User Reviews

Having read most of the other reviews here for this film I was surprised to find that I took something quite different from the viewing than what everyone else seems to have. Most people describe it as a satirical look at movie/script writing with the two main actors falling in love after a great deal of hammy acting, and I guess this is a fair comment, but it is my opinion that most people have missed something that begins the moment Hepburn enters the room. Holden's character is immediately attracted to her, and while her own feelings may not be so readily apparent, she is soon swept up by his energy as he whirls around the room throwing papers all about, and her fascination with him becomes clear when she allows herself to be kissed within 5 minutes of having entered his apartment. It was this moment that tipped me off as to what the film was going to be all about, and from then on I found it to be utterly charming and quite hilarious. His writing becomes immediately hampered by the fact that his attraction to her overtakes his thoughts and she becomes the centre of his narrative, and he like-wise becomes the heroic male figure that he imagines she should fall in love with. With this in mind and Hepburn's fascination with his charm and energy, the jumping and changing of scenes within the narrative becomes hilarious, and it is obvious that this smitten pair will not be coming up with anything worthwhile any time soon. Holden's jealousy over Hepburn's mention of her boyfriend results in him imagining the mystery man to be a complete lame duck, and when he portrays him as such in the narrative, Hepburn's attraction to the presumptuous Holden shows in her supplying feeble protest to the verbal attack. Eventually they are both so taken with each other that their attempts to portray any serious moments within the narrative become saturated by their own feelings, and this only serves to raise the level of humour. Towards the latter half of the film there are some absurd and over-the-top moments, but this is understandable when taking into account that neither of them is concentrating properly. I felt the treatment of the real-life boyfriend by both Hepburn and Holden at the end was a little harsh, and the public fight scene that followed a little too silly, but this did not detract too much overall, and by the time the closing credits came up I felt that I had watched a highly original, clever and immensely enjoyable love story / comedy. I give "Paris...When It Sizzles" 7 out of 10.

I imagine this movie receives so many negative reactions because it is not the romantic comedy it was advertised as or that one would expect. This is less Sabrina and more Mel Brooks with a healthy helping of meta-fictional commentary on Hollywood tropes and the writing process. Paris When It Sizzles is goofy camp more in the vein of The Great Race than anything. If you're a writer or storyteller in any medium, then surely you will understand Holden's pain as he constantly runs out of drive and inspiration, going through draft after draft. The film within the film changes genre, characterization, and tone constantly. Everything about screen writing is parodied or lamp-shaded: the Production Code, plot structure, writing for specific actors, adhering to conventions, making sure the money is present on the screen. The movie also often feels like Old Hollywood taking potshots at the next generation of filmmakers: the French New Wave and the "mumbling" of method actors are comedy fodder as well.

The film only flounders toward the end. The romance between Hepburn and Holden in the frame story begins as an interesting subversion of the romantic clichés Holden's screenwriter puts down in his phoned-in screenplays, but toward the end it takes a conventional turn that feels rather tacked on. The film spoofs Hollywood conventions only to succumb to their escapist charms in the end. Now this may or may not be a serious flaw depending upon your perspective. It didn't hurt the film too much for me, but I can see someone wanting more satire being disappointed.

Your enjoyment of this film heavily relies on knowing what to expect going into it. This movie is quite unlike Audrey Hepburn's other romantic vehicles from the 1950s and it doesn't have the style and sophistication of Breakfast at Tiffany's or Charade, but it is a fun, smart movie and she is great in it.

I love this movie. It is definitely an underrated classic. I don't watch it because I particularly enjoy the storyline or the cinematography. In fact, some of the parts, i don't really enjoy much at all (ie. when William Holden is a vampire in the caves... I understand that it's a side-story developing in the head of the drunken Audrey Hepburn, but it seemed to take away from the movie a bit). But I came into this movie, expecting very little. A friend, also a movie buff, had told me that this movie wasn't all that great. So I didn't expect much. Frankly, I only watched it out of love for Audrey Hepburn. I've watched Sabrina a million times, and watched how Hepburn and Holden interact with one another. Seeing the two as the actual lead couple was pretty fun. I think the acting is pretty great. But above all, this movie contains one of the best, funniest, wittiest scripts I have ever come across. I love how the lines are worded perfectly, and I would find myself actually laughing out loud at the scenes, even when I'm watching it all by myself! If you're looking for a movie with a smart script, here is one for you. Don't let it pass by without a glance. You won't regret it.

