The Manchurian Candidate
by savage on Sunday 08 August 2004
I see 'em so you don't have to. That's pretty much my summary of this movie. Of course I'm speaking of the 2004 Manchurian Candidate, not the classic, still awesome 1962 Manchurian Candidate. You know it's a bad sign when the science from a 1960s movie is still significantly more believable than the modern 2004 version.
The Manchurian Candidate (2004) is loosely based on the 1959 novel by Richard Condon. The film also gives writing credit to George Axelrod who wrote the 1962 screenplay. Also in minor interest to a few, Tina Sinatra was one of the producers on this film. Tina is the daughter of the 1962 Manchurian Candidate Star, Frank Sinatra. Beyond that, there?s very little alike about the two films.
To get the ball rolling on this review, let?s go for the good, the bad, and the ugly of this 2004 release.
The Good: Well... maybe it will get people to watch the 1962 film.
The Bad: The entirety of the 2004 film.
The Ugly: The editing, the writing, the ridiculously bad attempts at integrating the original dialog, plot points and script into a horrible bastardization of a great work. Let?s see, what else? Oh ya, the acting, directing, the casting?.
Maybe I should be a little more detailed. The film was boring. The progression was slow. The characters held no emotional attachment. The acting would probably be characterized as over-acting except I think the actors were just trying to make something, anything, out of a weak and unbelievable script.
I said earlier and I'll reiterate, the science of the film was science-fiction. It was so bad that the best part of the film was quite possibly when the film made fun itself and its choice of science and technology.
Hey, I'm pretty forgiving and I can't find a reason to see this film.
If you have any interest in seeing this movie, rent the original instead. You'll get a better story, better acting, better cinematography, better directing, and by God a better script.
This movie gets a 1/10. I'd give it lower, except I'm keeping my scale between 1 and 10. If you like bad movies, this one still gets a 1/10. If you've seen the original, you'll be mad that my scale doesn't go below 1.
So, I guess one might say, "Well, if I hadn't seen the original, would I like this one?" The answer is no. It's still a bad movie and you just wasted 130 minutes of your life. Instead, spend 127 minutes watching the 1962 release and spend those extra 3 minutes thanking me.
- Savage
Rating:
Home
