Terrible movie


Contrived, confused, unfunny movie of no substance that doesn't know if it wants to be a thriller or a cheesy romantic comedy. There's lots of twists and turns that have no real significance. It annoyed me because it starts off pretty good then it is clear the writer doesn't know what he is doing so he takes refuge in one-liner for the two leads to say and dumb plot twists. It actually reminds me of that recent movie with Johnny Depp - The Tourist. It's no better than that film - but because it has Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn and it's old it has a high rating? Stop the hype with this one folks.

reply

[deleted]

ROT (reeks of troll)

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae

reply

It´s not really trolling you know.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

The misquoting "facts are stupid things" guy strikes again!

reply

it is clear the writer doesn't know what he is doing

I like how the OP refers to himself as "the writer" in his posting.

Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind.

reply

No, it has a high rating because obviously people like this movie. The whole point was the plot twists as the characters were exposed. If you're young, I doubt you'll understand. Sorry, sometimes it really is an age thing.

reply

What's considered young? Anyone under 40? I'm 37 and really enjoying the movie (watching it for the first time now). Reminds me of "The Pink Panther" (1963). I don't think that I have to be over 40 to enjoy this film.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

Perhaps when your voice has broken and you have learned a little more about the world, you will see that this is a smart, witty, intelligent and very stylish movie.

reply

How do you know that the person criticizing this film is young?

I happen to love this film, but I don't see what the big deal is if someone really dislikes it. It's not a film for everyone.

~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen

reply

Take the most critically acclaimed, beloved, timeless piece of fiction out there -- someone thinks it sucks.

It's just how it goes. There will always be dissenters for everything; there is no such thing as "universally loved."

reply

It's sad that some people can't handle any criticism of movies they like without playing the "troll" card.
While I think "terrible movie" and saying it's no better than "The Tourist" are taking it too far, your general criticism is accurate. The film's tone is a major problem and it does rely on twists which are fairly predictable. I rated it a 7/10, so I think it is over-rated on here, but it's still a decent movie with top notch acting throughout most of the cast.

reply

OP is right. My rating is minus a million! Leave my check at the usual drop point.

For who would bear the whips and scorns of Hollywood... (;-p)

reply

It's sad that some people can't handle any criticism of movies they like without playing the "troll" card.


They usually assume that the person criticizing the film is a teenager.

~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen

reply

What I think the OP means to say is fantastic movie.

reply

Agreed. This movie tried to be smart but it's really so dumb I had to turn it off after 40 minutes; couldn't take any more than that.

reply

I'm reminded that the great director Billy Wilder said "you have to remember with these movies we made -- they were supposed to last about three weeks or so, and then on to the next one."

Charade has lasted longer than that -- but back in the three weeks(and more) that it was a major hit at the Xmas end of 1963 into 1964, it was a blockbuster hit.

It was a very big deal to finally get Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn together as co-stars -- despite the age difference, they were, together, the epitome of smooth(British) voiced cool and sex appeal that was almost entirely "verbal and cerebral."

For co-stars, they got two actors who were about to be offbeat leading man stars on their own -- Walter Matthau and James Coburn...plus a character star aborning(George Kennedy, who, like Matthau would win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar in the 60's.) And Sneezy Ned Glass to round out the baddies.

The movie had the great 60's element of a jazzy/romantic/suspenseful Henry Mancini score(and theme song) and, yes, a very witty script by Peter Stone, including a scene with two diplomats who are bit parts:

Diplomat 1: So I bluffed him with a pair of fours.
Diplomat 2: So?
Diplomat 1: Well, if I can do that to him, what are the Russians doing to him?

Not to mention the Hitchcockian idea(borrowed from North by Northwest) of the illusive nature of identity (Cary Grant's name changes many times over in this film, though as he notes to Hepburn "but the man is the same."

For its time(1963) and surprisingly for a film with Grant and Hepburn, Charade also had a reputation as a pretty violent film -- rather "Psycho meets North by Northwest" -- one victim gets his throat slashed in an elevator; another smothers to death with a plastic bag tied round his head.

Director Stanley Donen(Singin in the Rain, Damn Yankees, Funny Face) -- usually a musical maker, here proved stylish enough in his suspense direction to rival Hitchcock, this one time. (With Arabesque in 1966 -- not so much.)

reply

It actually reminds me of that recent movie with Johnny Depp - The Tourist. It's no better than that film - but because it has Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn and it's old it has a high rating? Stop the hype with this one folks.

---

Well, Grant and Hepburn were a bigger deal than Deep and Jolie -- and the script for Charade was much better, and the danger was much more dangerous, and the co-stars(Matthau, Coburn and Kennedy) would become big stars themselves and...no , The Tourist is no Charade.

Plus..Charade may be old now...but it was new when it was released. And it was a big, big, big beloved hit. Much bigger hit than The Tourist.

reply