I saw the original film when it first came out in 1962, and remember wondering over the years where it had disappeared to. Turns out it was pulled from circulation after the Kennedy assassination, and only gradually made its way back over a period of several decades. You can see it occasionally on cable channels now, if you happen to be looking at just the right time.

I had my doubts as to whether a remake would be comparable to the original, or would be a total bust. In some ways, I think my doubts were justified — but in some ways, not.

A reprise of the plot: Major Ben Marco, who served a decade earlier in a rather brutal little war in which his “lost platoon” wandered for three days behind enemy lines and was finally rescued by Sergeant Raymond Shaw, is having bad dreams about the period in which the group was lost. Turns out other members of the group have been having bad dreams, too; but they are all dying of various diseases, accidents, you name it. Marco becomes convinced that the group, including Shaw, was brainwashed. Shaw has now attained a rather illustrious position in society (political columnist in the original film, member of the House of Representatives in the new version), and there is a presidential election coming up. Marco is sure that Shaw has been primed to commit some horrendous crime — but what? And how to stop it?

In my humble opinion, Ben Marco in the new movie is a step up from the character in the old movie. Frank Sinatra’s Ben Marco had his head on pretty tightly, which, under the circumstances, was more than surprising. Denzel Washington’s Ben Marco is a much less centered character, which, under the circumstances, is hardly surprising. Blame the writers of the original (or credit the writers of the new version) for the difference. Janet Leigh’s Rosie was also a much less important character in the original, simply there as romantic interest for Ben, a typical woman of the Pleasantville era; Kimberly Elise’s Rosie has a much more active and critical role. As far as Laurence Harvey’s Raymond Shaw and that of Liev Schreiber, they were equally good, for me; ditto for Angela Lansbury’s Eleanor Shaw/Iselin and Meryl Streep’s Eleanor Shaw. Apparently it was decided that nobody could replace James Gregory’s Johnny Iselin, and so they didn’t try.

Which leads us, I think, to the basic difference (“flaw”, I think) in the film. Eleanor has replaced Johnny in the Senate, which need not have made a difference, but now what foil will she use to get a foothold in the White House? Since there is no Johnny to become the veep candidate, obviously she will have to use her son for this. Which, since in the original movie Raymond was the shooter whose job it was to take out the presidential candidate and send the veep candidate into the presidential slot in a blast of national reaction, you can imagine that this creates a very big change in the plot line (how can Raymond assassinate somebody he’s standing next to on stage?). There is, of course, a solution …

In the original movie, Shaw and Marco and a dozen other guys were brainwashed over a three-day period during the Korean War by Communist Soviet and Chinese superpsychologists. The Soviets having disappeared and the Chinese, in the meantime, having become, if not good guys, at least tolerable ones, some other collection of baddies had to be used, and the toss-up today seems to be between Moslem fanatics and evil oligarchs, depending on which side of the political fence you’re on. Apparently the producers decided on evil oligarchs, and the three-day brainwashing, which occurred during the original Gulf War, was sponsored and financed by a huge international consortium named “Manchurian Global”. This, of course, leads to some questions about the viability of the plot (“Why would these guys be so anxious to put their man in the White House when they already own it in fee simple?”). Overall, I would say that this part of the plot doesn’t make nearly as much sense as the original.

As far as politics is concerned, I have heard it suggested that Eleanor Shaw is modelled on Hillary Clinton. Nope. Eleanor Shaw is modelled on Eleanor Shaw/Iselin of the original plot, who was created by Richard Condon back when Hillary Clinton was in grade school. The film goes out of its way to avoid displaying any overt preferences in modern politics; e.g., a member of the House of Representatives in the film, good guy or bad guy, may be indicated in a CNN subtitle as coming from (VA) rather than being an (R-VA) or a (D-VA). On the other hand, the plot certainly belongs to the non-right or even anti-right, and at least a few people took note of this before the film was released (don’t miss e.g. the cameo by Al Franken as a TV commentator doing an interview).

I also have some doubts about the denouement. Denzel Washington’s Ben ends up in pretty much the same situation that Frank Sinatra’s did, which, all things considered, doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. And I very much missed Ben Marco’s final comment about Raymond Shaw’s Medal of Honor; the replacement scene struck me as being very weak.

If I were given the choice of seeing the original film or this remake, I’d probably watch the original. But this is good enough that, in the absence of the original film, I don’t begrudge the two hours I spent watching it.