 | ON: Content is age-appropriate for kids this age. |
 | PAUSE: Know your child; some content may not be right for some kids. |
 | OFF: Not age-appropriate for kids this age. |
 | NOT FOR KIDS: Not appropriate for kids any age. |
The Manchurian Candidate (2004)
- Review Date: December 21, 2004
- R
- Genre: Drama
- 2004
Common Sense Media says
Sleek remake is best for older teens and up.
Parents say
QUALITY
Kids say
What parents need to know
Parents need to know that this movie is a thriller with intense and graphic violence, including many murders (gunshot, strangling, drowning) and injuries. Characters drink, smoke, and use drugs. There's some very strong language. A strength of the movie is its portrayal of strong, intelligent, loyal, and capable women and minorities.
What's the story?
As in the original 1962 film, THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE focuses on soldier Ben Marco (Denzel Washington), who is haunted by nightmares of serving in the Persian Gulf War. Marco knows the story of the incident that got him his medal. Everyone who was there uses the same words to tell the story and especially to describe Raymond Shaw (Liev Shreiber), who got the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery. Marco meets up with a member of the platoon who is badly damaged. Is it post-traumatic stress, or is it his brain fighting back from something it has been programmed to believe? Meanwhile, Shaw is struggling as well. Being a war hero helped him be elected to Congress and he's now a contender for the vice-presidential candidacy. His mother (Meryl Streep), a Senator, is pushing him very hard. He resents it, but cannot seem to resist. The Senator purrs, seduces, and finally brutalizes a group of politicos into abandoning their choice for the VP spot and taking Raymond instead. But Marco is increasingly troubled. Shaw is at first glad to see him again, then sympathetic, then skeptical. What Marco is suggesting seems absurd, impossible. But in his heart, Shaw knows that it might explain everything.
Is it any good?
This sleek and supple thriller features powerhouse performances but never quite persuades us that it has anything to add to the cold war classic starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury. Director Jonathan Demme ably creates a believably creepy atmosphere and there are some great visual effects, especially Shaw's hotel room, which includes an infinitely refractive illusion in a picture that hangs over the bed. Streep is mesmerizing.
But some of it gets overheated, especially a mad scientist who of course has an English accent and is scrupulously polite and a murder assignment that makes no sense as a matter of logistics. And the big reveal about the bad guys does not have the same punch of the original; it is not as successful at tapping into the fears of the moment.
What families can talk about
Families can talk about how this movie compares to the original and thow each film is a reflection of its times. Marco says, "I thought I knew who the enemy was." Who was the enemy? What does the choice of bad guy tell us? Is an "emotionally compromised past" a "terrible burden" from which someone must be freed?
- Show:
- All members
- Parents
- Teens & kids
AGE
Skip it.
Overall, this movie is awful. It doesn't know whether to be a movie about policial intrigue, soldiers returning from war, or medical sci fi, and it's unconvincing at all of them. The violoence is gratuitous. many actions are unexplained or unexplainable, suggested incestual desires are at least distracting if not repugnant. Not even Meryl and Denzel could make this one work.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Not that good...
There really isn't anything bad in this movie exept violence. There are graphic killings. It's been over a year since i've seen it but I remember these graphic prison killings (one man is tied to a chair and suffocated by another man and it is shown graphicly). Violence dosen't bother me much, but this movie is graphic.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Sloppy Remake, could be PG-13
I dont understand why this movie was so well recieved. They did not do a good job explaining the complex plot, resulting in an anticlimactic ending. The editing and camera work were bothersome, and both the acting and plot where dry despite the good cast. Some scenes were so lame I almost thought they were supposed to be funny. Content wise, I thought it could be PG-13. There is one very bizzare, unrealistic battle scene (later revealed as fake) with no blood. One scene has brainwashed man drown two close friends. Two killed by gunshot, very little blood on bodies. Two horrifying murders where a man is programed to strangle his friend (VERY disturbing, vomiting blood/bleeding from eyes) while his friends look on and do nothing. No sex, drugs, or drinking. A few s---s and one f--- (not that bad).
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Disturbing, not worth the money.
I am 18 years old and went to see this movie thinking it was a political thriller. I was very wrong. The movie tells the story of Marco, a soldier who fought in Kuwait. Since the war, he has been haunted by dreams of what really happened, and is apparently on medication. The movie throws in several "twists" which seemed to be there only to make the audience jump and disturb them. The director focused on the gruesome, even showing in detail a very grotesque strangling, which should've been hinted at, or even left out completely. The characters left something to be desired, since you spent the whole movie trying to figure out who was crazy and who the bad guys were. I left this movie feeling sick, and wish I'd never spent the money.
Was this review useful?
|
|
| Studio: | Paramount Pictures |
| Director: | Jonathan Demme |
| Cast: | Denzel Washington, Liev Schreiber, Meryl Streep |
| Genre: | Drama |
| Run time: | 130 minutes |
| Theatrical release date: | July 29, 2004 |
| DVD release date: | December 21, 2004 |
| MPAA rating: | R |
| MPAA explanation: | violence and some language |
Review It
Great alternatives handpicked by our editors
Already seen it? What do you think?
More from Common Sense Media
Top advice and articles
