User Reviews

This was strange. I had no idea what this film was about as it was a free loan and I just put in the machine, not even reading the back of the box. Well, obviously it didn't take long to figure out this was a re-make of the famous 1963 film "Charade."

It's not really bad on it's own but if you've watched and admired Charade a half dozen times as I have, this film isn't even close measuring up. Mark Wahlberg is no Cary Grant; Thandie Newton is no Audry Hepburn and Tim Robbins in no Walter Matthau.

Why settle for second-rate after having first-rate? I mean, why even bother? It's not like you are updating some old black-and-white movie to accommodate today's crowd which won't look at B&W. The original still looks good (on the Criterion DVD).

At a recent Q & A session, director Jonathan Demme said he had a difficult time finding the right tone the film. Having seen the picture, I can tell you -- he still hasn't found it.

The movie, a remake of the 1963 Cary Grant-Audrey Hepburn classic Charade, may take place mostly in Paris, but it's really all over the map. It doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a comedy? Is it a romance? Is it a thriller? For a time it tries to be all of the above -- and fails at each one.

Demme, speaking to an audience in Philadelphia following an advance screening, said the movie could have gone in vastly different directions in the editing room. For example, another version could have been much funnier. I don't doubt it. There are some good elements in place.

Mark Wahlberg, stepping into the Cary Grant role, is surprisingly debonair. This role officially puts him light-years away from his early '90s white-rapper persona. Don't get me wrong, he's still no Cary Grant -- but watching him in this film, you can easily see him as an American James Bond.

Following in Audrey Hepburn's heels is the to-die-for Thandie Newton. Combining beauty, sophistication, elegance and vulnerability, Newton more than succeeds in bringing a Hepburn-like quality to her character. She also gets boatloads more screen time than Wahlberg, which isn't a bad thing considering she's the best thing in the movie.

If only the story didn't fall apart in the second act, as all tension and suspense evaporates. Things come back together in the third act, but it's too late.

The movie also exceeds its quota of cliches. For instance, how many times have you seen foreigners in movies begin conversations in another language -- only to switch into perfect English after a couple of sentences? Well, in this movie, get ready to see it again... and again.

Then there's the car accident scene -- we hear squealing brakes and crunching metal off-screen, then Demme actually gives us a shot of a hub cap rolling across the street! The movie gives us no indication these bits are meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

There is one terrific foot chase that Demme admits is inspired by Run Lola Run. The scene has energy, suspense, humor and fun -- all things the rest of the movie tries, but fails to achieve.

I never knew a movie could surpass my low expectations. THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE is admirable in that it wants to be more than a standard shot by shot remake of a classic. It's trying to reimagine the classic Hollywood fairy tale world of the original as a gritty, Nouvelle Vague thriller. I can admire that spirit of playful experimentation while conceding that nothing about this works and that the in your face direction is truly headache inducing.

Mystery films come and go; a precious few stand the test of time. "Charade,' for my money the greatest whodunit ever made, is a masterpiece of tone, miraculously blending the disparate elements of suspense, humor and romance more successfully than any film I've ever seen. Enhanced by the dashing beauty and charisma of its two stars, Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant, the sophisticated wit of its ingenious script, the shimmering beauty of its on-location photography, and, of course, the classic strains of its Henry Mancini score, "Charade" is a movie that one can enjoy no matter how many times one has seen it.

I wonder how many people will be saying the same thing about `The Truth About Charlie' - Jonathan Demme's utterly pointless remake of this great film - four decades from now (the original title, `Charade,' is actually more appropriate because the story deals with lies, deception and falsehoods in general and not just in relation to that particular character). I have absolutely no idea how anyone unfamiliar with the original work will respond to this film. I can just say that, for diehard devotees of the 1963 Stanley Donen classic, `The Truth About Charlie' is a travesty on every level imaginable. (And, alas, that great Henry Mancini score is nowhere to be found on this version's soundtrack, the first of many strikes against this modern rehash).

