Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Majorthebys Charming and brutal

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

DKosty123 This film is totally different from most as it actually tries to celebrate movies writers who rarely get more than a credit in films. There is a lot to be said for doing this and the comedy of doing it is very stung in cheek. There are a lot of things in this one that work better than some recent attempts to redo it with other titles. I challenge younger viewers to name the recent film comedy which redid this script theme?Audrey Hepburn and William Holden are not a match made in heaven. The script pokes fun at that in more than one scene including a Hepburn line about him being "Well Preserved." There are a lot of little things here about the writer that just are put in this film deliberately to see if the viewers notice them. In fact, so far IMDb has failed to note the fact that in the films credits a song in the film is actually sung by Fred Astaire. This is one of the few films that only Fred Astaire's voice appears in. Fred hated his own voice but when it came to a script about writers, they cast him in the films rare musical moments (along with unaccredited Frank Sinatra).The true writer celebrates their script off camera when it is a great movie, and slinks away into the night when the film is a dud. Sometimes, when a film becomes a "Cult Classic", they get to do both. This story does celebrate some imagination of the story. "Lets put in a stranger who, no lets go back and take the stranger out."The cameos here are not as many as one would like, but a rare one of Marlene Dietrich, and 2 of Tony Curtis are rare in films. The color and locations used are well filmed. The fictional script - "The Girl Who Stole The Eiffel Tower" is not exactly a gem. This is a film in the uncut gem stage. This shows in the scenes in the studio lot on empty stages. Is this film perfect? Heavens no, as no writers script is ever perfect. Is the humor great? No, it is subtle, and that is the way it should be. When something Sizzles it is burning, but it can be saved by pulling it off the fire. That is what we have here, a film celebrating writers being grilled fast and then removed from the pan. Holden is over done, Hepburn is under done, and the theme is too trivial. For what it is, it works.

vincentlynch-moonoi 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.

jotix100 Even with the glorious views of the City of Light as the background, no one could have saved a movie that went through a disastrous production. It is well known that William Holden had to go into rehab because of his drinking binges while working on the picture. It didn't help either that George Axelrod, the screen writer, was trying to translate the far superior model, Julien Duvivier's "La fete a Henriette", which served as the model for this picture.Paramount had a terrible time trying to release a film that didn't make much sense, because the story just doesn't hold the viewer's interest. To add to that, the story is full of inside jokes of the movie industry, something that was not intended for the public at large. Richard Quine, the director must have gone through a rough period with delays and the frustrations that went along.The only thing to hold our attention is the lovely Audrey Hepburn, clad in her signature Givenchy clothes. As a young secretary, we must do a stretch of our imagination just to reconcile the idea that Gabrielle Simpson could have been able to get all those marvelous costumes from a famous designer with her salary. For all we know there must have been a Parisian branch of Loehmann's, even in those days!! Ms. Hepburn merits all the credit for staying focused and sober throughout the production because the shenanigans of her co-star could have driven anyone to drink! William Holden was a good actor with a big sobriety problem. When he was good, he was excellent, but alas, no one could have been able to convince him to give his best to this movie. Tony Curtis has a brief role, and is quite good. Marlene Dietrich has a cameo where she exudes class and sophistication. Noel Coward doesn't have much to do, as the producer of the fictional movie being written.The cinematography of Charles Lang was one of the best assets in the film. Nelson Riddle, a giant in music composed the score.

Maddyclassicfilms Directed by Richard Quine,Paris When it Sizzles is a seriously underrated film that was ahead of it's time in terms of plot and how it's shot.On release it didn't do well and there were serious problems with leading man William Holden.He and Hepburn were back together for the first time since the end of their love affair during the making of Sabrina.She had broken it off when she discovered he couldn't have children,the one thing she desired above all else.He began drinking heavily and often messed up his delivery of lines.The bad reaction on release seems to stem from the content of the film.It's an often hysterical dig at the way audiences just assume a film comes together on it's own,giving no thought to the creative process involved.Also it has great fun playing around with genre and character in a hap hazard array of ways.Most likely audiences just wanted a straight romance,what they got was something else entirely.Gaby(Audrey Hepburn)is hired to become an assistant to famous screenwriter Richard Benson(William Holden)at his hotel room in Paris.The two begin to write a screenplay for a new romantic film.As they begin to write the plots they imagine for the characters are shown on screen,acted out by Hepburn and Holden,featuring some funny cameo appearances especially Tony Curtis as a young method actor. A delightful blend of romance,humour and satire,Paris When it Sizzles is a good old style romantic comedy that features a fine cast and if your attentive fun is poked at films and acting styles without being nasty in any way.