The Manchurian Candidate

Name: The Manchurian Candidate
Genre: Drama, Mystery, Thriller
Released: October 24, 1962
Duration: 126 min
Rating: 94
Cast: Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey

1962

METASCORE

Universal acclaim based on 20 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Universal acclaim based on 105 Ratings

See All

8.2

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8.2	Your Score
8.2	User Score Universal acclaim based on 105 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

The Manchurian Candidate

Now Playing: The Manchurian Candidate

Movie Details & Credits

United Artists | Release Date: October 24, 1962 | Approved

Starring: Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey

Summary: John Frankenheimer's gripping political thriller about a group of American soldiers who are captured and brainwashed into becoming sleeper agents. (MGM)

Director: John Frankenheimer

Genre(s): Drama, Mystery, Thriller

Rating: Approved

Runtime: 126 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

Pauline Kael

It may be the most sophisticated political satire ever made in Hollywood. (As quoted by Roger Ebert)

100

Jay Scott

This is an oddball classic that leaves you weak with pleasure. [11 Mar 1988]

100

Sheila Benson

The Manchurian Candidate proves that its fascination is intact. [12 Jan 1998, p.C1; Re-Release]

100

Desson Thomson

Manchurian, with its fatalistic, dreamlike quality, comprises two of [Frankenheimer's] finest hours. [Re-release] Read full review

Hal Hinson

An exceedingly loopy satire of the entire American political circus, and could be viewed as offensive to the sensitive-souled in either camp. And time hasn't in the least softened its bite. [Re-release] Read full review

Richard Corliss

The performances are daring and assured, especially Lansbury's holy terror of Momism and Harvey's snide, pathetic pawn, brainwashed by both KGB AND CIA. [21 March 1988, p.84]

Bosley Crowther

The film is so artfully contrived, the plot so interestingly started, the dialogue so racy and sharp, and John Frankenheimer's direction so exciting in the style of Orson Welles when he was making Citizen Kane and other pictures that the fascination of it is strong. So many fine cinematic touches and action details pop up that one keeps wishing the subject would develop into something more than it does. Read full review

SEE ALL 20 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

Frostbite

Oct 13, 2010

Not many movies focus on the topic of brainwashing, and that's what makes The Manchurian Candidate such an amazing and unique film. The movie follows a military veteran as he tries to figure out why he doesn't remember his friend performing an amazing act of heroism that saved two soldiersNot many movies focus on the topic of brainwashing, and that's what makes The Manchurian Candidate such an amazing and unique film. The movie follows a military veteran as he tries to figure out why he doesn't remember his friend performing an amazing act of heroism that saved two soldiers and awarded him the medal of honor. Another man in their squad talks of strange dreams, and soon after that the movie is launched into a story of politics, intrigue, and of course, brainwashing. The story leads to a great ending that wraps up everything nicely.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

PatC.

Apr 6, 2006

One of the Essentials. Both a well constructed film and an insightful articulation of the fears, suspicions and intrigue of the cold war era. Seems a litle over the top today, but hey, we still don't really know what really happened when Kennedy was shot. And that happened after this One of the Essentials. Both a well constructed film and an insightful articulation of the fears, suspicions and intrigue of the cold war era. Seems a litle over the top today, but hey, we still don't really know what really happened when Kennedy was shot. And that happened after this movie was made.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

ThomasW.

Jan 28, 2007

Excellent! Spell binding!!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

Mglovesfun

Mar 31, 2020

Could've been a 10 if I'd been reviewing in 1962. The acting gets a bit hammy, and the violence is unrealistic (people shot to death with no blood). However, it is a masterpiece and a watchable one at that. Genuine depth, genuine mystery, genuine plot.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

lasttimeisaw

May 27, 2015

Speaking of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, contemporary audience may still recall the 2004 remake headlined by Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep, directed by Jonathan Demme (a 6/10), which is a proficient political thriller and grafts the timeline from Korean War to Gulf War. Now it is time toSpeaking of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, contemporary audience may still recall the 2004 remake headlined by Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep, directed by Jonathan Demme (a 6/10), which is a proficient political thriller and grafts the timeline from Korean War to Gulf War. Now it is time to revisit the original version directed by John Frankenheimer, the only film I have watched among his prolific filmography before this one actually is his final big screen feature, the romance-thriller mixed-bag REINDEER GAMES (2000, 5/10), Frankenheimer passed away in 2002, and this 1962 black-and-white stunner is no doubt above a few notches over its comparatively problematic remake, substantially due to the Harvey-Lansbury pair’s Oscar-worthy performances.

keep reading my review on my blog, google: cinema omnivore, thanks!… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

Compi24

Jul 5, 2020

And now, I'm presented with the extremely rare displeasure of having to trend into the land of unfortunate movie opinions. I think I like Jonathan Demme's 2004 remake just a tad more than this. Now, granted, I don't think this is a poor film in any sort of regard. In fact, there's a lot toAnd now, I'm presented with the extremely rare displeasure of having to trend into the land of unfortunate movie opinions. I think I like Jonathan Demme's 2004 remake just a tad more than this. Now, granted, I don't think this is a poor film in any sort of regard. In fact, there's a lot to commend here. John Frankenheimer's direction plays well enough within the classic Hollywood style of filmmaking, but — make no mistake — there are so many shots, stagings and choices made in the presentation of this narrative that broach into the beginnings of what you could call "New Hollywood." It's really neat to watch this unfold. What isn't necessarily neat is the film's slavish attempts at adapting Richard Condon's 1959 novel of the same name. I haven't even read the book, but there's just so much in here that screams "novel," it almost hurts. Numerous flashbacks, characters and scenes plague this story from being as aerodynamic as it should be. I think this is where I diverge towards preferring the 2004 film, which not only struck a real structural balance in my eyes, but knew when to swap, shift or remove certain elements from the novel, in order to accentuate the thematic material between the ribs of the narrative. Also, any sort of potentially racist subject matter is done away with in that film as well. So that's also a plus, I suppose. Still, from a purely historical standpoint, this is most certainly worth the watch.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Broyax

Jan 6, 2017

Cette histoire de lavage de cervelle juste après la guerre de Corée de bons et fidèles soldats américains par l'Institut Pavlov (sic !) est indéniablement créative et il y a là matière à quelqu'intrigue digne d'intérêt ma foi. Même le couineur Sinatra s'en sort avec les honneurs (du momentCette histoire de lavage de cervelle juste après la guerre de Corée de bons et fidèles soldats américains par l'Institut Pavlov (sic !) est indéniablement créative et il y a là matière à quelqu'intrigue digne d'intérêt ma foi. Même le couineur Sinatra s'en sort avec les honneurs (du moment qu'il ne chante pas, tout va bien) en dépit du fait que le vrai rôle est attribué à cet acteur inconnu au bataillon mais fort convaincant.

Hélas, le film ne se départit pas de son côté vieillot, peu clair et très poussif comme un vieux tacot bringuebalant qui refuse obstinément d'avancer (à moins qu'il ne s'agisse d'un âne), singeant ainsi à l'insu de son plein gré les pires épisodes-somnifères de la série "Mission Impossible". Dans ce Crime à dormir debout comme dans son remake tout aussi abrutissant réalisé dans les années 2000, force est de constater que le développement et la mise en oeuvre d'un tel sujet semblent décidément maudits et voués aux gémonies.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

SEE ALL 12 REVIEWS