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.

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.