Although this new version shares the basic plot premise of the original, it has completely eliminated most of the elements that made `Charade' such a world-class, timeless charmer. First of all, in what universe could Mark Wahlberg and Thandia Newton possibly be considered replacements for Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, two of the greatest screen legends of all time? Yes, Ms. Newton has a certain attractiveness and appeal at times, but her one-note expression of pouting bemusement does grow tiresome after awhile. The real trouble, however, comes with Wahlberg, a fine actor who has turned in some impressive film performances in the past, but who is just plain disastrous in this part. His character is supposed to be a suave, debonair gentleman who attempts to win Reggie's confidence after her husband has been murdered for stealing $6 million and she becomes the hapless target of a band of hooligans who want their share and who believe she knows where it is. Wahlberg has never looked more uncomfortable or out of place than he does here, trying to appear `sincere' and `concerned, ' but coming across as merely epicene and amateurish. This is, in fact, the worst case of miscasting I have seen in a film in a long, long time. How can one have a remake of `Charade' - of all films! - with two stars who lack charisma and generate zero romantic chemistry when they're together on screen?

Even more detrimental, perhaps, is the fact that virtually all the wonderful humor from the original script has been excised, a strange turn of events indeed considering the fact that the original writer, Peter Stone, also had a hand in this venture (here he has assumed the pseudonym of `Peter Joshua,' one of the names ascribed to the Grant character in the earlier film, although the name, for no apparent reason, has been inverted for Wahlberg). The very few comic lines that have been retained are delivered so poorly by the actors that we wince every time we hear them.

So now we have a remake of `Charade' utterly devoid of humor and romance. What else could go wrong? Well, in the original, the secondary characters all stood out as finely drawn figures in their own right. The three men chasing Reggie for the money – James Coburn, Ned Glass and Arthur Kennedy – had each a retinue of fascinating personality quirks that helped distinguish one character from the other. In `Charlie,' the three `villains' not only comprise a blandly homogenous group, but they do not even remain consistent as characters. The most egregious example is Lola (Lisa Gay Hamilton) who spends the entire film bullying and threatening Regina, then inexplicably and in a matter of minutes, becomes some sort of heroine whom Regina comes to love and admire. It makes no sense at all. The concluding scene, in which the characters all meet up together to reveal their true identities and unravel the mystery, is so ham-handed in its execution that one wonders if the filmmakers ever even saw the flawlessly executed Donen original. It is the low point in a film made up of little else but low points. Demme has also injected an idiotic plot strand involving Reggie's husband's insane mother, but the less said about that the better. In fact, one suspects that the sole reason for this storyline is to allow the director to feature famed French director Agnes Varda in a cameo role. Indeed, `Charlie' is filled with all sorts of pointless homages to French culture in general and the French New Wave in particular, including a clip from Truffaut's `Shoot the Piano Player' and a truly bizarre cabaret scene with famed Jean Luc Godard actress Anna Karina belting out a song while the characters perform a surreal tango that throws us out of the film's world completely. In fact, Demme has tried to recreate much of the style of 60's cinema by employing a camera that rarely ever sits still and a razzle-dazzle editing technique that attempts to substitute style for substance. The effort is too self-consciously cutesy to be even slightly effective.

This does, however, bring us to the one undeniable element of value in `The Truth About Charlie': Tak Fujimoto's eye-popping cinematography, which does a superlative job bringing out the colorful richness of the Paris setting.

A word of praise to anything or anyone else involved in this production would, however, be excessive. Demme has taken a film that just about defines the word `style' and turned it into a hollow, soulless exercise utterly devoid of wit, suspense, romance and star charisma – all the elements in fact that made `Charade' such a golden, timeless treasure. Avoid the theaters and head to the nearest video store to pick up a copy of `Charade' - and see what a great film is really all about.

I really wanted to like this movie. Jonathan Demme is one of my favorite film makers and I thought if anyone could remake one of my favorite movies of all time, Demme could. Demme couldn't.

Newton and Robbins are ok, Wahlberg doesn't work at all, and the other "evil" characters who were so memorable in Charade come across as interchangeable cyphers.

I usually like Demme's music selection, but here there didn't seem to be any sort of unifying theme behind his music. And, it certainly wasn't Mancini's wonderful score.

