Rating: 
Summary: A Vote For "The Manchurian Candidate"
Review: I have seen this John Frankenheimer movie three times in theaters and about three times on video. "The Manchurian Candidate" takes viewers back to a time when John Frankenheimer knew how to make great movies.Captain Bennett Marco(Frank Sinatra), Sergeant Raymond Shaw(Laurence Harvey), and the rest of their platoon return from the Korean War. Shaw receives a Congressional Medal Of Honor and Marco later discovers that the Soviets and Red Chinese have brainwashed Shaw into becoming an assassin. "The Manchurian Candidate" may be the greatest political paranoia thriller in the history of cinema. The film is a seamless blend of several different genres: Film Noir, Espionage, Political Paranoia, and Satire. Frankenheimer makes excellent use of a great cast. Sinatra gives one of the finest performance of his career. Harvey is excellent as the manipulated Shaw. Angela Lansbury proves herself to be one of the very most versatile and talented character actresses of cinema. Lansbury's Mrs. Iselin may be the greatest villainess in movie history. I'm astonished that this same actress would go on to play the gentle Jessica Fletcher of TV's "Murder, She Wrote." Sinatra and movie villain Henry Silva appear in one of the greatest fight scenes ever put on film. Silva is perhaps best known to movie audiences as a staple of countless forgettable B-movies and I'm amused that he once appeared in a film as distinguished as "The Manchurian Candidate." The film doesn't have one dull moment from start to finish. I definitely plan to see this movie again. "The Manchurian Candidate" is for all fans of John Frankenheimer, Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, and Angela Lansbury as well as anyone who loves political paranoia thrillers.
Rating:
Summary: "how about passing the time by playing a little solitaire?"
Review: John Frankenheimer's amazing screen version of Richard Condon's 1959 book "The Manchurian Candidate" works brilliantly on two levels at the same time: as a wildly bizarre political thriller and as a satire of the American political spectrum--taking potshots at both the left and the right (it's no accident that when the liberal senator is assassinated we see milk spouting out instead of blood). The cast is uniformly excellent (it is by far Sinatra's best film role--even in light of "Eternity" and "Golden Arm") but Angela Lansbury creates one of the great screen villianesses,(even more amazing considering the fact that she was only two years older than Laurence Harvey when the film was made and convingingly plays his MOTHER!). George Axelrod ("Seven Year Itch") wrote the wildly hip screenplay and Frankeheimer's depection of the brainwashing sequence remains today one of the great cinematic moments of all times. The film was not a major box office or critical success in 1962, owing to the fact that this was dangerous material at the height of the Cold War...it dissapeared from sight for 25 years (rumor has it that Sinatra had it pulled after JFK's assassination); finally seeing a re release in the late 1980's. DVD boasts remarkable sound and video quality..includes a great commentary by Frankenheimer and a 1988 interview with Sinatra, Frankenheimer and George Axelrod. A great film!
Rating:
Summary: Are you afraid of the queen of diamonds?
Review: The Manchurian candidate is political fiction at its most forceful on the screen. Laurence Harvey's performance is obsessive fascinating from beginning to end. Frank Sinatra is top-notch, but Angela Langsbury, as the fanatical communist mother, steals the show.
The Manchurian candidate plays fast and loose with the concept of the brainwashing, with weird angles of shooting as clever device to increase the "dramatis personae" . Many of these camera's positions reminds us several scenes of Citizen Kane (like Senator's murder view from the kitchen's floor). A fluid dolly and truck shots to achieve what is not spoken, let alone explained, as the Gls are put through their paces by an unctuous chinese military psychiatrist.
Jarringly powerful, this film is a cold war thriller that typifies the updating and transformations of the film noir. In fact, Manchurian is a contemporary nightmare perpetrated by extremely political thinking. The film uses a great many noir conventions. The atmosphere is corrupt and opressive and even grotesque. The most notable among these correlatives of evil would be Henry Silva as the predatory Chunjin and Angela Langsbury as the aging and ambitious mother. Frankenheimer directed this film with a delicate balance between the physical suspense and an apolinean intelectual puzzle. Eliptical direction and an undercurrent of violence is compounded by the character's overwhelming confussion. But there is still more.
The underlying homage to Hamlet about the troubled relations between Raymond Shaw and his step father and mother about deciding his future since the first moment he arrives from the war's front, is sealed with the kiss given by Langsbury to his "baby". So the short speech given by Bennet Marco (Frank Sinatra) is a smart device very often used at the theater.
This anti-war movie, populated by loosers and con men is replaced by the slick and the pretentious world of politics.
Just months after, Dr. Strangelove would crash the screen, and even if both films seems differ conceptually, undoubtly, have common roots.
