[Review] The Manchurian Candidate

by **bruce** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:31 pm

Debaser wrote:
bruce wrote:putting the hammer to your mom
HOW MANY STARS OUT OF FIVE???

Two and a half. So, you know, OK if you have a lot of time on your hands or you're a big fan of the genre, but not really recommended for the general public.

Bruce

by **Debaser** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:40 pm

bruce wrote:putting the hammer to your mom

HOW MANY STARS OUT OF FIVE???

by **Clemenza** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:06 pm

Leave the gun. Take the cannolis.

by **Tom Hagen** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 9:54 am

pinback wrote:
bruce wrote:
pinback wrote:Here's a riddle: What's the difference between Frank Sinatra's singing and a tone-deaf cat being stepped on?
I'm not putting the hammer to your mom while a tone-deaf cat being stepped on is on the stereo?

Bruce
Johnny Fontaine never gets that picture!

Oh yes he will!

by **pinback** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

bruce wrote:
pinback wrote:Here's a riddle: What's the difference between Frank Sinatra's singing and a tone-deaf cat being stepped on?
I'm not putting the hammer to your mom while a tone-deaf cat being stepped on is on the stereo?

Bruce

Johnny Fontaine never gets that picture!

by **pinback** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:07 am

chris wrote:The original "Manchurian Candidate" was an excellent movie....it's one of my wife's favorites (and she's a movie buff). I don't think I've *ever* seen a remake that was better than the original.

John Carpenter's The Thing.
David Cronenberg's The Fly.

(Some might even say Steven Soderbergh's Solaris, though I'm not one of them.)

(Some have also said Martin Scorcese's Cape Fear, though I have never seen the original, and I didn't much care for the remake either.)

And don't say, "Well, The Thing and The Fly were both horror movies, so you just think that because the special effects were better." Because then I would have to crush you into pellets.

by **bruce** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:02 pm

pinback wrote:Here's a riddle: What's the difference between Frank Sinatra's singing and a tone-deaf cat being stepped on?

I'm not putting the hammer to your mom while a tone-deaf cat being stepped on is on the stereo?

Bruce

by **chris** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:36 pm

The original "Manchurian Candidate" was an excellent movie....it's one of my wife's favorites (and she's a movie buff). I don't think I've *ever* seen a remake that was better than the original.

by **Roody_Yogurt** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:23 pm

I think that's harsh. I think Frank's voice is more like a tone-deaf cat being stepped on... THAT LIKES IT OH YEAH!!!

by **pinback** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 6:21 pm

Here's a riddle: What's the difference between Frank Sinatra's singing and a tone-deaf cat being stepped on?

Oh, you don't know either?

by **bruce** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:53 pm

pinback wrote:And Frank acts about as well as he sings.

God will smite you for saying that about the Chairman's singing. And rightly so.

Bruce

by **pinback** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:37 pm

A movie, it turns out, which just might be able to be remade superior to the original. If the new one has a little tighter editing, a little less absurd screenplay, and WAY less Frank Sinatra, it might actually turn out to be decent.

Amazingly, the best thing about this movie is Angela Lansbury, who comes out with one of the most stirring monologues since Jack D. Ripper in Strangelove.

Anyway, for an "old" movie (well, 1962), fairly interesting and surprisingly violent. Just drags on way too long.

And Frank acts about as well as he sings.

Three stars.

[Review] The Manchurian Candidate

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: [Review] The Manchurian Candidate

Re: [Review] The Manchurian Candidate

[Review] The Manchurian Candidate