This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Excellent, a Must See

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Why do people feel the need to outline the plot, bandy about cast and crew names like they are insiders, mouth trade lingo and generally attempt to ape professional critics they have read or heard?? We can read all that stuff on the credits and from the places they lifted it. We have search engines on our computers too. I understand that real person reviews are solicited here, maybe with some sharing of things learned about the film. But, how about referencing the source so others can evaluate it on that basis. I think people mostly come here to find out what a regular viewer thought of the film.On the film, I know it is not the best done by the actors. But I feel that when you like an actor, you like him/her in even a lesser movie. Enjoyed the combination of Granger and Sanders enough to want to watch and re-watch the movie just for that. To me, they have styles that are ever so delightful to watch in combo.

Richard Brooks wrote and directed this early example of the caper film. Stewart Granger plays a canny art thief who, with the help of an innocent Pier Angeli, tries to pawn off a reproduction to his client, Kurt Kaszner. The story is admittedly thin but there's some great repartee, especially amongst the troika of bad guys played by George Sanders, Norman Lloyd, and Mike Mazurki. And really, how can you go wrong with a threesome that sinister? Robert Surtees' cinematography is excellent and takes reasonable advantage of location work in Italy, Sicily, and Tunisia. All in all, its better than you might think (and certainly better than the other two reviews for the film indicate).

Excruciatingly boring tale of a thief who steals a famous painting for another man and then double crosses him. Along the way a young woman is brought into the deal to create a forgery of the painting and she winds up falling for one of the crooks. This crushing bore went on interminably as the 2 groups went about trying to outwit each other and come into possession of the valuable piece of art. Worse than "Canvas", another stupid 'art theft' movie.

This could have been a reasonably good picture. Plot is fairly decent and location shooting is an added dimension. It is writer/director Richard Brooks second attempt at direction -- he got better. Stewart Granger has been better. The age difference between Grander and the young and naive Pier Angeli is simply too great and does not work like it did with Gary Cooper and Audrey Hepburn in "Love in the Afternoon." Kurt Kasznar is probably working as hard as he could in his first film since appearing as an uncredited child star, but I could have seen Sydney Greenstreet in his role instead (had that legendary actor not been done with films). I liked George Sanders -- but I ususally like him in almost anything. He is the one saving grace to the film. Joseph Calleia does a good job but see him instead as Sgt. Pete Menzies in "Touch of Evil." Same with Mike Mazurki -- see him as "the" Moose Malloy in "Murder My Sweet" instead. "E" web site says the film is not available on tape or DVD and does not provide you an opportunity to vote for it. Not much to recommend.