The Manchurian Candidate

[ken123]

The Manchurian Candidate starring Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, and as the mother from hell Angela Lansbury deals with political paranoia and cospiracies a great film.

[mrsl]

.
Ken:

You're right on that. You can't get much better. Frank surprised me with the dramatic ability he supplied. I always wondered if he and Janet Leigh were playing some kind of game in their relationship because they seemed to know each other so well immediately, with barely any bonding time. I will never actually like Laurence Harvey, but have to give him credit in this one. He succeeded in making me feel sorry for the rich guy who was done so wrong by his mother of all people. When she sits him down to play that solitaire game during the party, a chill actually has run up my neck a couple of times, depending if I'm really 'watching' or just listening while doing something else.

As much as I admire Denzel Washington, his updated version a couple of years ago, had nothing even near the impact that this one had, unless it's because I already knew the story, but even so, while watching Frank running up through that theater, to get to Larry, still has me saying 'hurry, hurry' simply because I don't want Larry to get in that kind of trouble.
.

[Ollie]

I thought I gave the new MANCHU CAND a fair shot - it was full of favored actors - but "it lacks the power" remains my one consistent thought. Not bad at all, but nowhere near the power, and I fear my bias towards the classic cast betrays my ability to be even halfway objective. Liev, who I've enjoyed in other films, just can't match Laurence Harvey, and I kept thinking, "I don't even LIKE Harvey but I like Liev so much more!" I felt like I was cheering for Liev's success, but maybe that favoritism undermined the impact of his role on me. Maybe I needed to NOT like him personally.

As many times as I see this, I remain amazed by Laurence's performance. The shooting of Sen Jordan and the new bride - boy, that just gets me. Not the scene - but what follows - NOTHING. Harvey's gone. Disappeared. Hidden away, and he realizes - but we don't - what he did under the spell and how his reflexes took over for that brief following second. He knows. We don't know he knows, though. Knowing this is a twist, as stated above, perhaps ruins the new story.

But I've seen this film umpteen times, and I'll see if any time it comes to a nearby theater, and knowing this small twist doesn't reduce the classic version's impact. Him in his Congressional Medal Of Honor, then so quickly turning the rifle.

James Gregory, playing the so-easily-contemptible Sen Iselin - lordy, what a performance. That guy has played sniveling jerks so often, but this one was really something else. He is perfect in that role. And this gets my vote for Lansbury's best ever performance, too. Maybe Sinatra's as well or, at least, it's right up there.

[mrsl]

.
Actually, I think I might have hit upon the reason I dislike so many re-makes, with a bit of elaboration from Ollie. I am so taken with the original, I don't see any reason to re-make. I know now that many of the films from the 40's and 50's that I considered originals are actually, in themselves, re-makes from either silents, or early 30's. For me, the only Front Page will always be His Girl Friday; High Society will always be The Philadelphia Story, An Affair to Remember, etc., etc., etc. The Opposite Sex, although good on it's own, didn't come close to The Women, but I suppose young women of today would prefer Meg Ryan's The Women over the two others. Whenever I hear about the possibility of a remake of one of my favorite movies, I dread what will be done to it, then my curiosity gets to me and I have to see the new product and usually, be disappointed.

With The Manchurian Candidate it was like reading a mystery over a second time. You know the ending, so why bother? I watched it because I like Denzel so much and was curious how they handled it. Again, I guess if you never saw the original, you would probably like the re-make a lot, but I still find the original much more breath-taking and frightening, just like Cape Fear. As ferocious as Di Niro was, he was too obvious, I much preferred Mitchums's low-key, smoldering viciousness, and certainly not because I like Mitch so much (I hate him in CF), but because of that hidden scariness.
.

[JackFavell]

Mrsl - I certainly agree with you. I find that there is little excitement in movies today, because everything is so blatant, so up front. There is no charm, nor is there any real suspense when everything is handed to you right in the first frame of film.

[Ollie]

I am getting less favorable toward Denzel because of the volume of remakes he's involved in. And my argument against remakes remains: "They must WANT to do it better, they must make the commitment to do it better". Not the same. Not merely updated storylines, jobs or new skylines. Or placed into today's calendar. A PERFECT MURDER with Michael Douglas and Gwyneth Paltrow is a nice idea for a remake - substantially different but obviously sharing in key details. The film still "didn't work" for me, however.

Denzel's TAKING OF PELHAM had me skipping whole chapters on the DVD. "Who cares? Nothing changes. Why bother?" This film has no elements of "making it clearly better" OR "clearly different" except putting it onto today's calendar, using today's skylines and today's cars in the street.

Yet the film industry says, "It's tough to get funding for movies..." Yeah, well, it's easy enough to get funding to a flat, plain-vanilla remake - why aren't those financial idiots approached with a creative NEW story instead? Pardon me - I have ZERO tolerance toward Movie Industry whines and complaints about their stagnancy or losses. They should be happy I'm not more of a cheerleader against them! "Go, Film Festival Retrospective Showings! Boo, Modern Films!"

[MissGoddess]

Ollie, are you going to attend the TCM Classic Film Festival in L.A.?

[Ollie]

MissG, I don't believe we will. April and May are film-festival months here in Austin, and while I haven't looked that far on our calendar, I think my wife and her folks are hosting some Brit films during those two months. They have Aug and Sep scheduled, too, I believe. Starting in Feb and going thru early December, that's 'the film festival' season with about 150-200 films being shown. She has those lined up already.

The TCM Festival is only a few days and while it might be tempting to fly out, it's kind of a hassle to fly in for a few days, then back again. Since I'm only 2 days removed from a 9-day car-trip back, I blurted out "NO WAY!" when I first read your note. But who knows... I won't plan on it at this point, let's say.

Those are typically my NYC months, but we may have effectively halted long travels from here on out. Boy, and to think I used to do 10-11 months a year for 20 years. Ugh.

[mrsl]

.
Jack Favell said:
"Mrsl - I certainly agree with you. I find that there is little excitement in movies today, because everything is so blatant, so up front. There is no charm, nor is there any real suspense when everything is handed to you right in the first frame of film."

I'm sure that is why I dislike newer movies so much. For a while I wondered why some movie actors were taking jobs on TV, like Sally Field (Brothers and Sisters), Glenn Close (Damages), and the young guys Chris O'Donnell and LL Cool J (NCIS, Los Angeles), but I realize at least they're getting weekly paychecks for what used to take months. CGI is so common that car races, burning buildings, and other catastrophes can be covered in 60 minutes and the dramatic writing on TV is 100% better in most cases than in movies. I said dramatic, not action and adventure. Forensic science seems to be leading the way in drama right now, and I love it. I wonder if they really can learn as much as the TV claims from bones, and remains from the 40's.
.