Review of Charade (1963) by Martin Z — 24 Jul 2008

Actually, I liked "Charade" a lot, but I wrote the above provocative headline to make a point about the movie?s primary flaw.

[size=1][/size]First, though, I?d like to focus on the positive. "Charade" is very enjoyable and very suspenseful, has surprising twists and turns, and has very interesting supportive characters. While watching the movie, I wanted to keep watching to see what would happen next.

[size=1][/size]I was particularly interested in the mystery of whether Cary Grant?s character was a good or bad guy. As a viewer, I bonded with the Audrey Hepburn character as she tried to figure out whether Grant was on her side, colluding with her late husband?s foes, or a cold-blooded killer and thief.

[size=1][/size]"Charade" hooked me so much that I watched it three times and was never bored as I rewatched it. Watching the movie again also gave me an opportunity to look for the clues that I didn?t pay attention to the first time. "Charade" was definitely an effective mystery.

[size=1][/size]However, "Charade" was NOT an effective romance. It wasn?t credible that Hepburn?s character would pursue a man who lied to her constantly, confessed he wanted to steal her husband?s $250,000, might have murdered him, and was twice her age. The second he said he was the brother of one of her husband?s co-conspirators in the theft of government gold, she should have realized that what appeared to be a chance meeting at a ski resort was, in fact, a reason to suspect he was evil.

[size=1][/size]Hepburn?s constant romantic advances were extremely annoying. I blame Grant for the lousy romantic angle because everything I read about this movie says that he would not take the part unless the script was rewritten. Originally, the script had the man pursuing the woman.

[size=1][/size]Director Stanley Donen should have selected someone else to play the male lead ? a 40ish James Bond-type playboy whose roguish charm eventually seduces Hepburn, who should have been resisting a romance for most of the movie. Choosing a celebrity over a script is not a good idea.

[size=1][/size]"Charade" also would have been better if Alfred Hitchcock was the director. Donen does a nice job of balancing suspense, humor and sharp dialogue, but the tone is way too light. People are being killed, but the characters don?t convey as much fear as they should. They act like bystanders observing the murders from a distance rather than principals who could be the next to perish.

[size=1][/size]These flaws, though, were not something I thought as much about as the mystery. "Who killed Hepburn?s husband?" I kept thinking to myself. As "Charade" progressed, my interest in the mystery deepened as the possible murderers were killed themselves and the suspect was not shown. Throughout the movie, the supporting characters played by George Kennedy, Ned Glass, James Coburn, and Walter Matthau were all distinctive, entertaining, and well-developed.

[size=1][/size]Getting immersed in the characters pays off when the writers throw viewers for a loop by making surprising revelations about a couple of them near the end.

[size=1][/size]I realize I?ve asserted that "Charade" has major flaws, but I?m giving it an 8 because I really enjoyed its primary plot, suspense, and characters.

-- ZWrite.