The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Lack of good storyline.

Brilliant and touching

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Probably, this period piece was quite good for its times, when it was released. Now, it seems a funny overblown, too long in its running time, too boring, too cardboard cutout, too clichéd and too baloney. Frank Sinatra? No, he is not good here, he, like almost all the other characters, overplays hugely and thus creates a comical effects, which borders both on being utterly silly and hilarious. This is a mere propaganda film, made in the heat of Joe McCarthy's frenzy and it suffers from this fetid stigma. Moreover, its possible plausible merits are washed away by protruding slow pacing and awful, almost unreal dialogues that land in the realm of pure parody. IN the 50 and 60's there are far better films than this, and the recent awfully dismal remake shows that. When the basic material is poor the end result will limp along as well.

One of the big surprises about "The Manchurian Candidate" is Angela Lansbury in a villainous role. Between "Murder, She Wrote" and her work for Disney, you can't help but entertain a kindly image of the actor.The other surprise is how potent this still is, even at the 55 year mark. Maybe that's because I lobe '70s movies of the genre, but even still, this is a highly effective political thriller. And that's due in large part to Frankenheimer's skilled direction and a script full of inventive deceit. It even has plenty of time to skewer McCarthyism. Almost everything seen here has been done since, but you're still left unprepared for that one last plot twist. Well-executed, to say the least.The cast is star-studded, the story's engrossing and there's almost a playful sense of humor to it.Great movie.8/10

There are works of fiction whose very name can conjure up images and meaning for people who have never even experienced them. The Manchurian Candidate, the 1962 film based on Richard Condon's 1959 novel, is one such example. The film's title has entered into the public consciousness, a term for brainwashing and seemingly incomprehensible betrayal in common use. Yet how many of those who use the term have seen the film and experienced what is likely to be one of the best thrillers of its era or any other?Part of what makes the film so successful is, perhaps paradoxically, the fact its based on a novel. Having read Condon's original novel a couple of years ago and then coming back to the film a couple of times subsequently, it is amazing to see how much of it makes its way into the film. It's not just brushstrokes that make their way in but entire scenes with large portions of dialogue presented with little edits made to them (the much discussed first scene between Marco and Rosie is a prime example). Even some of the costuming choices are drawn straight from Condon's novel. Scriptwriter George Axelrod is able to take the dark comedy of Condon's novel and put it into what is essentially a thriller that satirizes the McCarthyism of the previous decade and makes it all work together. Not everything makes it into the film of course but much of what makes the film memorable (the plot and dialogue especially) is owed to its source material and the wise decision of Axelrod in keeping as much of it as possible.Axelrod's script is only part of what makes The Manchurian Candidate the film that it is. Part of it is, of course, the cast. Frank Sinatra was a solid choice for the role of Major Marco who finds himself first facing a potential phantom from his past before realizing that he, and the country he serves, is facing a much larger threat. Laurence Harvey was likewise a good choice for the always odd and never quiet normal Raymond Shaw whom is at the center of the film's plot. Though given a top credit, Janet Leigh's Eugenie Rose Chaney actually doesn't have much to do in the film except perhaps be a romantic foil for Sinatra and a bit of a red herring but Leigh shines in what scenes she does have thanks to her chemistry with Sinatra. The supporting cast is solid as well from James Gregory as the bombastic McCarthy like Senator Iselin to John McGiver as his rival Senator Jordan with Henry Silva, Khigh Dheigh, and Albert Paulsen in roles of varying villainy. There is one other name that needs to be mentioned though.Because, perhaps oddly, the real star of the film is credited fourth in the film's title sequence. Angela Lansbury's performance as Raymond's mother has become something legendary and not without good reason. Despite being not much older than Harvey was when the film was made and made to look the part thanks to what must have been some excellent make-up, Lansbury was perfect casting for the role. For those who only know her from Murder, She Wrote will be in for a shock as they see the same often quiet determination give in to bouts of conniving manipulation across much of the film's running time. Mrs. Iselin is the power behind the throne, quietly moving pieces around while those around her (namely her senator husband and son Raymond) take the credit. Yet few things will prepare the unsuspecting viewer for the revelations that pile up towards the end of the film including a scene that is every bit as recoiling now as it must have been in 1962. It is no surprise that she was nominated for an Oscar for her performance as it still stands as one of cinema's greatest villains.Last but definitely not least, are those behind the camera. The stark black and white cinematography of Lionel Lindon serves the film well with its neo-noir feel that uses shadows and interesting angles to suggest how 'off' things often are. That is especially true when combined with the editing of Ferris Webster and when the two are combined during the film's lecture scenes or with the climactic sequence at the convention, the results are truly stunning. Director John Frankenheimer brought together a fine team to help him bring Condon's novel to the screen and his work on the film stands as among the best of his long career and there is little doubt that it stands up so well as a result of his work.All of this combines to make The Manchurian Candidate both an excellent thriller and a fine film. From Axelrod's adaptation of Condon's idiosyncratic novel right down to its dialogue, the performances of the entire cast, and the direction of Frankenheimer, the film is a masterclass on how to adapt a novel to the screen faithfully and yet tell a tense and utterly enthralling story at the same time. It's no wonder that it has become not just a touchstone for films but in the culture at large for it is simply a well made and enjoyable piece of work ever after fifty-five years.

Warning, this review contains spoilers, and if you've never seen the film before, you should definitely watch it without knowing anything first, for maximum enjoyment. :) With that out of the way … fantastic performances by both Angela Lansbury and Frank Sinatra, great direction by John Frankenheimer, and an excellent plot all make this a film that is still highly enjoyable today. In a nutshell, American soldiers in the Korean War are captured and subjected to sophisticated brainwashing by Russian and Chinese communists, and one of them is programmed to carry out assassinations back in America. Frank Sinatra plays one of the soldiers who has recurring nightmares about the brainwashing, and the sequence where Frankenheimer shows them thinking they're at a meeting at a lady's club talking about flowers, which seems very odd at first, and spins the camera around to gradually show us the horrifying reality of their predicament, and just how controlled they are, is absolutely fantastic. We come to understand the assassin's trigger, the queen of diamonds when told to play solitaire, which is a wonderfully chilling concept, and I loved how the story included a false trigger at a costume party. Angela Lansbury's character evolves over the film, from over-bearing mother and wife, the brains behind her Senator husband's McCarthyism, to the mastermind behind the whole conspiracy - and how this is revealed is as great as her performance. The movie keeps us guessing, perhaps as those swept up in fear of communism guessed at what may be happening around them in their paranoia, and an example of this is Janet Leigh's offbeat dialog with Sinatra when she first meets him on a train. It immediately seems to us as code and a way of controlling him in some way, but it's also flirtatious, and we're left wondering what her role will be.Brilliant as it is, from my perspective, the movie has one major flaw. Frankenheimer was happy to show the dangers of McCarthyism and even commented on this in interviews, and yet there WAS a communist plot to overthrow the government, and there WAS unsuspected (and very dangerous) communist infiltration. So at the end of the day, what was the message – that McCarthy was right? I don't think it's right to explain this away as satire of both the right and the left, because I don't see the movie as satire, I see it as a political thriller – but it is a very good one at that.