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.
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.