ada the leading man is my tpye

Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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 ission; 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.

jacobs-greenwood Reunite William Holden and Audrey Hepburn, put them in the spectacular titled locale, sprinkle in a few star cameos (Marlene Dietrich, Tony Curtis, Mel Ferrer and Noel Coward) and voila ... a can't miss hit, right? Unfortunately, it didn't work that way. Someone forgot the script.In fact, that's the plot of this completely uninspired romantic comedy. Holden plays an aging, whiskey-swigging screenplay writer who's blocked, Hepburn a typist sent by movie producer Coward to help complete the long overdue story during a weekend. The movie plays out as these two Academy Award winning actors improvise scenarios of every conceivable genre, all of which are colorfully realized by cinematographer Charles Lang (no less) and Hepburn costumed by Givenchy (of course).But it just doesn't work. As a comedy, it's not funny, even with Tony Curtis appearing throughout; as for its romantic angle, the magic of Sabrina is long gone. When the opening scene - a masterful establishing shot from a helicopter of the French Riviera's Hotel du Cap (which doesn't even feature one of its headlining stars) - is the best thing about a movie, it's probably best to avoid it.

Eka Herlyanti This movie really reminds me of Alex & Emma where Kate Hudson and Luke Wilson play as the main casts. Of course it's Alex & Emma that imitates Paris When It Sizzles, not the other way around.I didn't enjoy the movie that much. The idea of the movie is making me uncomfortable. Like there's so many stories to offer and then suddenly they are modified almost every time, like it is a real unfinished and unprepared movie. I understand that this movie uses Richard Benson's view as a script writer, but I really need to stay focus. And this movie just didn't give me what I need. So glad that Audrey Hepburn is in. She's the only reason I watch this movie. And she's so funny as always. However, I don't like the male cast. I think they're not a perfect match. He's too old to be paired with Audrey.

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.