JohnHowardReid
NOTES: Originally, producer/director Wyler cast George C. Scott opposite Miss Hepburn, but after a falling out between the two men, Wyler replaced Scott with Peter O'Toole. The movie was Number 10 on Kate Cameron's list of the Ten Best Films of the Year for the "New York Daily News". Also number 10 on the trade paper, "The Film Daily" list. And with a rentals gross of $4.4 million, one of the top thirty box-office successes of 1966 in the domestic market.COMMENT: Harry Kurnitz's script has some clever plot ideas and some witty lines buried in a somewhat over-long, over-talkative and too sluggishly paced caper, which the normally reliable William Wyler has directed with far too heavy a hand. True, it has its amusing moments and the caper itself is quite funny. It's also nice to see Fernand Gravet (looking sadly aged); and Charles Boyer (bearing up well — alas, he has only two scenes); and that delightfully comic pantomimist Moustache as one of the guards.Drastic trimming is needed. It's too heavy a champagne, too much of a good thing. Nice photography and sets; O'Toole tries hard; Miss Hepburn is Miss Hepburn to the "T" (and not always too flatteringly photographed); and Hugh Griffith flusters magnificently. But the film would be twice as enjoyable at three-quarters the length. This sort of comedy is definitely not Wyler's forte. His approach is too stolid, too wearisomely slow for tongue-in-cheek shenanigans of the debonair crime caper school. This is Ealing territory. Despite its Parisian locations and the re-union of Wyler and Hepburn, HTSAM is definitely no "Roman Holiday".As I said, the movie is very slow to get off the ground. In fact, the first half-hour is better missed. After that, there is an incredible improvement in dialogue and situations and even William Wyler's stodgy direction perks up considerably. Unfortunately, there is no improvement in Charles Lang's photography — easily the worst I have ever seen in a major movie. Or maybe we critics were shown a rough cut?
SimonJack
Peter O'Toole was English and Audrey Hepburn came to the U.S. from England (she was born in Belgium). Both were stars at the peak of their careers when this 1966 caper comedy came out. I wonder why this was the only film they made together. They certainly show good chemistry in "How to Steal a Million." But then, every actor seemed to have good chemistry with Audrey Hepburn. And she played opposite many of the leading men of the 1950s and 1960s. In many of her films, the male lead was considerably older. This film is unusual in that regard. While the two lead characters are about the same age in the film, O'Toole in real life was more than three years younger than Hepburn. This film isn't among the best works of either star. But it has charm in an interesting but simple plot. Hepburn plays Nicole, whose father, Bonnet (played by Hugh Griffith) is an accomplished painter who prefers to make his money by masterly forgeries. But he doesn't get caught because of his unique market – super rich patrons of the arts who prefer to hoard once lost masterpieces rather than share them or show them in public. O'Toole is Simon Dermott, the world's foremost expert in uncovering forgeries and unmasking the culprits. But, perchance, Hepburn mistakes him for an art thief. Therein lies the start of a wonderful, funny caper that will see their romance bloom as well. There are no belly laughs in this film, but plenty of occasions to chuckle and smile. The film takes place in Paris and was shot in France. So, it pokes the customary fun at some things French – in this case, the museum watch guards, police security and the government. It's a light film but an entertaining one that the whole family should enjoy.
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".
charmadu
First of all, full disclosure: I had a GIGUNDA crush on Peter O' Toole as a young girl, and this film catches him at a moment in his life when he not only looked crazy fabulous, but appears to be having the time of his life with this gossamer wing of a tale with... who else? The Queen of Gossamer Wing Tales herself, Audrey Hepburn. But above and beyond these two knockouts and the delightful chemistry they have together, and their wonderful cast (most notably Hugh Griffiths as Audrey's father), we have Paris, we have that enchanting musical title theme, we have that stunningly gorgeous house they live in, and those cars! Peter's citrine Jaguar XKE has to be the sexiest car that has ever been filmed. I don't even know what Audrey's car was but it is SO adorable and chic - whoever chose the cars should have been nominated for an Oscar for that alone. The script is clever, the Givenchy outfits are lovely, and Wiliam Wyler directs with such a light touch. Come visit the Paris of 1966 and watch Peter and Audrey fall in love!
AD
