Disclaimer: This review does contain spoilers. If you feel the need to see this heinous "movie" without knowing specific details, come back after seeing The Manchurian Candidate, but don't be mad at me if you hate it too.
Dear Jonathan Demme,
Apparently you did not read my letter that I wrote to you after the disaster known as The Truth About Charlie, because you have committed the same crime. You have crafted another awful remake which tarnishes the reputation of the original.
You see sir, the problem with The Manchurian Candidate is that you tried too hard to make the movie topical, and have forgotten to tell any sort of a decent story. You take special care in the details, like making sure we hear a TV anchor basically recap the entire war on terror. But while you are busy crafting what you believe to be some sort of powerful “commentary” on the current state of international affairs, you leave your characters (and subsequently, your audience) out to dry. What you intended to be a movie about a group of soldiers being brain-washed in an effort to put one of these men in the White House, is actually a mess of a movie comprised of random bits of conspiracy surrounded by pieces of information which unintentionally become red herrings that lead to nowhere when they are supposed to form a concrete plot.
But my favorite of your hilarious follies has to be the title itself. “Manchurian” refers to an evil corporation which creates the political marionette played by Liev Schreiber. But at the end of the movie, it dawned on me (and hopefully it dawned on you too) that you forgot to develop this nemesis beyond anything more than a faceless corporation that supports evil science (even the writers of a James Bond movie can do better than that these days), and they are relegated to a solitary clip at the end of the movie which features the board of directors (one can only assume; this scene lasts approximately 7 seconds) crying as their plans have failed.
This brings up another point. Don’t you think that a cinematic commentary of today’s international climate would have been better suited had you taken a page from another classic, Network, (a movie whose premise is ripe for a remake...but don’t get any ideas, Demme!) and provided audiences with an almost apocalyptic peek into what might happen if a dummy candidate was elected? But of course you not, as you chose to end your movie with a typical Hollywood ending...because you apparently don’t think!
While watching your piece of garbage, I kept thinking to myself “If Denzel Washington AND Meryl Streep both signed on for this, it must get better.” Boy, was I wrong! Either Denzel and Meryl need to fire their agents ASAP, or you have pictures of them playing bocce ball with Saddam Hussein. Denzel Washington gives a lifeless performance, and the usually reliable Meryl Streep proves that she has a Hilary Clinton impression worthy of an SNL featured-player gig.
It seems that even you knew that your movie was heinous, as the fake acceptance celebration at the end of the movie is self-deprecatingly bad. But then I ask myself, why would an Academy Award winning director (yes, I did think that Silence of the Lambs was very good) make fun of his own movie, in the movie?! And there is only one answer to that question: you must be insane. I highly recommend that you stop making movies, but since that is very unlikely, at least stop tarnishing the good name of other movies by creating grossly inferior remakes.
Sincerely,
Jake Sproul,
Your Movie Connection
P.S.
Grade: F
© 2004 Jacob Sproul
July 2004 Archive
2004 Archive
Main Archive