SILENCE of the Lambs director Jonathan Demme has now joined the ranks of the remakers.
These are the film-makers who attempt to reassess and represent material which was made into a movie in the past - and get hammered for doing so in the process.
But for Demme, we're not talking an Alfie or Planet of the Apes-type of disaster, as his rethinking of 1962's The Manchurian Candidate is an often-preposterous but tightly-gripping thriller.
The former gave us Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey and Angela Lansbury, so I'd tender the opinion that the 2004 cast is of somewhat superior ability, headed up by Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep, and with stalwart support from the likes of Jon Voight, Dean Stockwell and Liev Schreiber, from the Scream trilogy, as the titular candidate.
Where once the focus was on the Korean War, this version brings us up to date with the Gulf War in 1991, with Operation Desert Storm.
We first meet a group of US military troops in the back of a truck who are about to be sent on patrol.
When said patrol is ambushed, leaving two soldiers dead, the rest are apparently rescued by fellow soldier Raymond Shaw (Schreiber).
Switch to the present day, where Shaw is about to be installed as a candidate for vice-president, based on the fact that he received a congressional medal of honour for his behaviour on the battlefield.
A slick choice who spouts jargon along the lines of "better tomorrows, today", he's reinforced by the steely support of his domineering senator mother Eleanor (Streep).
But Major Bennett Marco (Washington), leader of the besieged patrol and the soldier in charge of Shaw at the time, isn't so sure that his memory of the events is accurate.
Haunted by dreams in which he constantly re-imagines the same vivid scenario, he's suitably concerned to start an investigation into what happened, something which escalates wildly after he discovers a microchip implanted in his shoulder.
Now, be warned - my assumption that this would be some straight-laced type of political film went out the window the moment that the key plot revelations were made.
But after the "eh?" moments have subsided, it's a film which can offer much to think about - especially in the light of Dubya's re-election.
Pointing the finger at corporate power, globalisation and the climate of greed in the US, which has tied any president's hands to big business (see Fahrenheit 9/11), it seeks to question the extent of this corrupt activity, asking how far would they go?
Perhaps it's all too far here, and the conspiracy theory is a little overcooked, but a finely-tuned element of tension creates a situation where you'll think it's crazy on the one hand, but, on the other, you'll be dying to know how it turns out.
And the performances, bar none, are excellent.
After all, how far are we really from a "privately-owned and operated vice-president and president of the United States"?
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article