Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

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.

Anamon "The Truth About Charlie" is a completely unnecessary remake of the classic "Charade" (1963). While the thrilling espionage and deception plot of the original has been largely carried over, the few adjustments that were made to the story are implausible and arbitrary, and most of its favorite and memorable moments were omitted. The locations around France do create a charming atmosphere every now and then, but the actors keep the presentation even from reaching an average level. Although in the actors' defense, I have to say that anyone would have a hard time making such ridiculous dialog come across realistically. The interesting and fascinating character of Peter Joshua (portrayed in the original by Cary Grant) was watered down to a completely flat and dull figure that will bore you to death, and what Mark Wahlberg does with it is more helpless impersonation than it is acting. One of the other few strong points that I noticed was the soundtrack, which fits the mood nicely, incorporating tracks by artists such as De-Phazz, Asian Dub Foundation, and Gotan Project.Looking at it as just another movie, it receives a personal rating of 2 out of 10 points. But considering that this travesty calls itself a remake of "Charade" really tempts me to rate it even lower. However, it is not fair to relate a film to other works, so based on its own strengths and weaknesses, it has earned the second point. I was surprised to see such a weak production coming from Jonathan Lemme, who gave us titles like "The Silence of the Lambs" and "Philadelphia".I watched "The Truth About Charlie" because I'm a big fan of the original, and I was wondering what they did with the material. Now that I have seen it I can tell you that, should you feel the same urge, you can safely ignore it and just re-watch "Charade", which has not lost any of its charm in the last 40 years. The remake might in some way make you appreciate it even more, but it is not worth the two hours of your life that it will cost you.

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.