The sixties would produce other renarkable films about related arguments.These were in crooked order ; Fail safe (Lumet) , Seven days of May (Frankenheimer again), There comes the russians (Jewison) and the hill (Lumet).
And if you order the puzzle with the Bridge over Kwai river (Lean) and then Paths of glory (Kubrick), you'll find once more the archetype cycle of epic, tragedy and comedy.
Happily, there was a film that stopped (at least by a brief time) all these bitter and dishearten views about the war and renewed the epic sense of the life like Patton was.
It's useless to state that Manchurian is the masterpiece in the notable career of this talented and visionary director.
The transfer process on DVD was perfect.
Rating:
Summary: All Star Psychological Political Thriller!
Review: So powerful a cinematic portrait of a potential political assassination is this superb film improbably featuring Frank Sinatra in his finest movie role that it was banned from further release following JFK's murder in Dallas after its original early 1960s big-screen release for several decades. Directed by the near-legendary John Frankenheimer, this riveting screenplay based on the novel written by Richard Condon (Winter Kills) focuses on the way in which propaganda and the manufacture of political views can influence one's perception and behavior in the most provocative of ways. Sinatra's portrait of an officer, Bennet Marco, a man obsessed by his experience as a prisoner of war during the Korean conflict, is truly a maginificent interpretation of a man teetering on the edge of madness, driven by both his nightmares and his conscience to attempt to unravel the mystery by working through the very effective brainwashing accomplished by the North Koreans over a platoon of men Sinatra's character commanded. Sinatra is more than ably supported by an all-star cast, including Lawrence Harvey as the title character, former Sergeant Raymond Shaw, scion from a wealthy American family who is now a North Korean sleeper, someone brainwashed into becoming a virtual ticking time bomb, set to go off when the sequence of precipitating code words are uttered to him. His suffocating cow of a mother is played extremely well by Angela Lansbury, whose husband (played by James Gregory) is an easily manipulated but McCarthy-like Senator looking to find a way to engineer his progression to the Oval Office. Through chance conversation with other former fellow POWs, Marco becomes suspicious of his memories, which seem contrived and somehow false, but he has great difficulty (and hallucinatory nightmares) as he agonizes ever closer to uncovering the horrific truth. The plot runs interestingly and unpredictably toward its surprise conclusion, and it is so well choreographed and photographed with Frankenheimer's usual brilliant flair for the visually stunning and surprising, that one is whirled along toward the conclusion with scarcely a moment to reflect on all the twists and turns Marco discovers along the way. This is a terrific thriller, one that has suspense, realistic characters, and the kind of riddle within an enigma plot that should both entertain and edify you all at the same time. Enjoy!
Rating: 
Summary: Psychotic Thriller
Review: The Manchurian Candidate is a psychotic thriller. The movie centers on the paronia of the cold war: Russian spies, American operatives, (175 or 100 or 57) card carrying communists, and assassination attempts. Sergeant Raymond Shaw believed he was programmed too become the ultimate Russian weapon ensuring a high ranking agent to gain political power. Raymond's programmed obedience could be triggered using the phrase, "how would like to pass the time by playing a game of solitare", in which a loaded desk of queens actived connections in his mind bringing out his true Hitler like nature; a nature that was willing to follow any suggestion given too him, even a ridiculous suggestion like, "jump in a lake", which he did. Why did he jump in the lake? Perhaps Raymond thought that would be refreshing and so followed the command. Raymond was selected as an agent because of his devious and dark nature. His mother was his American operative; his step father, the Senator conspiring too become the President through assassination conspiracy; his girlfriend, soon wife, the daughter of a powerful senator Thomas, who intended on blocking senator Islands nomination as Vice President; Raymond's servant, the Korean traitor who sold out the platoon in an ambush in Korean 1954; and Bennet Marco, the genius who figures out the conspiracy plot, confronts Raymond, exposes Raymond operation, and stops the programming. His mother secret efforts gave Raymond a medal of honour; she wanted power; she resented the fact the Communist selected her son as an agent; and she swore revenge once in power. Angela Lansbury played her part brilliantly, a blend of (McCarthism, Kennedy conspiracy, and Russian esponage)
Rating:
Summary: It still stands up.
Review: It may help if you're over 40 & lived through the 50's & 60's. But this is the great political potboilers of all time. Taken from a novel by Richard Condon, Frank Sinatrs wanted to turn it into a movie before he was even approached by the director, John Frankenheimer. "One Take" Sinatra is in his prime. This is his best performance. He had the choice of playing the psychologically damaged ,Major Bennett Marco , or, his sergeant during the Korean War, Raymond Shaw the thoughly "brain-washed & dry cleaned" protagonist. Sinatra choice to play Marco turned out to be a good one. Lawerence Harvey assumed an American accent & played Shaw to perfection.
