side with Roger. Meryl would not consciously choose to model Hillary whom she admires, but I can't rule out that possibility that she subconsciously includes the traits she frequently observes. The three Streep mentions are so diverse that I suspect they were mentioned for political reasons rather than as an actual basis for a performance.

Roger is still on his game and continues to claim political insights in movies to support his beliefs.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Also in the age of stem-cell research, which could cost some big pharmaceutical political contributors bigtime (I won't name names, but you may likely know some). There's a lot more money in treating ailment than a true cure...especially when your entire enterprise is based around prescription drugs that do the former.

I found this film very topical on many levels and enjoyed it.

On a different note, this film makes me want to see Robyn Hitchcock take on more movie roles.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Please, don't hijack this thread into a discussion about Ebert's political beliefs! Thank you.





Crawdaddy

 

[Ashley Seymour]

There was a lot of disparagingiscussion on the site about the upcoming remake of a classic. You can take a silly concept, just like the original, but with great actors and a good screenplay make it a good film,and/or a popcorn film and still have a very entertaining movie. I thought Rogers position tended to support the silly concept take I mentioned. He also support the great acting point and for this reason the film should be successful.

I'll leave his the rest of his beliefs to another thread.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Actually, any discussion of his beliefs should be left for another more appropriate forum besides the HTF.







Crawdaddy

 

[Mike DB]

I liked the film but I think the original was a better creative effort. I was hoping for a much more imaginative depiction of actual brainwashing in this new version, they seemed to just skip over it. The original version is an editing masterpiece in that regard.

Now I have a question about the new version and since it might be considered a spoiler I will post it as such.

Can anyone explain about the 2 different types of implants? There was one in the shoulder and one in the brain....this was never made clear to me.

 

[John Mansor]

Just watched the DVD last night. I enjoyed it but I wished there would have been more explanation about what the corporation was hoping to achieve. Anyone listen to the commentary?