But the biggest Truth about Charlie is that Demme's rewrite is simply awful.

In the original, Charlie is a nobody and so he doesn't get in the way of all the other characters. Here he has a face and is, apparently, the big villain, so we have to be treated to a slew of foggy flashbacks that halt the flow of the story.

Newton and Wahlberg lip-lock so early, there's absolutely none of the playful sexual tension of the original. And, instead of Grant's cocky, end-of-the-film surprise, we get a bathetic Wahlberg begging Newton to forgive him. Bleacch.

The reworking of the story that sets everything in motion is so muddled I'm still not sure just exactly what was happening and why.

And the final big thing missing is the element of wonderful surprise Donen crafted so well. In the original Grant's multiple characters are peeled back with delicious surprise at each new revelation ending with the final, perfect surprise at the end of the film. And the moment when the original film reveals the big secret is still thrilling, even after watching it a dozen times. In Charlie, the big secret becomes a tiny flicker of something in Newton's eyes and when it is finally revealed, it's a moment that the word "anticlimax" was designed for.

It's such a shame that Demme made such a muddle of something that originally was so clean and clearly presented. As so many others have done, I strongly recommend you skip this one and just go back to the original.

'The Truth About Charlie' is not worthy to be a remake of the great 'Charade'. To be honest, I don't even get why they had to remake that film since it still works today, both as a Hitchcockian thriller and as comedy. But they did remake it, and where the original film stars Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, two of the greatest stars in the movies, this film gives us Mark Wahlberg and Thandie Newton. Personally I like Wahlberg, especially in 'Boogie Nights', 'Three Kings' and later film 'The Departed', but apparently this role was for Grant only; Wahlberg does not pull it off. For me personally Newton ruined the film. I never understood whether this film contained the comedic elements as they were in 'Charade' or not, but whatever it was, it felt weird and out of place. Mainly, Newton's performance was the cause of this.

The second distraction comes from Paris as the setting. Director Jonathan Demme, who has lost most of his 'The Silence of the Lambs'-touch, is too much in love with it. By now the world has seen the Eiffel Tower, and for that matter has heard Charles Aznavour (who appears from time to time), and the film does not realize this. If the story is only a backdrop for a place and an atmosphere, at least show us elements of both things we are not acquainted with. The story, by the way, deals with Newton as Regina Lambert who finds out Charlie, her husband for three months, now dead, used to lead more than one life. Apparently he had six million dollars in diamonds and now the French police, a couple of former soldiers who fought with Charlie, and a character played by Tim Robbins are after it. Mark Wahlberg's character named Joshua Peters pops up everywhere Newton seems to need him, meaning his role will stay vague as long as the film wants it to be.

When the closing scenes finally arrived I did not care anymore. Who was who and why and for what reason; it didn't matter to me, I was just glad the film was over. The final scenes were supposed to have some suspense in it, but even that was spoiled by annoying close-ups and many cuts. I have seen quite some bad films over the years but this time I was really amazed with such good material wasted in such a complete way.

'The Truth About Charlie' Is a wholly unnecessary re-take of the Stanley Donen Classic Charade. Mark Wahlberg,is no Cary Grant. Thandie Newton, looks as if she walked In to the wrong production, Tim Robbins, appears as a US embassy official who phones in his performance. The only interesting thing about this waste of celluloid is the Parisian locations. It's a rather tedious film that goes to show.if it ain't broke don't fix it. I managed to see this flick on its brief run, it vanished in the space of a week, i wonder why. One word of advice rent or buy the superb original Charade Cary Grant Audery Hepburn, Iam sure Cary Grant would turn in his grave! This one should be filed under unnecessary remakes.

