Onlinewsma
Absolutely Brilliant!
CookieInvent
There's a good chance the film will make you laugh out loud, but if it doesn't, there's an even better chance it will make you openly sob.
Taha Avalos
The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.
adonis98-743-186503
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.
bkoganbing
I count three times that Mark Wahlberg has taken parts that were originally done by stars from old Hollywood. He was the astronaut taking Charlton Heston's role in the remake of Planet Of The Apes. He played John Wayne's role in the urban remake of The Sons Of Katie Elder, Four Sons. Finally in this film, Wahlberg tries out playing the many named man that Cary Grant played in Charade. As in Charade, do we ever know The Truth About Charlie.Three different icons with three different personalities. Well at least he didn't try to imitate Cary Grant in The Truth About Charlie. Mark was his own man here and frankly he's the best thing about this film. Thandie Newton never seemed as vulnerable as Audrey Hepburn in the original. And Tim Robbins was absolutely colorless as the fake CIA man, not a patch on Walter Matthau.But the biggest error was the elimination of those colorful conspirators George Kennedy, James Coburn, and Ned Glass from the original. Those guys added so much to Charade.Not to mention the style and glamor that Stanley Donen brought to Charade has been boiled right out of this film. Jonathan Demme who got such acclaim for Silence Of The Lambs was the man at the helm. None of these people qualify as a Hannibal the Cannibal type villain. I think he forgot what picture he was on.Fans of the original will be sadly disappointed.
deetya
Let me get this straight; Dyle was betrayed by Charlie, wounded and left for death; in the process of trying to get his gold back, he accidentally caused the deaths of his loyal compatriots; he's still conscientious enough to surrender his gun, then got poisoned by Charlie's mothers. He's the only guy with pure motive in the movie! And he got treated so, so, badly by the filmmakers. How depressing.Of course, the two stars, Wahlberg and Newton, got all the juicy lines. It is unfortunate that they inevitably get compared to Grant and Hepburn, because Grant and Hepburn's performances are simply heavenly. According to IMDb, Jonathan Demme wanted to get Will Smith. Smith, perhaps, could've sold the part better than Wahlberg. Wahlberg is a good actor, but in this movie he came across more as a thug than a suave, debonair, gentleman- operative. Tim Robbins, IMHO, is the guy who should be getting all the acting accolades here. His former henchmen, Joong-Hoon Park, LisaGay Hamilton, and Ted Levine, seemed to be enjoying themselves in their role. But Tim Robbins gave a wonderful performance. Of course, that maybe because I think his character was treated shabbily. Or perhaps it's because Robbins gave such a sympathetic performance as Dyle. His character deserves better.
elshikh4
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.
