Best movie ever!

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

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

A young woman in Paris is about to divorce her husband when she discovers he's been killed 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, or worse.......get to wear berets....Heaven knows what Demme was thinking when he made this, maybe he was having a bet with Ted or something, because, as you would expect, it's not the best film in the world.Sometimes it's verging on parody, and there are points when you think Wahlberg will break the fourth wall and wink at the audience, as his and Newtons acting is pretty pantomime.But it looks wonderful to look at, and the editing and the filming style is straight from the French New Wave, at least it has that going for it.As a remake, it sucks. The narrative is pretty dopey, and makes no sense to the story.And the film makes the biggest plot hole these types of mysteries do, have a being star with an 'and' before their name, you can guarantee that they are the villain.Lovely to look at, painful to watch.

Almost every comment about this movie goes into great detail in how disjointed and awful this remake is and I wholeheartedly agree with all the condemnation. What is amazing to me is that Roger Ebert's review states that while the original "Charade" has been voted the 168th best film ever he thinks this catastrophic abomination is justified because Thandie Newton photographs well. The attempts to bring bits of French films into the remake are an insult as all the original film fit the pattern of a standard American thriller, the only connection to France being the location. Nearly all of the humor of Cary Grant, like his line about leaving a bad guy hanging around American Express, almost a precursor to some of Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry or Swartaneggar's wise cracks were completely omitted. This film should not only have gotten a thumbs down but should have been Hanniblized.

Okay I understand that there are a lot of die hard 'Charade' fans out there and I can totally sympathize with you. My devotion to Audrey Hepburn is the reason why I put this movie off for so long. I caved a couple of nights ago and found myself watching a throughly entertaining movie. I realized whilst watching the film that I was not watching for a 'Charade' remake but a whole new movie altogether. I understand that the remake thing is getting old now, but that's how all art is formed. Think of the novel; think of how many novel have been modeled and copied Don Quixote, and they were often good novels as well. So I think instead of viewing remakes as simply that; a remake. We should be watching it as an entirely new film that hasn't been made yet.

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).