Maybe it's just that I've seen the original, so this one was very predictable, but I was NOT impressed. Denzel, as usual, is fantastic, but the rest of the performances were not that great (especially Shriever). The pacing was bad, many plot points were underscored and the ending predictable.

It's gotten tremendous reviews, but I think many might be from those unfamiliar with the original, which IMHO is much better.

Boy oh boy, do I disagree with that statement.

What Denzel has done recently in film used to be called "repeating himself" back in the old days.

MANCHURIAN was actually a wonderful change of pace for the actor.

I wasn't a fan.

I thought the original had some good points, but was overall flawed. It's one of those movies that I didn't mind seeing remade. But then I saw the remake. I don't know. It also has some good points, but it too is flawed.

There are fewer scenes that drag in the remake compared to the original. But all the scenes revolving around the [spoiler]'brainwashing'[/b] were far less effective in the new version. IMO. The politics angle is played better in the 2004 version. I did like the change in who the actual candidate was, but in turn I think this change hurt the finale, and that . The remake also took all the bite out of the scene where .

I agree with everything you said except for this statement. It is the other way around.

I enjoyed it, but did I enjoy it enough to buy?? Hmm... maybe not.

Everyone did a good job I thought.

I agree. Liv Schreiber was great, Denzel was playing the same guy Denzel always plays. A lackluster, and totally unnecessary, remake.

A big NO from me.

I thought it was excellent, I enjoyed it more than the original adaptation of the book, and I'll be buying the DVD.

What's with the Denzel hate? The man is a fantastic actor and versatile, so what's the problem?

I thought it played by the numbers and sucked as a movie. The acting performances were ok, but not enough to save it for me.

No hate, just mild frustration at praise that often isn't warrented.

You say, "versatile." That IS the problem. I disagree with that classification of Washington's talents.

The GLORY to HE GOT GAME years, sure. But in the last five years, all the roles, characters, nuances have been the same. A good, powerful actor, yes. But hardly versatile.

Here's what he's done in the last 5 years:

Manchurian Candidate, The (2004)
Man on Fire (2004)
Out of Time (2003/I)
Antwone Fisher (2002)
John Q (2002)
Training Day (2001)
Remember the Titans (2000)
Hurricane, The (1999)
Bone Collector, The (1999)

I'll grant that in half of them, he plays some sort of police/military/enforcement figure, but I really don't see how these characters have all been the same.

My problem with the remake is that it lacked the cold war era paranoia.

Changing the villain from communism to a corporation simply doesn't work because corporations (especially Halliburton) already own the government and they did it with special interest groups, campaign contributions and openly running their own people for office.

I was only disappointed by the reviews, most of which were touting it as great and a worthy remake. (It was 85% at rottentomatoes on the day it opened with a lot of reviews in at the time.)

I saw it and found it a solid movie, but worthy of a B- at the most generous.