Rating: 
Summary: Who Knew I'd Fal, For Someone old Enough To Be My Father?
Review: After watching this movie I was struck by how gorgeous Peter O'Toole's blues are. He's funny and sweet and sarcastic, as well as wealthy and intelligent, in other words, any straight woman's dream. The plot is sweet and quick and very tongue in cheeck. Audrey's at her best and "gives givenchy a break" "in one of the scenes, a genuinely hilarious one that I won't describe lest I ruin the plot. And remember - boomerangs and empty whisky bottles are a lot more useful than you might think them.
Rating: 
Summary: You don't think I'd steal something that didn't belong to me
Review: Charles Bonnet, Nicole Bonnet's incorrigible father, makes a living forging long-lost masterpieces and then selling them at auctions or to private collectors, such as American business magnate David Leland. Bonnet's quite a character and is an artist, albeit a forger, living the moment, but also being the artist. When he paints a Van Gogh, he IS Van Gogh. Nicole is exasperated, worried that he'll be caught and sent to prison. Charles' flippant response is "The trouble is, you're so honest." So when he authorizes the loan of the prize of his collection, the Cellini Venus, a copy of it sculpted by her grandfather which her grandmother posed for, Nicole thinks her father has flipped his wig. It is worth a million dollars--hence the title.What Nicole dreads the most occurs when the museum announces that one Professor Bauer will be conducting tests to determine the statue's authenticity. To that end, Nicole enlists the aid of Simon Dermott, a burglar she caught in her father's house trying to steal a Van Gogh (fake, of course), to steal her father's sculpture to save him from being jailed for fraud. She doesn't tell him the real reasons, of course. Dermott thinks it's a crazy idea, given the high-tech security devices and the numerous police detail milling around the museum, but combined by Nicole's persistence and her charm, finally gives in. But just what does he hope to accomplish with a toy boomerang? The actual heist and scenes in the museum are worth waiting for, as that's where the exciting parts are. The cramped quarters in the broom closet underlines the tension of two people scared that they'll be caught, although it furthers the budding romantic storyline. And Dermott's ingenuity is well demonstrated. As he says, "wait for normal human reaction." A particular comical touch comes in the form of a portly museum guard who has a large mustache and quite a fondness for the bottle. Oh, and that alarm is pretty annoying, so beware! Audrey's Givenchy fashions become ridiculously funny, such as the pillbox hat and large-rimmed sunglasses in her opening scene, and even becomes a point of parody when Dermott remarks at Nicole dressed as a cleaning woman, "It Givenchy a night off." As it turned out, one night turned into thirteen years, as Givenchy was pressed back to work for Bloodline. The last comedy Audrey acted in, How To Steal A Million, originally titled Venus Rising, was the third and last film Audrey did for William Wyler, after Roman Holiday and The Children's Hour. It was also the first time Hepburn acted with a leading man closer to her own age since Anthony Perkins in Green Mansions, Peter O'Toole being three years her junior. Her wide expressive eyes and that winning smile are put to good use here. And she does have a great line: "You don't think I'd steal something that didn't belong to me?" Hugh Griffith is fun to watch as the rascally Charles Bonnet, with the same bulging eyes, funny hair, and goatee. O'Toole (Simon) is also an asset, suave, calm, clever, and quick with one-liners. So is Eli Wallach (Leland), an excitable and impulsive millionaire with his sights on the Venus. And Jacques Marin, who is the befuddled senior museum guard, previously appeared with Ms. Hepburn in Charade, as the chief of police. Panned when it first came out, I'm not sure why this doesn't hold out even today. Hepburn herself acted in it because she felt indebted to Wyler, who made her what she became, but at least she had fun with O'Toole, as the two were gigglers and many takes had to be required, especially in the broom cupboard scene. It's an enjoyable and frantic caper film, a genre popularized by Topkapi six years ago.
Rating:
Summary: Superb character acting makes this film enjoyable!
