SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

James_Moriarty I don't know what movie the other reviewers were watching, but it's hard to believe that it's the same film I saw. Yes, Audrey Hepburn is lovely; that's worth one star. Chemistry between her and William Holden? I didn't see it. Forget the fact that the inner narrative (the script of "The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower") makes no sense - OK, that's the point. But the outer narrative is little better. It's impossible to believe that Gabrielle would allow Richard to become so familiar, so quickly - despite his supposedly smooth approach that allegedly sets her on her ear. I could barely make it through this mess. It's just too bad that the camera negative and the only work print weren't stolen and burned, thereby sparing us this sorry spectacle.

TheLittleSongbird As a fan of Audrey Hepburn, I was quite interested in seeing this film. While Paris When it Sizzles is not without its charms, it sort of disappointed me. The film does benefit from some gorgeous locations and beautiful cinematography, while the music was a nice touch too. What makes the movie watchable is the cast. Audrey Hepburn has been better, but she is very graceful and charming in this movie and brings some vigour into the movie when it most needs it. William Holden is also great, the film is worth seeing for his chest, if I were to say it is a scene stealer it would be an understatement. And Tony Curtis is delightful, he always is a welcome presence and this is no exception, he has the film's funniest moments. I quite liked Marlene Dietrich's cameo too.However, Paris When it Sizzles does suffer from some problems. To be honest, I wasn't a fan of the title, after seeing the movie I thought it was misleading and lacked punch. The pacing is rather leaden here, while the direction is on the mediocre side of things. The script had its witty moments but it was often unfunny and weak, while the story is rather thin and predictable and the slower scenes and romantic moments are somewhat sappily written. The ending also falls flat, to be honest I was not surprised by the outcome and some scenes leading up to it were done in a sadly heavy-handed way. Finally, while it looked pretty and had a great cast, overall there wasn't any real fire and passion here.So overall, had great potential but fizzles out. 5/10 Bethany Cox

RResende This is an interesting study case:As a film, it's hardly any good. Simple direction, ordinary editing, nothing relevant, it's a product of old times, but worse than others that created and followed its model.As entertainment, it lost the value that it might have had in its day. And that's not specially bad about this specific film. Romantic comedy has to be the genre that gets outdated more easily, because it deals with very dated needs and demands of the audiences. So, this film is as outdated today, as any of our days' romantic comedies will be in 50 years.The acting by the main actors is tolerable even though we saw Hepburn, Holden and Curtis do better in many of their other films. And although this is not so well suited to Audrey's character, we still have her class, the most remarkable in filmdom.But something makes this film a remarkable and unique piece that you will eventually have to see if you care about cinema and shift the french printed on it at the beginning of the 60'. So here we have a film literally about film writing. From the very beginning we are allowed to know that we will be watching a film which is making itself, inventing as it goes along. Naturally the main characters had to be a writer, and a typist, who unwillingly becomes a writer as well. We have two levels: that of the reality of the hotel room in Paris, which already is ostensibly artificial (that's why Holden says he had the Eiffel tower placed so he'd know he was in Paris) and the level of the film within, a provisional reality, constantly changing, and affected by what goes on in the room. This constant changes in the film within would provide the entertainment part here (Tony Curtis acts to be funny, and he is).But where things really become interesting is in the french connection: there are a lot of explicit references to the new wave that was hitting Paris and french cinema those days. Those references were always mockery, things about how in those new films "nothing happens". And we get this film as the opposite of that, a feast to the eye, where the narrative is filled with events, regardless how silly they sound, even in the context of the film, and even in the context of the film within! What we have is the old fashioned way, and that's assumed. And the battle field is Paris, at once the stage of the new wave, where deep changes take place, and one of the most cherished locations of the "old days", one the most used places in the history of film, with all its iconic places, charged with symbolism in the post-war American cinema. That's what's at stake here: the rise of new paradigms, that threatened what "american cinema" for the masses meant back than. That's why the provisional title for the film within was "The woman who stole the Eiffel tower". The decadence of Holden's character (that mirrors what Holden himself was going through at this time) can be accounted with a symbolic weight. The 60' were a decade of European bright cinema, that Hollywood would follow, leaded by the so called Vietnam generation.The popcorn selling kiss, that is the more lasting scene of this film in how it fulfills its own assumed cliché is a twilight to a certain type of film. Oh, and we had Audrey...My opinion: 3/5 a bad film that you really have to see.http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

jotix100 Even with the glorious views of the City of Light as the background, no one could have saved a movie that went through a disastrous production. It is well known that William Holden had to go into rehab because of his drinking binges while working on the picture. It didn't help either that George Axelrod, the screen writer, was trying to translate the far superior model, Julien Duvivier's "La fete a Henriette", which served as the model for this picture.Paramount had a terrible time trying to release a film that didn't make much sense, because the story just doesn't hold the viewer's interest. To add to that, the story is full of inside jokes of the movie industry, something that was not intended for the public at large. Richard Quine, the director must have gone through a rough period with delays and the frustrations that went along.The only thing to hold our attention is the lovely Audrey Hepburn, clad in her signature Givenchy clothes. As a young secretary, we must do a stretch of our imagination just to reconcile the idea that Gabrielle Simpson could have been able to get all those marvelous costumes from a famous designer with her salary. For all we know there must have been a Parisian branch of Loehmann's, even in those days!! Ms. Hepburn merits all the credit for staying focused and sober throughout the production because the shenanigans of her co-star could have driven anyone to drink! William Holden was a good actor with a big sobriety problem. When he was good, he was excellent, but alas, no one could have been able to convince him to give his best to this movie. Tony Curtis has a brief role, and is quite good. Marlene Dietrich has a cameo where she exudes class and sophistication. Noel Coward doesn't have much to do, as the producer of the fictional movie being written.The cinematography of Charles Lang was one of the best assets in the film. Nelson Riddle, a giant in music composed the score.