Enough about Charade - The Truth About Charlie (2002) Discussion

[–] davidmills 20 years ago

I haven't seen Charade, nor know much about it. I will not attempt to compare this movie to it in any way.

Now that that is clear, The Truth About Charlie is still a bad movie in it's own right. Charade wouldn't have to be all that good to be better than this overstylised trash.

Legal and illegal don’t matter, it’s not getting caught that counts

reply

[–] DirkPitt007 20 years ago

I have seen CHARADE and own it on DVD. THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE is a hideous remake. I can't even begin to say any more...

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melvin-1 20 years ago

It is not a second disc the movie 'Charade',it is on the other side of 'The Truth About Charlie' DVD.

reply

[–] cayleighJo 20 years ago

I own the DVD of "Charade" as I also own the box set of Audrey Hepburn's movies. I rather enjoyed that movie greatly, however, this movie here *the truth about charlie* sucks sweaty donkey balls... I hate remakes as they never ever make them anywhere near the same, but this is just awful...i would give it -5 out of 10.

reply

[–] reyjamiei 20 years ago

I hate remakes as they never ever make them anywhere near the same,

If they did, you'd come on here complaining about it being a rip off.

I love remakes, I don't try to compare them to the original and I don't expect them to be better then the original. I like them because you get to see the story told from someone elses point of view. I can't wait for The Pink Panther with Steve Martin to come out, I know that it's supposed to be a prequel to the first Pink Panther but I believe that he can be at least as good as Peter Sellers in that part, maybe better. I watched the Pink Panther last night and it really wasn't all that good. It was kind of boring and not as funny as it was made out to be. I'm sure the other movies in the series have to be funnier than the first one.

reply

[–] katie-130 20 years ago

Which Pink Panther did you see?

reply

[–] reyjamiei 18 years ago

Which Pink Panther did you see?

The Pink Panther (1963) with David Niven and Peter Sellers, directed by Blake Edwards.

reply

[–] screenhound22 20 years ago

Okay look. Charade is a great movie--I don't usually like Audrey Hpeburn flicks and I still think it's a great movie. Grant and Hepburn are superb in it and Matthau does a great job as the surprise villain. I guess my biggest problem with this one at first glance is that Demme's consciously doing a "loose" remake of Charade and trying to put tongue firmly in cheek. Grant's character's assumed name for most of the original is "Peter Joshua" so just to show how original they are, these filmmakers invert the name and give their antihero the name Joshua Peters. The cigarette scene is Newton trying to play Hepburn's Lambert as you'd expect her--driven by stress to grab a cigarette and then choking on it. The original Reggie, the hyper-energetic socialite with the insatiable appetite, spends the film's first fifteen minutes asking the same harrassed police inspector not to smoke in front of her (we assume because she's a non-smoker). When she finally reaches for a cigarette herself, she not only lights up, she removes the filter before doing so commenting to the effect that [using a filter] "is like drinking tea through a veil." It's some of the things like that that get under my skin. But I'm still willing to give this movie a rental shot.

reply

[–] LeiaKat 17 years ago

You have your scenes backward. When Reggie is asking the officer not to smoke in front of her, she is eating candy. The smoking comes later, as if to show her nerves are taking over. The "drinking coffee through a veil" is said when she is at a cafe with Barthlomew. She also takes one of two puffs, and then lights a new cigarette....to which Barthlomew comments, 'do you know what those cost!?". Hepburn flushes out the character of Reggie, the seemingly spoiled women dropped in the middle of an incredible situation.

Wedding bells are going to chime, 4/29/07
Stop Genocide NOW

reply

[–] bingham_bryant 17 years ago

I saw charade for the first time only a few months before "Charlie" came out, and immediately recognized the remake as a very weak imitation. Personally I think that Charade is good, not a classic on the same level as North by Northwest, which is practically perfect as a thriller. Charlie, on the other hand, is just plain bad. No excuse.

Top 3: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia
Last Seen: Lady Vengeance 9/10

reply

[–] dannyrm 20 years ago

Yes, I have seen Charade but I didn't know this was a remake of it until Tim Robbins said the name of Carson Dyle in what seemed like an impression of Walter Matthau.

It is pretty bad. I would expect better from these actors and director.

And, it says there's nudity. Where?! Do they consider Thandie behind cloudy glass nudity?
That was about the biggest disappointment of the movie.

reply

[–] praetax 20 years ago

I fail to see how anyone could possibly take any position what so ever defending this film while attacking those who have seen the original. This film was an abortion. It's like the director took everything that made the heart and soul of Charade, tore it out and fed us the entrails.

