The Truth About Charlie (2002)

A young woman in Paris is about to divorce her husband when she discovers... he's dead; and all their money is gone. She meets a mysterious man, who tells her that the money was really his, and he wants it back, seemingly convinced that she's hiding the cash. Meanwhile, more people end up dead... I knew that The Truth About Charlie was going to suck just by the way it starts it was very boring, dull and a cast of talented people were mostly wasted under a script that simply did not work for me and the fact that this film is 1 hour and 44 minutes and yet it feels like 3 hours was enough for me to rant about it.

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.

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.

'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.