Short Review: A collection of multi-millionaires release a movie during a political election about multi-billionaires effecting a political election.


Well, they made this one a little too early...and got the casting a little mixed up.

This is an completely underwhelming rehash of the original The Manchurian Candidate from 1962 (the good one directed by John Frankenheimer). This time around a bunch of Hollywood leftists cobble together a version of the story that is so ludicrous that it makes the original seem logical and calm. This time around the hypnotized men are Gulf War vets and instead of sneaking Eastern Commies undermining America the grand villain of this conspiracy to take over the White House is the...wait for it...Manchurian Global corporation! That's right, capitalists! Evil, stinking, capitalists.

Yawn.

Yeah, it's the evil capitalists. I think we can look at our government and agree that if evil, stinking capitalists really want to take over the higher echelon of our political system they'll just do what they've already done - simply buy the major players off. Who needs a wild conspiracy when you have Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?

No, this movie isn't that tied to reality.

We have Meryl Streep trying her best not to seem to Hillary-esque. They re-cut the film to make Meryl Streep’s Elaneor Shaw seem less like Hillary Clinton. Streep claimed she had actually based her character on evil right-wing witches Peggy Noonan and Karen Hughes. Playing a woman who is a cynical, fork-tongued political beast and not trying to look like Clinton is like portraying a thick-accented, gap-toothed, Austrian weightlifter and not trying to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

To be fair this is a well constructed movie and director Jonathan Demme does a capable job. He plays all of his cards safely and predictably. Given that he is remaking a classic he probably didn’t want to mess with the core structure too much. The problem with the movie is the lack of a real point. Why was this made? There's nothing shocking here, nothing new. There's no reason to have made the movie other than as a cultural propaganda trinket that passes in and out of the airs just before the election of 2004. I’ve seen plenty of reviews that credit the film with not choosing political sides. The film refuses to state the political affiliations of the candidates. If you’ve read my stuff you already know I’m not that forgiving. Some context should be brought to the forefront. This was released during a political season. It makes the film an intention political message – there’s no way to get around it. This is an unneeded remake of a classic film. Why make the film unless you’re trying to say something to the American people?

This was one of the first volleys out of Hollywood during a political year and in my opinion this was not meant to be a down-the-middle film. The opening is set in Iraq during Desert Storm. The connection to the Iraq War is obvious. If you watch the film again, notice how the American flag is in constantly in the background. This may seem okay, but the film is about political manipulation. I took this to be a not so hidden kick at the "flag-wavers" the left has condemned since 9/11. The loose references to political messages from Bush (and Kerry to be honest) pull on the election that was brewing at the time. They tossed in enough counterweights into the dialog to keep this from being overbearing in its tilt to the left. I give them credit for that. For the most part, it is hard to place the characters in a particular party. But it is hard to ignore the established bias of Hollywood when watching a film like this. That is the elephant in the room the whole time. Perhaps it is the little right-wing devil on my shoulder whispering in my ear, but I kept looking for the liberal boogey man the whole time.

I didn’t find that boogey-man, but I did see a troll. What was Al Franken doing in the film? This is a political piece and they invite Al Franken on to the set? This is literally like having Rush Limbaugh in a film. It makes a statement of position. Of all of the political hacks, why that guy? Bad decision as far as I'm concerned.

Overall, this is an unnecessary film make to sooth the political musings of a bunch of wealthy elites. Other than for studying Hollywood reactions during political seasons, this movie offers no reason to see it.

Now, if you remake this and change some things...say have the puppet politician be a well fashioned orator without any real accomplishment being quietly promoted by international Marxists and throw in a little hopey/changey/neo Mao vibes, give him his own symbol, have people worship him to the point of literally calling him the messiah and oh, I don't know have children singing his praises while he talks about starting compulsory childhood service to the state while shutting down free speech...yeah, then you have something the American people could really get their teeth into.


Related Reviews:
Political films
In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed (2004)
V for Vendetta (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel Film Reviews
Roger Ebert

Labels: Denzil Washington, film, Meryl Streep, movie review, politics