I love this movie so much

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

The acting in this movie is really good.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

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.

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.

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.

In 1954, William Holden and Audrey Hepburn lit up the screen in Billy Wilder's 'Sabrina (1954),' though certain narrative requirements stipulated that the latter must instead end up in the arms of a certain other grizzled Hollywood star. 'Paris When It Sizzles (1964)' was the pair's second and final teaming, and it's a light, breezy and likable enough romantic comedy, with a nice concept but a rather lazy screenplay. I've always enjoyed exploring the notion that an author (or a screenwriter, in this case) is virtually a god with respect to his own story, able to direct his characters' every action and impulse, and to alter and even reverse reality if he feels the tale requires it. This is exactly what Richard Benson (Holden) and Gabrielle Simpson (Hepburn) do during two warm days in Paris – they explore their own romantic connection indirectly through their screenplay, and, each time the relationship turns sour, they are able to permanently reverse the action and start out fresh; this is a luxury that real-life can never afford us.There's a spontaneity to the screen writing process that I liked. When the story suddenly reverts to the tired cliché of government agents in trench-coats, Benson hastily condemns his lack of originality and rolls back the plot. When the story is in need of a handsome but arrogant male suitor, they postulate somebody like Tony Curtis – and, behold, Tony Curtis arrives on a scooter to fill the part! All this reminded me strongly of a short film that I wrote and directed several years ago, age 16, about a failed novelist trying unsuccessfully to compose his masterpiece, constantly revising and rewriting until the story takes on a life of its own. Unfortunately, the terrific concept of 'Paris When It Sizzles' eventually runs out of steam, and "The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower" soon becomes a trite and cheesy crime caper, of the sort that only the 1960s could have produced. What might have been a clever, witty and insightful dissection of human relationships (and the artificiality of Hollywood romance), instead retires as an agreeable but insubstantial light comedy.The screenplay for 'Paris When It Sizzles' was written by George Axelrod, who also co-penned my least favourite Billy Wilder film, 'The Seven Year Itch (1955).' There is some good-natured banter concerning the true nature of Hollywood film-making (did you know that "Frankenstein" and "My Fair Lady" are effectively the same story?), but otherwise the dialogue is fairly forgettable, and doesn't move the story anywhere. Some Wilder witticisms in this film, certainly, could not have gone amiss! Holden and Hepburn are, predictably, charming and likable, sharing a chemistry that suggests both stars had a lot of fun during filming. There's always enjoyment to be derived from harassing Tony Curtis (by getting his character's name wrong, and then constantly reminding him that he's playing an insignificant bit part). However, in the film's second half, he's obviously being used as padding to compensate for the absence of William Holden, who was then undergoing treatment for alcoholism. Overall, this picture doesn't quite sizzle, but it'll nonetheless provide enough heat to warm your hands.