Robert J. Maxwell
A remake of "Charade" which starred Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, and a host of reasonably well-known character actors.This isn't bad as remakes go. It substitutes drama for charm so in some ways its not quite the same story.The original had some tourist spots of Paris in the summer and made one long for a baguette to toast over his bidet. (Joke.) This one is Paris in the winter when it's cold and wet.Wahlberg does his best to appear whimsical and innocent but Thandie Newton with her crisp British diction and nicely configured configurations does a better job in the role of the puzzled center of attention.It's a rather dark movie but worth watching.
elshikh4
When you remake a classic then you're in deep trouble. However the solution is pretty easy; having something or some things that can compete with what that classic already has. In this case (The Truth About Charlie – 2002) got nothing to stand up to (Charade – 1962) except being based on it ! They dealt with the original exactly like this ; got the magic out of it, then added some blood. There is a straight-to-video feel all over it. The supposedly interesting scenes are shown totally uninteresting to a degree where I couldn't care less. The thrill is dead. Forget any funny moment because this one is dry as hell. I think nothing was really new except the acupuncture of Ted Levine's character. Mark Wahlberg was wrong, just wrong, to play this role. Yes he comes from crime movies to make the matters a little suspicious here and there but alas, he has no chemistry with Thandie Newton, and oh my god, I can't stand him in romantic moments! You will be extremely disappointed in Jonathan Demme who directed it and wrote the screenplay to it as well. He did zero to left an effect or a stamp, as if that was the plan from the start when he took on the mission of this remake, 2 years before taking on the mission of another remake; The Manchurian Candidate. WAW I think half of Hollywood production these days became remakes, pale ones too !This was undoubtedly a vacation for the actors in Paris. Watch Tim Robbins at the last scene standing in the cell, hardly curbing his laugh, while mimicking the posture of Hannibal Lecter in Jonathan Demme's previous ORIGINAL movie (The Silence of the Lambs – 1991) to understand how the whole thing was close to an inside joke for them, fooling around for money, for kicks, but not for making a memorable work or at least an equal job to the first movie.3 stars out of 10 from me. One for Thandie Newton, she was the only cute and believable factor, doing her work fabulously, making watching this movie bearable; nevertheless with just one good work, this movie was faraway from enjoyable. Another star for the scene of blockading Robbins's character at the end; finally they tried to make something "different" there, despite a little elongation that tarnished it. And of course the third star goes to the cameo of Charles Aznavour singing (Quand Tu M'aimes) or (When You Love Me). Now this is the only moment of greatness in here, not because of the magical presence of my beloved Aznavour, but for the way he was portrayed as transparent image that becomes unequivocal for the lovers when they dances passionately. Plus, believe it or not, I dreamed of this moment, as it is, 15 years before seeing the movie, yet the singer was Frank Sinatra, not Aznavour! Yet, even this matter, his appearance, got spoiled since they made him clear for everyone at the second and last time he showed, in a way turned the magic into sort of silly joke !It's a waste of time and efforts but why not, let the wheel of industry move anyway. If you have seen the original then you'll have awfully predictable movie, boring and useless; simply you'll be mad. And if you didn't then here's a poor and highly tasteless twisty movie for you. What infuriates me badly is that they got the nerve to release it as DVD with the original one TOGETHER!?? Maybe it's a way to give you some chance to compare Hollywood of the 1960s with Hollywood of the 2000s (and it won't be for the sake of you know what !), or maybe it's a new commercial move to give one movie for you, and one for your cat (however I bet the cat won't be that amused !). No, surely it is a way to sell this movie anyhow by putting it with an assured sellable commodity, or a forever hit.P.S : this is my review number 700. I know that I found the love of movies in me long time ago. Hope that love, just love, finds me someday soon.
smokehill retrievers
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.