The casting was dubious at best. Mark Wahlberg playing a Cary Grant roll. That's probably the most inspired piece of casting since they cast John Wayne as Genghis Kahn in the Conqueror. Cary Grant always played every role as a suave sophisticated gentlemen, where as Mark Wahlberg’s claim to fame was as Marky Mark and Dirk Diggler, a part about a bad actor that required bad acting.

In the original you had side characters like James Coburn and George Kennedy; I can't honestly say that any of the characters in this film made a remote impression on me what so ever. Even the Cop in the original had his quirky charm but this had nothing that made this stand out as anything more then a homogenized bastardization.

Walter Matthau was brilliant as Dyle, he projected this trust that you totally believed right up to the last few minutes when he revealed his true identity. Tim Robbins might as well have tattooed, “I’m the Bad Guy” on his face from scene one. I’m surprised it didn’t say so on his business cards.

Aside from Dyle’s dubious identity the best part of the original was the fact you couldn't tell who Cary Grants character really was either. Was he a good guy? Was he a bad guy? You didn't know, but in this it didn't really try very hard to create an ounce of tension. Having Charles Aznavour serenade you to sleep is hardly creates suspense.

Also I fail to understand what being over 35 and seeing the original film when it came out has anything to do with criticizing this. You don't have to be over 35 to recognize a bad movie from a classic. It's like saying if you didn't live through World War 2 you have no right to place Casablanca among the greatest movies ever. Hell nobody saw Fight Club on the big screen but it is probably one of the greatest films of the last ten years. Does that make everyone who has appreciated it on DVD an uniformed source? Especially in this age we all have nearly every film of quality, and most of no quality, at our finger tips, so seeing something on the big screen hardly makes you more or less qualified to recognize a great film.

Oh and on a side note for Mr. Nudity above. If all you base the quality of a film on is the amount of nudity in it you really ought to just go out and rent a porno or take a cold shower. If that was the biggest disappointment in the movie to you, maybe you should watch it again when you get out of Junior High.

reply

[–] dannyrm 20 years ago

I guess I'm "Mr. Nudity" (and I am over 35).
I was agreeing with what you said until that last paragraph.
I didn't say that I based the quality of the film on the amount of nudity. But when I see in the desription that there's an N for nudity, and there's a beautiful woman like Thandie, and the movie is such a dog, then that's the only thing that would make this movie worth watching.
It's not a matter of just seeing any woman in a movie naked.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moondazy13 20 years ago

I was willing to give The Truth About Charlie a chance, as Charade is one of my favorite movies. Yes, I've seen Charade (no, not the first time around--I wasn't born yet, but I am a huge fan of both Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant). I could not even get through the entire movie ("Charlie")--thank goodness I just recorded it from cable instead of wasting my money renting it. All I could think of the whole time was how much I'd rather be watching Charade (or pretty much any other movie!). "Charlie" sucks and Thandie Newton and Mark Wahlberg, though decent actors, are no Hepburn and Grant.

"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music" -anonymous-

reply

[–] jeektheelf 19 years ago

I will do the unholy of unholy and tear down Charade. Audrey Hepburn, Cary Grant, and, Walter Mathau were great but do you remember the rest? The plot moved like Deus Ex Machnia was listed in the credits, they only did two scenes in which they really used France. Yes, I know it was filmed there but COME ON! The closest thing to culture they showed was a puppet shows. The gold was incredibly trite. Some Army people find Nazi treasure and don't share? That was one of the most used plotlines EVER! Plus, it was way too much slapstick.
On the note of Mark Wahlberg and Thandie Newton, yes there not Grant or Hepburn but crap, if it was Richard Gere and Nicole Kidman people would be up in arms cause they tryed to replace their beautiful heroes. Judge as its own movie. No one deserves to be compared to nostalgia

reply

[–] Shearer_Goddard_Russell 18 years ago

<<Audrey Hepburn, Cary Grant, and, Walter Mathau were great but do you remember the rest?>>
Yes, I do.
It's hard to judge it as it's own movie, but not as hard as trying to judge the new Psycho to the old.
I'm sorry but.. could u explain the gere-kidman point?

Becky: What's your problem?
Darlene: YOUR FACE!

reply

[–] RexDartEskimoSpy 18 years ago

"Audrey Hepburn, Cary Grant, and, Walter Mathau were great but do you remember the rest?"

No, I certainly don't remember such no name actors as James Coburn and George Kennedy. I don't know what Charade you were watching, but it has always been one of the most memorable movies I've ever seen, IMO, with every actor giving a memorable performance. Slapstick? I don't remember anybody constantly pulling Three Stooges pranks. The humor was mostly in the dialogue exchanges.

