Paris When It Sizzles (1964)

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

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.

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.

This movie isn't everyone's cup of tea. Hepburn called it her least favorite film. Audiences shunned it. At the time of writing, IMDb gives it a measly 6.0 rating. Nevertheless, it is one of my all-time favorite movies.The problem with this film is that it isn't what everyone seems to be expecting it to be: a mindless romantic comedy. Quite on the contrary: this is a work that I can only compare with "Adaptation". It is a story about how stories actually get written: non-linearly, spasmodically, through much self-doubt and simultaneously excessive (narcissistic, really) introspection. (Although, to be fair, in Hollywood the practice has mostly been to call in a whole bunch of writers to fix up the messes left by writers of earlier drafts, so this is least true of how Hollywood movie scripts get written, but it is true just about everywhere else.) Like "Adaptation", this is a movie that takes the plunge into the mind of the writer as he creates a miniature, constantly shifting and bubbling world for us to visit, only to find a second world inside that first, and probably more where that came from. I don't think that you can appreciate it without having written something yourself, but if you have, then you know the feeling: life mimicking art, mimicking life, mimicking art. Personally, for me, the greatest cameo in this movie isn't the appearance of Tony Curtis or Frank Sinatra, but the fact that in mid-shooting William Holden had to be checked into a rehab clinic. How's that for life and art? Again, like in "Adaptation", the story makes no sense, and, in fact, cannot make any sense. Its what the movie is about. To let us watch and keep our sanity, humor is used abundantly. It is well written wit and quite funny, but it isn't what this movie is about, and taking it to be what the movie is about is perhaps what led to its being so underrated."Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" says the Wizard of Oz, and as far as box office success goes, he's right. Audiences don't like it when the magician shows how the trick is performed. This movie is a prime example. Another is Schwarzenegger's "Last Action Hero". If you like romantic comedies, you should probably avoid this movie. If you want to see a smart film about the madness of writing, this is a soft introduction to the topic.