The Manchurian Candidate (2004): B

Originally Written: July 2004

This movie could’be been a disaster. As remakes go, it’s not bad. As political thrillers go, it’s too conventional. Still, you try remaking one of the other 19 greatest films- out of the top 20- this reviewer’s ever seen, and see what I say then.

1962’s “The Manchurian Candidate”- directed by the late John Frankenheimer (“Ronin”)- is a spellbinding thriller, and a movie certainly of it’s time. Fueled by brilliant acting by Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, and particularly Angela Lansbury, “Candidate” is a potent and paranoid “What if?” scenario made for Cold War conspiracy theorists to chew over about a group of right-wing American Communists who- during the Korean War- brainwashed US soldiers as assassins with the direct purpose of staging a shadowy coup against American Democracy to get their people in power. The Cold War’s been over since the early ‘90s, but Frankenheimer’s masterful vision of “secret government” still enthralls.

Like it’s namesake, this year’s “Candidate” is a product of it’s time. The basic story is more-or-less the same, save for a few changes necessary for an update. This time, it’s the Gulf War (the justified one) instead of Korea, and instead of the Communists, it’s Big Business, in the form of the fictional Manchurian Global, a company whose ties to prominent officials allow big-budget contracts to find their way into their lap. Welcome to the new threat to American Democracy. If the central conspiracy in 2004’s “Manchurian Candidate” seems tame compared to Frankenheimer’s more nerve-jangling exercise in paranoia, it’s because the new one is all-too familiar to a public that’s seen big corporations like Enron and Halliburton make off like bandits at the expense of the common American and ethical politics (if such a beast ever existed).

Jonathan Demme was an inspired choice to direct a remake of “Candidate.” After the generic blandness in his directing of the brilliantly-acted “Philadelphia,” the self-important heavy-handedness of his overrated “Beloved,” and the misguided “look at me” auteur tricks of his tragic “The Truth About Charlie” (itself a remake of Stanley Donan’s terrific 1963 thriller “Charade”), he finds his footing again with the same taut and tense craftsmanship he won an Oscar for back in ‘92 for “The Silence of the Lambs.” Some of his musical choices- especially during the opening credits- are unfortunate (ditto some of Rachel Portman’s in her otherwise good score), but Demme still delivers the goods as director. But such inspiration would be pointless if the script wasn’t worth it, and though it lacks the pointed pow of George Axelrod’s 1962 script (based on Richard Condon’s novel), and is less-than-subtle most of the time, the update by Daniel Pyne and Dean Georgaris is effective and well-developed, including a loophole change to the nature of both Raymond Shaw (Harvey’s character in the original) and his mother Eleanor (Landbury’s character) that works better than expected, which in turn brings added significance to Ben Marco (the Sinatra character). Iconic moments from Frankenheimer’s film are dropped, and much in the way of story structure has changed, but it’s not all bad.

The three leads relish in their roles. Denzel Washington is typically commanding as Marco, though he also brings palpable panic and anxiety to the increasingly-paranoid role, a new dimension from the extraordinary Washington, further establishing himself as the best actor of his generation. Liev Schreiber (“Ransom”) excels as Shaw, playing both the political puppet- Shaw is on the ballot as a VP nominee- and cold assassin with a creepy lack of feeling, the right note for both in my opinion, though he manages feeling in his few scenes with Washington’s Marco. In Lansbury’s infamous role, Meryl Streep is a bit of a letdown. Though she digs into the role with a scene-chewing gusto that is reminiscent of Lansbury, it feels more like a one-dimensional characature of the original role than the type of three-dimensional character we’re used to seeing from the incredible Streep.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with Demme’s “The Manchurian Candidate.” Did I expect the masterpiece the original was? No. Did I get a smarter-than-usual entertainment? Not as much as I hoped. What did I get? A solid bit of filmmaking, with good direction, good acting, and good writing. After some of the film’s I’ve seen this year, that’s more than I could ask for. Necessary? Not in terms of remaking a classic, but in what looks to be the most heated political race in years, certainly timely.

Commenting is closed for this article.