smokehill retrievers
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.
xxJS16xx
What everyone really needs to realize is that The Truth About Charlie WAS a remake of Charade. As all remakes, they are basing the movie on the original. So one has every right to compare The Truth About Charlie to Charade. And, when it comes down to it, The Truth About Charlie just falls flat.I did have the pleasure (and handicap) of watching Charade before the remake. Both were watched in my "Literature in the Media" class, and we were required to write a comparison, with no bias from the teacher at all. And guess what? The entire class wrote how better composed the original was, and how the new movie was corny in and of its own. And even all of the students who missed the viewing of Charade still thought it stunk.Watching the remake was hilarious throughout the beginning because of how it was just so corny. And then after all of the bad acting hilarity, we were met with a very convoluted climax. But it was short lived, and after Dyle's death wail and fancy gun skills were released, the movie got right back to being funny with the random singing and teleporting guy singing at the end. Would be a great comedy if that was what they were aiming for. (Which, by the way, they were not.)Some things that bothered me the most were:-The character of Reggie: In the remake, they completely changed the persona of Reggie. In Charade, Reggie was clueless but intelligent, naughty but not horny. Only similarity the new Reggie had was that she was also clueless. Though Thandie Newton is OK looking and an OK actor, I wouldn't be able to tell through this movie.-The unruliness of Marky Mark: In the old movie, Peter Joshua (or was it Joshua Peters?) was cool. He was mysterious and you couldn't tell whether he was good or bad up until the end of the movie. In The Truth, right from the get go you know that Cary Grant is good, you just don't know what he's up to. It made the movie predictable and kind of flat.-Political Correctness: Wow, what the heck? Crazy how, that in France, an group of ex-soldiers that are Asian, African-American, and (crazy) Caucasian work with an African-British lady (who is helping out a (creepy) Caucasian secret agent) and her (wanna be cool) Caucasian friend/lover find out about Charlie, a Swiss, and his money. And don't forget about the help of the French police. Wow, am I watching Barney? Realism, say "by by."-Boob lady in the beginning: I am a dude, and I enjoy the occasional flash, it's true. But it seems that the writers knew that this movie was going to be less than great, so they just threw in a nice, uh, "pair" in the beginning of the movie just to keep those type of viewers hoping for more, and this random nudity made me more critical of the movie. I can truthfully tell you, a few people in my class were complaining about the lack of nudity they expected because of the beginning flash-age. And, I hope to God, that the lady in the beginning is not the same lady who "helps" the Asian guy at the end, because if it was, I don't know what I'll do.-Music: Arabian Gangster Rap? Is that even a Genre?-The addition of the "crazy lady mother": It seemed like the writers for the remake needed some deus ex machina character to solve random loop holes so they threw her in, and by her I mean Charlie's mother (who is crazy enough to be just some random lady who thinks she's his mother). Can anyone say random? She is not introduced or explained very well and pops up randomly. The kicker is she kills a lady, and yet is allowed to serve (and somehow poison) food at the uni-sex prison she was apparently sent to/works at. And, talking about her and the poison, what the heck was that ending? What kind of poison makes you violently wail before dying? And why the heck, after the whole happy song ending, did they add the lady poisoning Dyle (who mind you wasn't really that bad of a guy)? If you liked this movie, it's probably because you didn't watch it past the credits, because that part killed the entire movie. I mean they freeze frame on her freakin' smiling face. C'mon!Favorite part of movie: (Reggie throws *6 million dollar* stamps into fire)PJ or JP: (Speaking like a little girl) "Reggie! I can't believe you did that!Dyle: I can! (laughs)me: (in disgust) Oh-my-Lord...PS: If you liked the movie, you liked it because it was funny, right?
Rick Blaine
Charade it's not but it's also wrong to claim it's an 'insult' to Charade. Things have changed. Unfortunately. The subtle elegance of the 1963 classic is not going to get popcorn eating PFYs to go to the movies.There are a lot of things here that make no sense. Plot elements if you will - except they're not plot elements. They're just thrown in for the heck of it. Not good planning.No sights to see either, despite this being Paris. And what you do see of the sights flashes past in all this very pseudo-classy mishmash that is the makeup of MTV.It's a bit like taking the original story, setting it to agitated arabian beat music, and then chopping it up in small vignettes that even by themselves don't make a lot of sense.A lot of people think this is Thandie's movie. Not necessarily so. There are a lot of good people in here and you may find you feel others come across more convincing and sympathetic.There are plot holes and plot devices too which make no sense. Yet to rate it a '4' is too low whilst a '5' seems a bit too high.
