The Truth About Charlie

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).

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.

"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.

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.

So Cary grant and Audrey Hepburn are unfortunately dead. That means director Jonathan Demme (`Silence of the Lambs') must find suitable replacements for his remake of `Charade' called `The Truth about Charlie.' Will Smith was his first choice-Mark Wahlberg (`Planet of the Apes') took the Grant role. Thandi Newton (`Mission Impossible 2') plays Hepburn's role. Neither carries the film, which requires a certain amount of international sophistication and charm.

Set in Paris, `The Truth about Charlie' starts with a murder and the victim's money, which everyone seems to want. It has touches of the old American love of Paris, e.g., the tower appears regularly. But it is a more modern Paris than the original film's: Cinematographer Tak Fujimoto (`Signs' `The Silence of the Lambs') said, `We wanted to make the city feel mysterious and scary. We wanted it overcast and gray-different from the traditional view of Paris, more realistic, more paranoid.'

A Ferris-wheel scene with Wahlberg and Tim Robbins, who reprises the Walter Matthau role, evokes the mystery and danger of Sir Carol Reed's `Third Man.' That most American of images, the incarcerated Hannibal Lecter, ends the film with a fitting tribute to his invulnerability.

Back to Wahlberg and Newton. The success of the film, then and now, rests with the leads, and they failed. Wahlberg is flat, expressionless, 2 dimensional. Newton lacks the acting chops to navigate the aftershocks of a husband's murder and the barrage of interest in his money, hidden somewhere in plain sight. Robbins comes closest to a screen presence, part mountebank, part protector, and part enigma.

The original title `Charade' better expresses the delicious ambiguity of European intrigue where nothing is as it seems, and people are not what they appear. In this regard, `Charlie' fulfills the promise. For a modern look, it also succeeds.

But in an overall comparison between the 2 films, `Charlie' is the imposter-no ambiguity intended.