REVIEW: The Truth About Charlie, for IMDB, July 13, 2004

As "rosscinema" says in a previous post, "Why did they bother?" Well, they bothered for the same reason virtually all Hollywood films are made: to make **MONEY**, lots of MONEY! No one in their right mind would attempt to duplicate two so magic stars as Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn from the original "Charade", but some studio type thought they could cost in on the deserved reputation of the original for excellence, and make a bundle before the critics and the public got to see what a stinker this would-be remake is. Mark Wahlberg may have a certain presence, but a Cary Grant his is NOT and never will be; and that woman taking Hepburn's part was simply pathetic, what with her little moues of pseudo-British mouthings. Audrey, who was the quintessence of delicate dignity and charm, would spin in her grave, if she could. And with the change of dating to reflect, not the Second World War, but post-Vietnam, the entire tenor of the original was changed from a charming 'escapade-avec-larceny', to a mad chase with the modern dictum of 'diversity' with a cast more suited to a tract on multiculturalism, than anything having to do with telling a coherent story! The 'stamps' were well explained in the original, but here they are a throwaway plot device that more confuses than illuminates. And 'la belle Paris', mon Dieu, how it is ignored and abused in this tawdry effort; what was charming even in the face of murder and crime in the original, is merely seedy here. There is no magic between the stars as in "Charade", just some groping. And where was the duplicate of the crafty Walter Matthau character? Tim Robbins is a good actor, but here he is no replacement for the Mr. Dyle. And that dismal woman who is the police inspector is merely awful in this tiresome flick. If you have never seen "Charade" you must not let this failure make you think the original is as bad, for you would be denying yourself one of the finest delights of the modern screen, and the sight of two of its greatest luminaries, Grant and Hepburn, in very good form!

Yeh, I know it's a redo of a beloved Audrey and Cary classic. So what. It was fun on it's own. Puzzled and innocent heroine. No one being really what they seem. Spy counter spy. All well done mind and screen candy. A good date movie. On second thought, probably not worth the $8 admission though. I should have wauited for cable

Other reviewers have explained just why this is a ghastly embarrassment, so I won't belabor the point.

I would like, however, to nominate this as possibly the worst remake in history.

Its only real competition, perhaps, is the little-known (thankfully) musical version of Lost Horizons.

The Lost Horizons remake had the advantage, however, of being hilarious to watch if you had a few drinks and some popcorn, and needed a really good laugh.

This dreadful thing, though, is just tedious and embarrassing to everyone who was roped into participating.

Of all the movies that I have seen in the last few years, none have I enjoyed as much as this. The plot is threadbare, yet it works in the films favor. The acting is fantastic, especially a particularly delightful Thandie Newton, whom I had doubts about since her particularly one-sided performance in MI:2. Mark Wahlberg was his atypical self, detached, outside, yet deeply involved, and it fit his character well.

The locations and extra casting are excellent, instead of portraying France as the place of ultimate beauty as is often seen, or a city plagued with an over-abundance of harlots, it is seen here as a place that is crowded and populated with very bizarre characters.

The movie suffers from a sort of mordant wit, the end sequence being in and of itself worth watching the entire movie for. I recommend seeing this with someone who is not of the "popcorn movie" fan club, as they won't understand what was trying to be achieved.

I'd give this 4 1/2 out of 5.

Don't you hate when people say, It wasn't "BAD".....In a movie that trys to re-make the classic "Charade", I give it a B-, or 7 stars. It's true to the original in many regards, however I would question the casting of Mark Wahlberg in the Cary Grants character. Thandi is perfect as the character played by Audrey. Casting of a woman to play the Parisian police detective, as a woman the leader of the gang. Otherwise a pleasant re-make and less violent too! Best bet for a cold saturday afternoon on the couch with a big bowl of popcorn.

Everything about this film is terrible. Forget about the original masterpiece charade... this movie is terrible is every single aspect. I deeply regret buying this version.

Fortunately I saw this pathetic production as free inflight "entertainment" and none of my money will go as a "vote" towards any sort of approval. Forget comparisons to the delightful "Charade", this film would be a total dud even if it had been released as a brand new entry. The word inept can be applied to almost every aspect. The script is so muddled that it is hard to really know what is going on at times, and boring when the plot does emerge. The acting generally matches the script, and the direction is worse. Intrusive and obnoxious camera moves are everywhere, and make it impossible to enjoy any of the location shooting. The "stars" have absolutely no "star power" or charisma, so why show their inadequacies in so many tight close-ups ? The choice of Mark Wahlburg is the worst miscast since Sofia Coppola in The Godfather Part III. Tim Robbin's amateurish imitation of Walter Matthau's speech inflections is at least an attempt at a performance, but laughable if meant to be taken seriously. It comes off like a Saturday Night Live parody. The music is completely forgettable and does nothing to supplement the film. I have never missed Henry Mancini more than while watching this mess of sight and sound.

