Well (waves goodbye to film cred once again), I've never seen Charade. So I liked The Truth About Charlie, but since I wasn't mentally comparing it with the original, the answer to your question is Not Applicable.

The title of the remade Candidate refers to Manchurian Global, a bigass eeeeeeevil multinational corporation.

(Not much of a spoiler -- it's mentioned within the first five or ten minutes of the film.)

[eta: Robin, yes. Hell yes, in fact.]

Robin, I love that you asked what I was going to ask.

I didn't see the original Manchurian Candidate, but I am stoked for my boyfried Liev. I love you Liev.

::comforts James Franco::

Yay for the creepy incest vibe!

What?

Lawrence Harvey killed me in the original, especially in the scene where he had to kill the senator and the daughter/his fiancée. Liev Schreiber is a hella interesting choice for Shaw though. I'm glad the remake doesn't suck.

The movie that never fails to scare the living daylights out of me: Carnival of Souls. Even to this day, I have trouble looking out at windows at night, afraid I'll see that ghastly white face. Plus, organ music = cree. pee.

::comforts James Franco::

Dude. Hurt/comfort is my gig.

Back off.

Interesting that the discussion should run to scary movies -- I saw Psycho over the weekend.

The shower scene didn't get me. Probably because it's so well-known and so iconic that I was ready for it. But I imagine that it would give quite a jolt to anyone unspoiled (if such person exists anymore), not least because it's a screaming 90 degree turn from what happened before.

But Anthony Perkins in the last scene -- that's spooky!

I just saw the new Manchurian Candidate, and it didn't suck at all.

So, an endorsement, or an anti-unendorsement?

I have to admit my first reaction on hearing it was being remade was -- oh, dude, don't you dare. Because the original works so well, even its mistakes. (The blurriness in the psychological denouement between Sinatra and Harvey is because Sinatra always acted best in his first take, and the first take came out blurry, and he just couldn't do it as well again. But the blurriness works so well!)

I was so amazed the first time I saw the movie -- its dynamic camera work; the visual jokes; its enthusiasm for its own existing. The hydrangeas scene made me laugh and laugh, it was so excitingly oddball.

I came to the end and was completely surprised, in that way that you walk away and say, "I can't believe I didn't foresee that!"

That last is why remakes are so hard to get right, I think -- it's very hard for them to break new ground.

Horror: I don't tend to watch horror movies. I dislike being scared, so my mind automatically takes me out of the experience when the tension ramps up too much. I start looking at camera work, thinking about how things are lighted or how the soundtrack is supporting the moment. For example, I caught part of The Exorcist on tv the other day and the more the little girl looked demonic the more I started analysing how much of the effect was from makeup and how much was from the lighting.

Comics: I used to collect comics. At one point I had a hold bag at the local comic shop and picked up 8 or 10 titles a month. (Not a hard core collector, but steady.) Comics collecting was sacrificed on the altar of solvency. When I finish paying off my credit cards I will probably get back into comics again. Strangers in Paradise may sneak into my budget earlier than that. (Lovely artwork and an interesting storyline.)