Die Wahrheit über Charlie

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.

"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.

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.

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.

'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.