And be honest, how many movies slither to such an anti-climatic climax as this one does ? ...with the added irony that this is a re-make of a film with one of the better endings in film history ?

"Charade" is a film that works on every level, this film does not work at all. It is interesting that the same plot could yield such vastly different results. I give it 1 out of 10, only because there is no "zero" option. This is one of the 100 worst films I have ever seen.

This film makes the dogs sit up and say "bow wow"...

Cinema is art, therefore is not to be copied. Nobody copies a Picasso or a successful romance, for example. No matter how similar it could be, it would be a copy of an artistic piece without any value. Therefore, remakes of great movies are totally unnecessary. The original 'Charade' was not a masterpiece, but a great movie, with a charming central pair (Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant) and funny situations and dialogues. But this 'The Truth About Charlie' is really ridiculous. Beginning with the choice of the lead actress and actor. Thandie Newton and Mark Wahlberg performing the roles of Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant respectively is outrageous. The modifications in the original plot made the delight of 'Charade' be lost. Do not waste your time with this film, rent or buy the original one. By the way, I have a friend who knows by heart many dialogues of the original 'Charade'. Jonathan Demme has not probably paid attention on the wonderful original text, otherwise he would try at least to reproduce some of them. My vote is four.

These 2 movies were "BASED" on the same story. Separated by 4 decades, they were never meant to be the same identical movies. Why would you even want 2 movies to be identical? We already have "Charade"...now we have "The Truth About Charlie". I'm sorry, I personally get annoyed when people expect one movie to be the same as another. I watch movies as an escape from reality and entertainment. If you're looking for reality, then watch the news or documentaries or reality shows.

This movie stands on its own. This is not an academy award winner, but then I'm sure it was not expected to be. There are some good action scenes, and I personally liked the way the characters fumbled with one another. They are from 2 different continents, cultures and backgrounds.

Remember, this is not "Charade" and it does not star Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. If that's what you want to see, then by all means, watch "Charade", otherwise, quit expecting anything when you go watch a movie and just watch it for itself.

Just so you have all the facts, I tend to rate movies high (from 7 to 10). I gave this one a 7 only because of the somewhat disconnected way it arrived at the ending. Thanks.

MWR

Not really a remake of CHARADE but a homage of French cinema of the 1960s, THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE is a remarkably wonky thing that has to be seen to be believe. It's very difficult for me to believe that producers and folks at the studio didn't see that something was not quite right when they saw bits and pieces of this during production. I mean, the whole thing is totally kooky. I hate to say disaster or a mess because I believe the end product is exactly what the director wanted. So the only thing I can say though: does it work? No, it doesn't work.

I'm not a big fan of CHARADE (too cute for my taste) so I don't feel like this "remake" is akin to blasphemy but I have to say that this is one of the weirdest studio films I've seen in many, many years. Things aren't made better with the fact that the film was mostly (if not entirely) shot on HD video, which doesn't look good at all. Looks like a series of home movies of famous actors with too much time on their hands than an actual film.

One is only left asking: what were they thinking?

If your expecting Charade just re-shot and re-cast you'll get the unexpected. I guess the producers new better. The original is a classic with an exceptional cast. So this movie must be judged on its own. Some scenes are very familiar, but many of my personal favorites are not anywhere to be found in this new version, and the although the 3 main parts are cast well (there not Hepburn, Grant and Matthau, but they do a serviceable job), but there really isn't a stand out supporting cast (like Coburn, and Kennedy). I'll admit some scenes, dialogue, and plot points are similar, but so much of it isn't that it stands on it's own as much as it relies on the original. The main thing this version lacked was the fun mild sort of comedy that the original possessed. It's too bad it has to be compared to the original but remakes always are. This movie was entertaining, had intrigue and was worth seeing on its own, I do recommend it. But when compared to the original you realize that they did it right the first time. Check it out but try to leave the comparisons behind or you could be disappointed.

