www.filmbrats.com

hotline
reviews
shorts
interviews
home

Please select a letter from the list below to see the reviews.

a / b / c / d / e / f / g / h / i / j / k / l / m / n / o / p / q / r / s / t / u / v / w / x / y / z


Behind The Screens

by Jon Waterman
Volume 1, Issue 2
Volume 1, Issue 1
Special Features
D-VHS
Digital Projectction vs. 35mm
Multiple DVD Releases

FILMBRATS - REVIEWS

The Manchurian Candidate (2004) (***1/2)
review by Jon Waterman

The quick thinking and good fighting of one man, Raymond Shaw, save a group of American soldiers fighting in the Gulf War. He returns to the US and is awarded the Medal of Honor for his work. The other men in the platoon return to the US with swirling confused thoughts in their heads. They, including commanding officer Major Bennett Marco, are having dreams where Shaw doesn’t save them all, but in fact kills the two soldiers lost in the mission. Maybe the “heroic” mission actually never happened and there’s some bigger political conspiracy in the works – there is an election coming up after all. Can the difference between paranoia and truth be pieced together before it’s too late?

This is a film best viewed in theaters. Director Jonathan Demme uses many frame-filling close-ups to show the building tension and imposition the characters face and/or emit. The shots are looming, but not claustrophobic. In order to get the full effect of this, the theater works best, because you’re looking up at this giant figure that’s essentially staring you down and getting into your head as if you were in the film. Watching on television would allow less connection and more distancing. With most movies it doesn’t matter, because they know it’ll be shown on a smaller screen at some point and so they don’t consider the large-scale venue. Demme and cinematographer Tak Fujimoto know how to utilize every tool at their disposal (including projection) to its fullest potential. This was made for the big screen only. Without a doubt.

I also admired how visual effects were used to impact the audience. When the subject goes under hypnosis, there are no flashy computer graphics involved. There’s nothing flashy about this film at all, actually. Instead, the screen quickly gets overexposed as the sound gives us an aural cue. It’s not the subtlest thing in the world, but it’s far from obnoxious.

Even though this is a remake of the 1962 film, it does have some differences in the script and the way everything goes down. Stuff I can’t really talk about here without giving anything away. I can say that they replaced brainwashing for implanted controlling devices, which sounds worse than it turns out to be. So, with no direct brainwashing, they get rid of any cover story. The flower presentation in the original was so enthralling and perfect that maybe it is best this effort didn’t try to recreate it. The script still conveys a lot of the same elements and core emotions of the first even after omitting or drastically changing crucial characters. It’s tough to believe that writers Daniel Pyne (“Doc Hollywood”) and Dean Georgaris (“Tomb Raider 2”) put together something so strong and nearly as intense as the classic version.

Lastly, I’ll say that the acting is great, but to some extent, it’s just playing the roles already established 40-plus years prior. Denzel Washington as Marco plays the somber Sinatra part with more fanaticism and frustration, but he’s the only one that really differs. Liev Schreiber and Meryl Streep, while still amazing actors, don’t give us anything in terms of change from their 1962 counterparts. Jeffrey Wright continues his hitting streak as a standout supporting character.

Demme does a great job of keeping the movie non-partisan by taking jabs at both sides, seemingly without favoritism. After all, the movie isn’t about one side being better than another. It’s about decent human beings fighting back against powerful, corrupt human beings. The election is essentially a side note when you think about it. I doubt I’ll ever understand the desire to remake classic films. At least this time the movie was still worth watching.

respond to jon@filmbrats.com