Plenty of excellence in acting to go around. I've never seen Angela Lansbury better as the cruel, manipulative, amoral mother of Shaw, Mrs. Iselin. She is the wife of drunk, weak, easily led Senator John Iselin, played by James Gregory in a right on impersonation of you know who. Janet Leigh, John McGiver & Leslie Parrish all give fine supporting performances.
Somtimes you get an all-star cast with everyone at the top of their game. This movie is such a confluence.
The DVD also has a commentary version by Frankenheimer & an interview with Sinatra about the movie.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Introduction to Intrigue
Review: With the coming new release of this title featuring Denzel Washington, no one should preview the story that was released in the early 60s yet, dissappeared after the Kennedy Assassination. You are left wondering what is happening throughout the film. Frank Sinatra is utterly believable and the way the men reveal their incarceration and come to the knowledge of being brainwashed is very intense. Anyone interested in the Korean War, POW movies, intrigue and conspiracy movies will love this movie. Sadly this movie was disappeared for so long. Yet it is back and making a comeback.
Rating:
Summary: good, but dated
Review: (spoilers within) First of all, I can definitely see why the film was regarded as a classic political thriller in its day. And since the film was made *for* its day, it's not the fault of the film that it didn't age well (virtually no political films do). But I grew up in the '70s and '80s, not the '50s and '60s, and I have no personal experience with ducking and covering and red scares that are necessary to get the most out of this movie. The politics are simply of another time, and come off as both quaint and overly paranoid, given what we now know about what was actually going on in the era.
Other problems with the film: if a love interest was ever tacked-on in film, Sinatra's here takes the cake. There simply is no reason for any of these scenes to have taken place -- not only is there no chemistry at all, it is totally ancillary to the story and implausible to boot (she's dumping her betrothed -- for a profusely sweating man exhibiting signs of Parkinson's disease and dementia that she's spent an afternoon with?). Since the film runs a bit long, all of this should have been left on the cutting-room floor. Additionally, there are some rather large logical obstacles that the viewer must be able to accept to buy into the plot. Brainwashing can take place over the course of a couple of days and last a lifetime? This doesn't make much sense, but I can get past this. What I can't get past, though, is why such an incredibly effective method of hypnosis/brainwashing would be made to be triggered by the appearance of something as relatively common as the Queen of Diamonds playing card. I mean, what if the subject plays a lot of cards? If he's in Vegas and the Queen comes up, will he be suggestible to killing people? Just wondering. Also, it's rather idiotic to use the game of Solitaire as the method for this trigger to be sprung. There are quite a few cards that lay face down during a game of Solitaire that are never seen unless the player wins (which happens less than ten percent of the time). What if the subject is told to "pass the time while playing Solitaire" and the Queen never comes up? Why would the Soviet operatives come up with such an overpowering method of mind control but then have such a haphazard way of triggering it? I have no idea. And why are there always cards at hand, anyway? Did people always play cards in the '50s? Additionally, the relative infancy of things like hypnotism and "brain washing" during this time are brought to light by some rather ridiculous assumptions. If a playing card is a trigger mechanism, why would two of them (or, say, 52 of them) have extra power? It would make no sense at all for the Russians to have "programmed" this effect. And in the final scene, if the title character was fully in control of his actions (which he states to Sinatra's character), then why would he aim the rifle first at the speaker and then AT THE LAST MINUTE switch to his mother and stepfather? Obviously to heighten the dramatic tension for the audience. But this makes no sense practically, since, in the movie, nobody is watching the character perform these acts. Too much of this movie is simply unbelievable for it to be regarded as a classic. Maybe people in the 50s and 60s were just naive as moviegoers and were willing to take suspension of disbelief to the absurd levels necessary to buy into the plot of this film. Viewers accustomed to the superior editing of today's films, however, will not be able to take the Manchurian Candidate seriously. This is a must-see in terms of it being a period piece to and view from an academic distance, but it really doesn't work as a thriller anymore.