Review: Hands down, Peter O'Toole is the best thing this film has going for it! He aces that perfect blend of cocky and charming, and throws in a dash of mischieviousness for good measure. I only wish he would've done more comedies like this. He's a natural! Coming in at a close second are the fantastic supporting actors. Griffith is a riot as Audrey's father; just ignore the fact that they expect you to believe a guy who looks like that produced a daughter who looks like Hepburn. His wife must've been Venus! Eli Wallach is wonderful as Nicole's (or her father's?) suitor. Had it not been for O'Toole's knock-out performance, Wallach would've stole the show. Now, I'm most likely going to be lynched for saying this, but Hepburn's role was not up to par with her other performances, in my opinion. When Nicole finds out why Simon is helping her, she quips "I'm so stupid". Well, she said it, not me. There is a fine line between naive and stupid, and Hepburn's character crosses it one too many times in this film. You can also tell that she's looking, um, older in this movie. It wouldn't have been so obvious had they not tried to make her look 20-something. Of course, she's still beautiful and charming throughout. She can woo the viewer into accepting any shenanigans she does as perfectly normal, and in the end, she wooed me as well. If you want to see O'Toole in another hilarious movie, check out MY FAVORITE YEAR.
Rating:
Summary: I LOVE IT , I LOVE IT , I LOVE IT !!
Review: HOW TO STEAL A MILLION is one of the best comedies ever
made!Overflowing with wit,charm,romance and the PERFECT cast!
Audrey Hepburn is delightful,as usual! Peter O'Toole's enchanting
blue eyes,magnificent voice and charming personality left me
spellbound.HILARIOUS performance by Hugh Griffith and supporting
cast!
Never in my life has two hours gone by so quickly,every second
was completly enthralling.The plot,cast,cinematography,music,
everything,FLAWLESS.It is impossible to praise this movie
too much!I wanted to fall into the screen and become a part
of it!I only wish real life could be so much fun!
I recommend HOW TO STEAL A MILLION to EVERYONE!
Rating:
Summary: Charming Caper Movie
Review: How to Steal A Million was one of several elaborate heist comedies that formed sort of a subgenre in the 60's (Topkapi and Gambit to name a few others) This was Hepburn's first film after My Fair Lady and marked her last collaboration with William Wyler (who directed her in her Oscar winning role in Roman Holiday and The Children's Hour). Set in Paris, the tale involves a daughter (Hepburn) who hires who she thinks is an art thief (O'Toole) to steal back a statue sculpted by her art forger father (Hugh Griffith) before museum authorities test it for authenticity. The film is light and breezy, if a bit slow paced in the beginning. Neither Hepburn or O'Toole is required to do much acting, but they have star quality in spades and that elusive cinematic term called CHEMISTRY that is all this movie requires. Lots of eye catching Parisian locations, fashions and production values make this entertaining piece of fluff very easy to enjoy. The closet scene is a classic and Hepburn wearing washerwoman's clothes is a wonderful cinematic joke! (She even manages to look chic in that get up!) John Williams, pre-Jaws, provides a catchy score. They dont make movies like this anymore.........NOW IF ONLY FOX WOULD RELEASE TWO FOR THE ROAD ON DVD! This was one of Hepburn's finest performances and films and its shameful of Fox to keep it in their vaults!
Rating:
Summary: I give 5 stars to everything I review...Don't I?
Review: I love Breakfast at Tiffany's, but this has to be my absolute favorite Audrey Hepburn film!!! It will be released in December 2004 on DVD!!! Very good plot...cool cool cool....beautiful actress...yeah yeah yeah.....what more could you ask for???...It is a long wait, maybe you should order the video cassette used......!
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic Movie :)
Review: I love this movie. It has everything: romance, comedy, quirkiness and a kissing-in-a-closet scene! Audrey Hepburn was as adorable and entertaining as ever, and this was the first time that I'd ever seen a Peter O'Toole movie and he was fabulous! He's extremely funny and pretty darn spunky! You could just instantly fall in love with him, the second you saw those bewildered round blue eyes peering over the top of the "Van Gogh" painting. I didn't find this movie boring for an instant and I loved watching them steal back the "Cellini" sculpture, using, amongst other things, a bucket, a magnet and a boomerang! I think that this is now my favourite Audrey Hepburn movie. They make an extremely likable couple and their exploits in "How To Steal A Million" are engaging and engrossing.
