Artivels Undescribable Perfection

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

DKosty123 This film is totally different from most as it actually tries to celebrate movies writers who rarely get more than a credit in films. There is a lot to be said for doing this and the comedy of doing it is very stung in cheek. There are a lot of things in this one that work better than some recent attempts to redo it with other titles. I challenge younger viewers to name the recent film comedy which redid this script theme?Audrey Hepburn and William Holden are not a match made in heaven. The script pokes fun at that in more than one scene including a Hepburn line about him being "Well Preserved." There are a lot of little things here about the writer that just are put in this film deliberately to see if the viewers notice them. In fact, so far IMDb has failed to note the fact that in the films credits a song in the film is actually sung by Fred Astaire. This is one of the few films that only Fred Astaire's voice appears in. Fred hated his own voice but when it came to a script about writers, they cast him in the films rare musical moments (along with unaccredited Frank Sinatra).The true writer celebrates their script off camera when it is a great movie, and slinks away into the night when the film is a dud. Sometimes, when a film becomes a "Cult Classic", they get to do both. This story does celebrate some imagination of the story. "Lets put in a stranger who, no lets go back and take the stranger out."The cameos here are not as many as one would like, but a rare one of Marlene Dietrich, and 2 of Tony Curtis are rare in films. The color and locations used are well filmed. The fictional script - "The Girl Who Stole The Eiffel Tower" is not exactly a gem. This is a film in the uncut gem stage. This shows in the scenes in the studio lot on empty stages. Is this film perfect? Heavens no, as no writers script is ever perfect. Is the humor great? No, it is subtle, and that is the way it should be. When something Sizzles it is burning, but it can be saved by pulling it off the fire. That is what we have here, a film celebrating writers being grilled fast and then removed from the pan. Holden is over done, Hepburn is under done, and the theme is too trivial. For what it is, it works.

JohnHowardReid Never has a major movie received such bad reviews from ALL the critics, but I didn't think a film with Audrey Hepburn and Noel Coward, scripted by George "Seven Year Itch" Axelrod and directed by Richard "The Notorious Landlady" Quine could be anything like as lousy as the all the critics inferred. (See OTHER VIEWS below).Well, I was wrong on all counts. Marlene's ten-second clip was hardly worth the price of admission; there was little if anything left of "Henriette", except part of the basic idea; and the film was even more tedious, more lacking in genuine wit or sparkle — whenever Holden was on screen (which was just about all the time), except for the vampire interlude and a few cracks about movies like the importance of the dissolve from the angle of censorship — than I could have imagined possible from the creator of "Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter".Poor Miss Hepburn is reduced to acting as a stooge for Holden. Her fans are going to be mighty disappointed. And Noel Coward has little more than a bit part. The best performance is delivered by Tony Curtis. Although not billed, Curtis's role is actually quite extensive. Here is an actor who knows how to play tongue in cheek (see "The Purple Mask"). It is Curtis alone of the players who consistently shines, even when forced to wear the thinnest and most threadbare clothes.Other delights are provided by the rich Technicolor photography (Quine started out with Claude Renoir, but he was replaced by Lang during shooting) and the sumptuous sets designed by Jean D'Eaubonne.With trimming, (the movie seems to go on forever, long after a logical and halfway pleasing conclusion — at least twenty, maybe thirty or thirty-five minutes of boring Holden-Hepburn ego-tripping could mercifully be jettisoned), "Paris When It Sizzles" could provide moderate entertainment. Do I hear any volunteers?OTHER VIEWS: Smells. — Variety. Hello, suckers! — Judith Crist. Dross. — A. H. Weiler in The New York Times. Deadly… Coward at his most repellent. — Stanley Kauffmann in The New Republic. Fatuous, embarrassingly unfunny, a dreadfully expensive display of bad taste, bad acting and bad direction. — Hollis Alpert in The Saturday Review. Burn it! — Time.

vincentlynch-moonoi I didn't watch this film all at once, but over the course of a day, and while I didn't like it much in the beginning, it grew on me. However, if what you like in a film is a strong plot, you're going to be disappointed. But if you'd enjoy a bit whimsy and farce, you'll enjoy this. And, if you've watched Audrey Hepburn and William Holden much on the screen, you'll enjoy this for another reason -- I'm not sure either has appeared in a film like this before, so it stretches them...particularly Holden.In regard to the plot, it's a story within a story. Holden is a screen writer, Hepburn a temp typist. He's behind in his writing to meet a script deadline...well, actually he hasn't even really started. As he and Hepburn discuss various aspects of an already wacky script idea, their musing are acted out with them in starring roles...along with a minor bit player -- Tony Curtis. The script is "okay", and very occasionally quite clever. But it's not the attraction of the film.It isn't that Holden never did comedy, or farce, or especially combined with romance. It's just that those film ingredients aren't what we usually think of him in. Yet, here he shines. In fact, it's one of the most endearing aspects of the film. He even dances...well, sort of. He's really very charming and engaging here.Hepburn was very versatile. And she is charming and engaging here as well, but we had long since come to expect that of her.Tony Curtis is very amusing here as a minor character in the film within the film...pouting at his status, and constantly berated for his minor status. Very tongue in cheek, since he was just past his peak at this time...although we didn't realize that at the time the film was made.And yes, aspects of the film were shot on location, making the cinematography all the more stunning.In sum, while the film may be weak on plot, the chemistry among the three best known stars, particularly Hepburn and Holden, is what makes the film worth watching...and it is...at least once.

sol- Given two days to finish a screenplay that he has supposedly been writing for months but has actually not yet started, a washed up screenwriter enlists the help of an imaginative young stenographer in this comedy vehicle for 'Sabrina' alumni William Holden and Audrey Hepburn. While a predictable eventual romance between the pair adds very little to the story, it is delightful to have the Oscar winning stars back together with equally as much chemistry a decade on. As the plot furthermore consists of both leads imagining and reinventing (as they go along) what the screenwriter's movie will eventually look like, ambition is in no short supply here. The results are not, however, entirely successful. Amusing as all the reversed footage is as they change their mind about scenes - and as curious as some of their deflections are as they wonder how the film could be turned into everything from a heist comedy to a vampire horror flick - there is absolutely no escaping how tepid the film within the film eventually ends up being. The characters of the film-within have no character and the plot does not really make sense. One might, however, argue this as intentional on behalf of the actual filmmakers, George Axelrod and Richard Quine, who (intentionally or not) prove that it is impossible to write a lucid one-and-a-half hour film in less than 48 hours! Whatever the case, the film is an interesting celebration of the human creative process and some hilarious cameos by Marlene Dietrich and Tony Curtis in a glorified "bit part" do not hurt at all.