Rating:
Summary: Venona Documents Proved McCarthy Was Right
Review: We all hated McCarthy's methods but the FBI released documents showing that J. Edgar Hoover was using him as a front to scare American Communists out of their jobs and get word back to the U.S.S.R. that we knew how they were operating. They were planning a takeover. No one must imagine for a single moment that McCarthy was blindly choosing his victims of political oppression just to get his kicks. Nor must they imagine that the people he was selecting were anything BUT Communists, nor that their remaining members fomented our current liberal left. Every anti-war protest is organized on Marxist websites. Not that the current Conservative Right is any better (they're not), but at least no one can say that they lie with the enemy like the left can. This film has to have one of the best plots ever constructed, but I have a gripe with the film Itself. Has anyone noticed that this excellent film appears to be slightly edited? Read the Condon book then watch the rally at The Garden. It appears there was a "cover your behind" almost-assassination planned for the stupid, corrupt beneficiary of the villain's machinations. Here are a few lines removed from the "American Operator's" grand scheme scene. "You are to shoot the Presidential Nominee in the head...and "Idiot" in the right shoulder." The good, legitimate nominee would meet his maker and then a compound of fake blood encased in bullet proof material sewed in the shoulder of the Idiot's suit was to be shot. This part must've been cut and a shot of the assassin used a few moments earlier inserted to cover the break. At the Garden, we can see the American Operator mouthing: "Sit back and take it easy, (insert assassin's name here) never missed with a rifle in his life." Then: "One punch and it is all over". The Operator's dialogue at the Garden must have been muffled to render it inaudible. Turn up your volume when the Operator is whispering and you still can't make out what is being said. One can still see the Stupid Pawn of the Operator turning his head and clutching at his shoulder nervously all throughout the National Anthem, like he is worried the he might be shot. Other than protecting the integrity of the Texas Governor in the car with Kennedy at the time of the assassination (he's a good man from what I can gather) I can only see this needless removal as something that may have been requested by some special interest group because it really is silly to censor this minor bit of plot point. It would appear to be considered highly sensitive even today that the American Public is deemed not suitable to contemplate it. After all, some group may have been so ticked off by this bit as to assist with the Kennedy assassination. U.S. Officials, Mafia, Military, a huge conspiracy all over the place and as numerous as 1 out of every 2. That is some serious stuff! This movie was not shown for 25 years because of the damage it could do to the American Public's psyche. I can see the seriousness because all that this plot point is stating is that in the original scheme the worthwhile, legitimate politician is to have his head removed, and a fake, evil politician, a pawn and prop for a power hungry villain, gets a fake crucifixion to make him palatable to the masses. Maybe it was the sex...I don't know. The fact that he survives at all makes him a miracle, an icon for the world to revere. His near-death alongside the legitimate death somehow ennobles his mediocrity to a sceptical America. Hmmmn, sounds familiar. The fact that it is power that the Villain is after, and not creating a Soviet America, subtly lets the left (in the film the right) know that even if they have set up such a scheme and infiltrated the right, there is no guarrantee that the Villain will hand over the rains (reign) when the quiet-coup is completed. I am proud to see that this film is popular in Madison Wisconsin. I was talking to a student there at MSU way back in 1993 about the film "JFK" which we had both enjoyed. I remembered telling him that he would love this film and that it would give him some insight into the atmosphere of the 60's. I hope I had no small part in getting the word of mouth out.
Rating: 
Summary: Ready for a remake, Mr. Demme?
Review: Living in Washington, D.C. has, of course, made me much more aware of politics, although there's something about getting older that has something to do with it as well. Browsing the video store racks the other day brought up this classic, which neither of us had seen, although I had tried to catch it at the AFI Silver Theater last year. Labeled as film-noir, The Manchurian Candidate is actually a bit of science-fiction, albeit of the psychological/sociological 1970s type rather than the 1950s/1980s big idea type or the 1980s/1990s we're all living in the grimy future type. Laurence Havey plays Raymond Shaw, a stuck-up sticky-beat of a 'Nam Sergeant, whose company dislikes him, even his second in command, Bennett Marco (Frank Sinatra). But when Shaw brings in most of his company from deep behind enemy lines, Marco puts Shaw up for the Congressional Medal of Honor. His homecoming is greeted with fanfare, as much choreographed by his mother for her own purposes of keeping Shaw's stepfather in the limelight as he's up for re-election to the Senate next year. But something's wrong, because Marco's having nightmares about that time spent behind enemy lines, and it may have something to do with Shaw. To write anything more about the plot is to give some of the mystery away, and while it's not that hard to figure out by modern audiences, now blaise from the trickery of more recent films like L.A. Confidential, The Usual Suspects, and Memento, it works toward a solid conclusion with some nice twists along the way. There's a bit of a red herring involved in a sudden and strange romance for the main character, but the writer remains honest with the audience for the most part. Everyone sweats a lot here: Sinatra actually can act, and Angela Lansbury gives one of the best performances as the grasping mother that puts Joan Crawford to shame. I see from the Internet Movie Database that Jonathan Demme is remaking this movie, with Denzel Washington in the Sinatra role and Meryl Streep as Shaw's mother. I hope it's not a straight remake and that the new film plays upon the deeper cynicism that we have today. This 1962 version made a strong statement about McCarthyism; perhaps a 2004 remake could point out some of the similar neoconservative, "Patriot Act," flaws?
| 