I remember seeing the trailer for this 1964 film and thinking, like millions of other people, that this would be the natural follow-up to "Charade": same Audrey Hepburn coupled with an older eatablished male star, same Paris setting, same romantic music... It turned out that the audience watching this on the suburban main street cinema in St-Lambert, Quebec, were for the most part dumbfounded. Here was a film about a scriptwriter writing a script and altering the story as he went along in order to fulfill a mercenary obligation to create the most fulfilling, popcorn-selling entertainment possible, spoofing every movie convention in the process, out-Stanley-Donen-ing Donen's "Charade", which was itself an attempt to out-Hitchcock Hitchcock's films. It was brainy, satirical, cynical and the first obvious deconstruction of what makes movies tick. Being a remake of a French 1952 film by Julien Duvivier (scripted by cinema pioneer Henri Jeanson) called "La Fête à Henriette" made it even more derivative. Being scripted by George Axelrod (of "Manchurian Candidate" fame) made it challenging. Unfortunately, trying to salvage the film itself with the oldest movie cliché of them all - the redemptive power of love - made the happy ending definitely tongue-in-cheek and a tad less than sincere. But then there was so much to fill the viewer's time between the outrageous premise and the outrageous ending, it can be said that the thoughtful film-fan did get more than his money's worth. One of my favourite scenes is near the end, when the hero punches the heroine's boyfriend in public, which triggers a series of imitative violent acts in the impressionable public - including two Parisian kids starting a fight. What better illustration of the power of (American) movie violence to modify its audience's behaviour? So, which is it, silly entertainment or thoughtful thesis about the power of the narrative and of its many accepted conventions? Whatever you think of this film, it is at least partly responsible for the creation of the sixties pull-all-the stops, over-the top satirical-and-socially-conscious school of absurdist comedy which ran the gamut from "Laugh-In" and "The Monkees" on TV to manic but oh-so-hip-for-the-times movies like "Don't Make Waves", "Lord Love A Duck", "Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mama's Hung You in the Closet and I'm Feeling so Sad", "Candy" and "The Magic Christian".

P.S.: It would be very nice if "La Fête à Henriette" was made available on DVD for comparison purposes. But, like many great French films, it is only available for pillaging, referencing or as the basis for an American remake, but definitely not for viewing.

Audrey Hepburn plays a typist come to do the dictation of a famous movie writer (!) to help him finish his script.

Unfortunately, the writer (William Holden) took the producer's money weeks ago and hasn't done a scrap of work. When the typist arrives, full of hero worship, she discovers he has two days to finish and deliver a completed script -- and all he has is the title: "The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower." Though "Paris" is all about how the two write the screenplay, this is not a movie about the throes of creation (any more than another comedy about a writer, "Throw momma from the Train.")

The problem with movies about writers is that a writer's life consists of sitting around staring at the blank pages in the typewriter (then) or a blank computer screen (now). Usually some outside element has to be introduced to make a movie about a writer interesting. "Paris" makes the process of writing the screenplay a surrogate for wooing, as the increasingly desperate (and amorous) Holden dictates to Hepburn (who, as an aspiring writer, offers a few suggestions of her own).

What makes this movie more a fantasy than a romantic comedy is that the movie they are writing -- "The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower" -- plays out on-screen, with Holden and Hepburn taking the leads.

It must have looked really good on paper. And some of it plays well (as when Holden, after dictating the plot of his movie changes his mind and starts again from an earlier scene, making the movie-within-a-movie rewind). It's all good fun, the way these two people who are falling in love and refuse to admit it, preferring to play out their fantasies in the film they are writing. Holden and Hepburn are perfectly charming doing it.

Unfortunately, the movie they're writing is too silly for words. If this is the stuff Holden cranks out for a living, it's a wonder he's rich and famous (are any movie writers rich and/or famous?) There is some good stuff here. An unbilled Tony Curtis (a major star at the time) is a delight as he makes repeated and unflattering appearances in "The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower." Curtis had made comedies ("Some Like it Hot") but was coming off several serious movies ("Taras Bulba," 'The Outsider," "The Great Impostor") when he was slipped into "Paris when it Sizzles." This movie seems to mark Curtis' slide into increasingly inconsequential 60s comedies.

More often, "Paris When it Sizzles" fizzles as it makes the mistake of the sillier 1960s comedies. For instance, at a "wild party" (a must in the more inane comedies of the period) Mel Ferrer, who everyone at the time knew as Audrey Hepburn's husband, as well as a big-screen actor in his own right, makes an unbilled cameo playing Dr. Jekyll. There's no rhyme or reason to his appearance, other than to give a giggle to readers of "Photoplay" at the appearance of Hepburn's hubbie. Yet someone must have thought Ferrer's mere appearance would have had the audience rolling in the aisles.

"Paris" possibly helped inspire that sort of 1960s wackiness where film-makers thought simply being silly for the sake of silliness, apropos of nothing, with a twist of pseudo-psychedelicness, would prove funny. "What's New Pussycat", "Casino Royale" and other nonsense ensued.

Hepburn didn't like the finished flick, and Holden may well have had this movie in mind when he wondered if acting was any way for a grown man to make a living; but "Paris" slips under the wire as a success on the star power of Holden, Hepburn and Curtis (and a billed appearance by Noel Coward, who was a grand old man of entertainment at that time, though he's too old here to show why). Even with all that star power the movie sometimes seems to be running on fumes, especially when it gets just a smidge too silly. But it never tries to be anything other than what it is. It has no pretensions. It simply is; and if you like silliness, and big movie stars acting like children, and don't want to watch a movie that makes you think much, you might enjoy this stuff.

One word about the romance angle. Much is made about the age difference between Holden and Hepburn. It's only eleven years. Hepburn was thirty-five or so at the time, while Holden was yet on the sunny side of fifty. But Holden is beginning to show wear (especially when he dons his glasses) while Hepburn (possibly due to ingenious makeup) looks fresh as a daisy. Obviously Hepburn isn't playing a thirty-five-year-old. But they're both adults and they seem to be enjoying themselves.

The biggest puzzle is the title. It seems like a better title would be "The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower." But I suppose that might mislead some people into thinking it was a tense, Hitchcockian mystery.

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.