Dynamixor
The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.
Ava-Grace Willis
Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.
Portia Hilton
Blistering performances.
LenaAndBarry
One particular line, said by Nicole Bonnet (Audrey Hepburn) in a stupefied voice, accurately sums up my overall feelings: "Marvelous."The comedy! When it comes to the jokes, screenwriter George Bradshaw is a sharpshooter. And of course, with any comedy that works, a portion of the applause should be directed towards the pair of lead actors and their chemistry. EVERY SECOND that Hepburn and O'Toole shared the screen, my smile, which seemed to always be there, widened. My love for Audrey has long since been established, but here is where I fell for Peter, who I'd dare say stole the movie; he was SO damn good, and SO damn charming. It's this couple's likability that contributes to the nervous excitement of the heist suggested in the title.And that heist! That entire playful sequence, from the planning to the finale, was a blast. Wyler seamlessly wove scenes that filled me with anxiousness with those that had me grinning at the delightful comedy and romance. It was so creative and so much fun to sit through.I wish I had more words to praise this picture, but a first viewing and a lack of an imagination restrict me. To wrap this up: this being my first Wyler unfairly sets the bar at a dizzying height for the second.
Kirpianuscus
not a comedy. not an brilliant example of ironic view about art market. or seductive love story with few memorable scenes. but a charming story about tricks, meetings, suspense and Audrey Hepburn in a fantastic role. and, maybe, useful revelation for discover Peter O 'Toole as great comedian. a film who challenges the viewer in many ways. this is the basic source of its charm. and the explanation for its success. because all is lovely, acid and touching. emotions, the statue, Hugh Griffith 's performance. and the clash between revelations and the tension of the work of impeccable fake thief are pieces for recreate the nostalgia. for a period, for a manner to make romantic films, for a lost form of innocent, wise, bitter and full of impressive sparkles movies.
gavin6942
Romantic comedy about a woman (Audrey Hepburn) who must steal a statue from a Paris museum to help conceal her father (Hugh Griffith)'s art forgeries, and the man (Peter O'Toole) who helps her.At this point in his career, William Wyler was a legend and had made many successful films and critical hits. This is a man who had been working for decades in a variety of genres. And yet, after all those years, this may be one of his most entertaining.We start with the fun idea of paintings being forged, with the incredible character actor Hugh Griffith. I wish Griffith had done more films, because he seems to have taken anything people would give him, ending up in a few AIP films. And then we have a comedy for the next two hours. The description says "romantic comedy", but I think that does not really do the film justice. It is not the modern idea of what we call a "rom com".
secondtake
How to Steal a Million (1966)Well, Old Hollywood is on its last year here, and this is characteristic of its entertainment fodder at its best. That's complicated sounded because it is, in fact, a complicated picture behind the scenes. But first, this is a really fun movie. It's well directed (the incomparable William Wyler is why) and it stars the incomparable Audrey Hepburn--a dubious talent as an actress at times, but she just plays herself, and there is no one like her. Even the plot here is clever, a twist on the heist romance film that includes "To Catch a Thief."Oh yes, mannequin-face Peter O'Toole with the stolen jewel blue eyes is here, funny and quirky as always. He and Hepburn do not have chemistry, but they make it fun and perky. And warm, in the end.You almost have to look at these late Hollywood movies separate from the rising tide of serious alternative films with both content and energetic new style. The best example might be the first film by Mike Nichols, "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" from the same year. This was New Hollywood on the verge--both films were based on plays, and the Nichols film won best picture. And then there is Nichols's second, "The Graduate," the next year, where the slick style of the old school melds with comic and social intensity of the new."How to Steal a Million" is pure fluff. It's well made, well film, well paced, well written fluff, but fluff. It means you can watch it once but not really enjoy the second round. And there are so many films like this from this period you have to wonder where people's tastes were. (The short answer is television.) You don't know quite what might happen but you are merely amused when it does. Even when our stars fall in love little by little. That gives nothing away, which say everything.