Rating: 
Summary: A Diverting Bit of Fluff
Review: It must have seemed like a good idea at the time and "How To Steal A Million" is not really a bad movie - it's just not as good as it might have been. Probably intended as a follow-up to Audrey Hepburn's fun romp "Charade" - which shares this film's Parisian setting - "How To..." is doomed to suffer by comparison. To start with, director William Wyler, at the end of a long career, lacks the light touch of "Charade's" Stanley Donen. And, surprisingly good though he is, Peter O'Toole is no Cary Grant. But then the script is not a great help either. Briefly, the plot revolves around Hepburn - as the daughter of an unrepentant art forger - and her need to "steal" a sculpture Papa has lent to a museum - before tests can prove it's a fake. She enlists the help of suave, overly confident O'Toole who she believes to be an upper class art thief. In reality, he is an art forgery expert on the trail of Papa. Together, the mismatched pair carry out a moderately complicated and inventive heist of the statue. Of course, love rears its inevitable head along the way. One of the film's problems is its big budget. Everything is bright and glossy and shiny and brand new. Designer clothes look like they were put on the moment before the camera started to roll. Makeup is always perfect and hair is never out of place. Such lavish production values look wonderful in a musical but tend to slow down or even overwhelm a comedy. Even the music is too much. Where a frothy Mancini concoction was required, there is John Williams instead. His score was terrible in the sixties - it sounds even worse now. But there is still much to enjoy in the film - most of it provided by the chemistry between Hepburn and O'Toole. For once, Audrey's waif-like personality actually suits her role and she even seems to have a laugh or two at her own image. O'Toole demonstrates what a versatile actor he could be, tossing off quips and varying reactions like a comic pro. It's too bad he didn't do more comedies as he always seemed to enjoy them. Equally good fun is Hugh Griffith as yet another irasible old codger. But Charles Boyer is virtually wasted (he has one good line: "I know it's a Van Gogh, but who painted it?") while Eli Wallach's twitchy performance is downright embarrassing. Films like this used to roll off the assembly line back in the sixties and there were certainly many that were a lot worse than this one. Fans of Hepburn and O'Toole will like - if not love - it. And viewers unencumbered by great expectations will probably have a good time as well. If nothing else, as Rick said to Ilsa: we'll always have Paris.
Rating:
Summary: A fun film.
Review: Let's face it. If you're looking at this movie review, you've either seen it before, and in which case know what it is about or are an Audrey Hepburn fan, so you won't mind if I focus mainly on her. (Sorry, Peter O'Toole and Moustache fans.) I must admit that I was a bit disappointed by her performance. Now, don't get upset with me Audrey fans (a group with which I am a proud card-carrying member), let me explain first. Ms. Hepburn is as loverly, beautiful, (though she does look different with false eyelashes and her hair covering her forehead) charming and delightful as ever. It is just that she is given nothing to do except follow around O'Toole's character for the entire film. This is unfortunate, because she is completely convincing when she does have the chance to explore her character. Audrey Hepburn is a tremendous comic actress, and this could have been a chance for her to shine, and she does in parts. In the same way a narrowing of her brows or a hurt look in her eye or a tremor in her voice can break your heart, the way she sits on a bucket, scrubs a floor, or peeks from under a hat hopelessly to large for her can send you into rolling laughter. She just never gets a many good chances here. O'Toole is very good as a charming 'thief' and he and Hepburn share some tame chemistry. His performance surprised me, as the mention of O'Toole brings to mind immediately "Lawrence of Arabia". He proves quite convincing, however. William Wyler, who directed "Ben-Hur" and Audrey's only Oscar winning performance in "Roman Holiday" (it seems criminal that she won only one, doesn't it?) does a fantastic job here not letting the material get away from him and allowing the story and performances to speak for themselves. Some tense moments and a clever screenplay make this a very entertaining, fast-paced romantic-comedy. That doesn't exactly read right, does it? This is light-hearted fare, and very well done, something not seen at all these days. This film gets enthusiastic four stars from me. It would be three stars with a different actress and five if Audrey had had anything to work with.
Rating: 
Summary: Classy flop
Review: O'Toole and Hepburn mug and strut and read lines. Hugh Griffith is poorly cast. The script is extremely long, unbelievable, and speckled only here and there with wit. And, boy, is it light in that tiny closet where our stars are mugging and reading their lines.
Wholly artificial and unamusing, this is one of the least of the 1966 films.
|