I don't believe that the intent of the original was to display French culture, so why should that matter at all? That's totally irrelevant. It could have just as easily taken place in feudal Japan or the wild west (The Good, The Good, and the Bad and Ugly).

If you're going to make a claim that the plot of crooks making off with gold was used hundreds of times before, at least cite some examples. Not that it matters, as that wasn't even the plot of Charade, but rather a backstory.

The Gere-Kidman point is bunk as well. Nobody defends Charade simply because Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant are beautiful people. It's the chemistry between the two that makes it so memorable, and it is the archetype of what chemistry between actors should be. Putting Elizabeth Taylor and Rock Hudson together in Giant didn't do much for anybody other than the producers in drawing fans of the two. No, that was purely the work of James Dean that drove that movie. Had he not been in it, there is no way that Giant would be as well received as it is today.

I am not old enough to have seen Charade back in 1963, but I had seen it long before I was even aware of this remake. Why do people keep bringing it up? First, it's inevitable for a remake to be compared to the original. I'll bet you like to compare movies to the books they're based on. Everybody does. Comparing remakes is the same thing. In this case though, I think it is a good thing that so many people mention the remake, because anybody who sees this average (I'm being generous with this word) remake should know that there is a superior version that should be viewed instead.

There have been few good remakes. The Magnificent Seven, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Lower Depths, Fistful of Dollars, to name a few. As for the Truth About Charlie, you may like it, but I for one cannot see how you can possibly want to defend it against the original.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zipper69 18 years ago

It was a poor attempt at a remake, Wahlberg and Newton were wrong but did their best. Here's a thought...halfway through I started recasting in my mind, here's my cast list:

Leads
George Clooney
Charlize Theron

Dyle
Robert deNiro

Bad guys
Gary Oldman
Sam Neill
Harry Dean Stanton

French Cop
Kevin Kline

(Yeah, I know the budget might be a little inflated...)

reply

[–] thenarrow364 18 years ago

I just suffered through this movie and I must agree with everyone who didn't like it. The original was an amazing movie, this remake is just pathetic. I started thinking - this movie really shows the differences between modern movies and classics and how our current idea of what makes a film good has changed so much. We have to have lots of unneccesary action (the chase scene towards the end that was completely invented for the new movie, the more brutal deaths, etc), sexuality (the completely pointless partial nude scene on the train in the beginning), political correctness (casting one of the leads and all of the bad guys as minorities instead of whites and a few women instead of men as in the original, lest someone cry racism or sexism), and my personal pet peeve - music playing constantly through every scene. There were several scenes where I had to rewind to hear what was being said over the music. Do contemporary filmmakers think we'll get bored with a movie if there isn't a constant soundtrack? Are we that afraid of silence?

Also, what was the point of inserting a mother into the movie? If anything that completely hurt the plot. Rather than the suspense of the original as to who killed whom, we now have a crazy old lady running people over. Regina knowing about the stamps hurt things too. While taken on its own merrits it could be a clever plot device, compared to the shock of the original it's a terrible letdown. The leads were really disappointing too. Somehow we no longer value suave and dapper, we prefer our male leads to be street smart and edgy. And while Newton tries her best, she can't compare to the cuteness of Hepburn, which is probably something we wouldn't value much in these days of oversexed female leads.

The insert in the DVD says how Demme wanted to take his filmmaking in a new direction with this movie. It would appear that direction is down. This is quite possibly the worst remake I have ever seen, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. If an overview of the plot even remotely sparks your interest, skip this movie and go directly to the original Charade, it is many many times better.

reply

[–] samsan_lee 18 years ago

"And while Newton tries her best, she can't compare to the cuteness of Hepburn, which is probably something we wouldn't value much in these days of oversexed female leads."

She did as good as she could. Stonger leads couldve helped, or even made the piece better.

"political correctness (casting one of the leads and all of the bad guys as minorities instead of whites and a few women instead of men as in the original, lest someone cry racism or sexism), and my personal pet peeve"

WERE REALLY GLAD TO DISAPPOINT YOU!!!

welcome to the 21st Century.

feel free to watch every BLACK AND WHITE film with no minority for the next 2 centuries.

Well done, Mr Jonathan Demme.

you can make your own non-PC, suave and dapper film. Hollywood knows to value inclusive casts for changing audience, dip!

reply

[–] sljones44 18 years ago

LOL!! Cant we all get along?

the "truth about bad remakes and even worse posts!"

reply