"Charade" is a film who's great appeal rests in two things. Extremely charismatic leads, and a light, effervescent early 60's atmosphere. It's Hitchcock (very very) light with a plot that largely serves to get the leads interacting.

I don't think it's impossible to remake. The plot is light enough to be used in different contexts. But you need two leads with powerful charisma and ... I would suggest ... you need to completely break the association with the early 60's and create an entirely new setting for this story.

Jonathan Demme's remake fails on both points. Thandie Newton does have a lot of charisma. She didn't have the really radiant star power that Audrey Hepburn had in 1963, but she is more than up to the task. She's really the only thing about this film that works.

Not so with Mark Wahlberg. Wahlberg can be great ("Boogie Nights", "I Heart Huckabees"), but he's a limited actor who needs to be used well. He's not a fount of charisma. Given his clearly suspicious behavior in this film, you can never accept that Newton just follows him unquestioningly.

Demme makes the really strange decision to repeatedly reference the French New Wave in this film. There are clips from "Shoot the Piano Player" and Charles Aznavour, Anna Karina and Agnes Varda all have cameos. This is weird not only because "Charade" is clearly a very different beast from the French New Wave, but also it awkwardly ties this film back to the first film's era without invoking anything that's appealing about that film.

This film just doesn't work. I think the first act is passable, but the film falls completely apart. Continuing the New Wave references, Demme shoots this in a very loose, hand-held style that really just serves to render any attempts at suspense completely ineffective.

I don't know what Tim Robbins thinks he's doing in this film, but he's truly awful.

We Rented The Truth About Charley on DVD. The flip side of the DVD is a clean bright copy of Charade, so you get two for the price of one.

I liked the film, and would recommend it. The reviews were unnecessarily harsh. The Portman score was original and although not my kind of music, it worked very well for the film, and very nicely showcases Portman's versatility. The cast was fine, even Wahlberg who is not my favorite lead, is good in the film. Tim Robbins is just great as Bartholomew (with a wonderful "end"), and the other players seem well up to the task. To judge the film, one must simply set aside the original and concentrate on whether this film works or not. I think it works ok. Am sorry we didn't see it on the big screen, but the DVD isn't bad. Some terriffic shots of Paris in it, a bonus. Demme gives the flick some flair and the overall "look" is original enough, I'd say. The mini-documentary about the making of the film is entertaining and not too long. I also viewed about 25 mins of Charade to re-familiarize myself with the material, and though I had also recently seen the film on AMC this version was more pleasing, of course. The players in the original are mostly legends of course (both the black hats as well as the whites) and I suspect that the comparisons were maybe too intense, I dunno. There were enough storyline changes to keep it interesting, including a French actress (Christine Boisson) as the police Comandant instead of a male lead and Lisa Gay Hamilton as one of the villains. I was not sure at first about Thandie Newton in the lead role but this also was probably a good call. The insertion of Charles Aznavour as himself is rather clever and seems successful enough as a musical bridge of sorts. Others might disagree. There is so much junk out there in film-land these days, this flick was a pleasant surprise.

This movie is very good. Thandie Newton does a terrific job! She is absolutely beautiful, and is very very funny. She does a wonderful job as the lead character. She plays Regina Lambert a little more independent than Audrey Hepburn did. Newton really pulls the movie along, especially when considering Mark Wahlberg's performance. This is an incident of poor casting. Wahlberg tries to play the character too seriously when compared to the performances of the rest of the cast. He does not pull of the "fool" aspect of his character either. Now, to get back to the positives, Tim Robbins is very entertaining. His seens' are quite amusing and captivating. Christine Boisson portrays a very strong character with an incredibly strong performance. I cannot say that I am familiar with her work, but I think it safe to say I might enjoy it as well.

The Truth About Charlie is a good movie. Compared with Charade, I would say that "Charlie" is one poor casting and a few holes in the screenplay from being as good as Charade.