O Segredo de Charlie

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.

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).

'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.

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.