User reviews

A screenwriter and his secretary fail in love while working on a film in París, confusing themselves with the script's roles. As Willian Holden is the jaded screenwriter, the cowboy, the international thief, the trenchcoated spy. While Audrey Hepburn is the secretary, the fiery siren, the incredible batwoman, the girl who stole the Eiffel Tower. As the writer and his secretary acting out the wonderful and weird ideas they dream up for a movie script . Relax.. It's all right to laugh at this tender love story!. Go absolutely in Paris when it sizzles!. You can expect to see the most unexpected people as these two lead you to danger and adventure !.

Attractive but uneven comedy with star-studded cast , silly incidents , entertainment and amusement . Shot on location in París , showing marvellous monuments , noisy streets, museum, luxurious locations, and gorgeous sightseeing . William Holden and Audrey Hepburn Hepburn give sympathetic, charming acting, and Hepburn is especially frankly delightful . It displays some very diverting and funny moments , with a lot of diversions into spy stories , thrilling pursuits , Dracula , and jungle epics on the way . Some unresolved romantic tension between him and Hepburn affected shooting. The film based on an original story by writer/director Julien Duvivier was written by George Axelrod who previously wrote "Seven Years Itch" tends to be disjointed , an unadulterated fun, and too long . Several cameos and brief interpretations from Marlene Dietrich, Fred Astaire , Frank Sinatra , Mel Ferrer who married Hepburn , and Tony Curtis , all of them showing up for a party on the set .

The motion picture was was well directed by Richard Quine , though it has some flaws . Richard Quine was an expert on comedies , such as : "How to murder your wife" , "Oh Dad Poor Dad" , "Sex and single girl" , "Bell book and candle" , "Prisoner of Zenda" ,"Solid gold Cadillac" , "Strangers when we meet" , "Full of life", "My sister Eileen" , among others .Rating :6.5/10. Acceptable, decent romantic comedy. The film will appeal to William Holden and Audrey Hepburn fans.

In Paris, the successful alcoholic forty-two years old screenplay writer Richard Benson (William Holden) has three days to write a script to his producer that has paid in advance. The typist Gabrielle Simpson (Audrey Hepburn) arrives to his hotel to type the screenplay. Along the three days, she helps him to develop the story and they fall in love for each other.

"Paris – When It Sizzles" is absolutely silly and naive, but also charming and delightful and only works because of the chemistry between the gorgeous Audrey Hepburn and the ironic William Holden. There are many jokes with the cinema, with many stories within the lead story, and the most hilarious scenes have the uncredited participation of Tony Curtis. Marlene Dietrich and Mel Ferrer have also uncredited participation. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Quando Paris Alucina" ("When Paris Gets Crazy")

If you are a wannabe writer, a writer or simply a fan of movie making or the art of writing, this film is a must see. It's not a perfect film. One wonders at times whether some of the rare serious moments in the movie, or the sugary sweet romance, were poorly written on purpose - but it doesn't matter because it all fits together wonderfully with the parody of bad movie writing, which is what this movie is about. Don't watch this film with anyone who is uncomfortable with unconventional movies, or who is an impatient nitpicker - they won't be happy. The biggest mistake in making this movie was probably the title, which is too misleading and not punchy enough for this genre. Interestingly, Orsen Wells wanted to direct this film but didn't get the job. It would have become a classic under his direction, but as it is now, it's just a silly, lighthearted (mostly), fun, risque, self-indulgent, and even didactic, film about the movie business.

This was a visually lush, generally amusing and occasionally clever (especially when dealing with movie conventions) satirical comedy, but sometimes it feels static (most of the action is confined to one room) and it often becomes a little too self-conscious for its own good (were the references to "My Fair Lady" really necessary?). William Holden is perhaps a little too gruff for this kind of film, but Audrey Hepburn is at her sexiest and most animated in this movie, particularly when she lets her hair down. (**1/2)

This movie has a small cast, and is only worth a good mark already for the acting performance of Holden and Hepburn. Without these two and the comical, but very over-acted, appearance of Curtis the movie would surely be lost in its poor story. The satirical part is mainly in the beginning of the movie and the plot is more and more gone in the end. But the movie is worth watching: an excellent and beautiful Hepburn is at her most charming and Holden is giving her good support. The story develops mainly around the two main characters who hardly leave their apartment(s). There are some nice switches in the plot but the end is weak and quite predictable. On the other hand it is a good movie that does not want you to do much more than watch and relax on a calm evening.

This film seems to want to cash in on the genre that was so popular in the 1960s. Before the James Bond movies, anything to do with contemporary Europe in American films was either a musical or a noirish spy film. This movie reflects the big-screen, brightly colored and chock full of designer clothing look that was typical of the 60s. This was a time when movies were struggling to compete with color television, and the films got bigger, splashier, and took us to more and more exotic locations.

Paris When It Sizzles is very typical of the movies I remember from that time. It looks very much like the Pink Panther franchise, but it strives to be more sophisticated. I frankly think the direction and editing of the movie drag it down. There are is some very witty dialog ("how funny that we both kept giraffes!"), lots of in-jokes about the movie-making process, two very attractive stars (three if you count Tony Curtis in a supporting role), but it still drags more than it should. Except for Curtis, who is really funny and gets the tongue-in-cheek slant of the film just right, the rest seem to be laboring much too hard. The physical jokes (chase scenes, etc.) are overblown and generally go on too long. The whole look of the film seems heavy-handed when it should have been light and breezy. I have the impression this film was intended as farce, but it's more like that proverbial lead balloon. It's too bad, really. This could have been a lot funnier than it is. Nevertheless, Hepburn looks beautiful and soldiers on gamely, as she always did. Even if she did not enjoy making this movie, as has been reported, you wouldn't suspect it from her performance. She was the right choice for this role, but an actor never knows until she sees the final cut of a movie what it's going to look like. And yeah, I agree, that Dracula thing was pretty awful. Curtis' "Method" actor performance almost makes up for it. And what just what was Noel Coward doing in this picture, anyway? He's about as much of a Hollywood producer as Audrey Hepburn is Xena the Warrior Princess.

To really see how surreal farce was done right in the 1960s, I recommend the Beatles' "Help."

Real Review Posting Scoring Criteria: Acting - 1/1 Casting - 1/1 Directing - 1/1 Story - 1/1 Writing/Screenplay - 1/1

Total Base Score = 5

Modifiers: (+ or -) Originality: 1 Standout Performances: 1 ( Audrey Hepburn )

Total Real Review Rating: 7

One of Audrey Hepburn's most acclaimed films from the Fifties, Sabrina, showed her at her best if not her two co-stars, William Holden and Humphrey Bogart. Bogey had left us already, but given what he thought of the film I doubt you could ever have gotten him to co-star again with this Hepburn. Still Holden and she got along and I guess Paramount thought they would team them again.

It didn't work out because two things were happening in William Holden's life. He broke up with Capucine before this film started and this was to be his final film under his Paramount contract. Reportedly Holden was drinking heavily and production was suspended while he dried out.

According to Tony Curtis's memoirs his unbilled bit in the film was to help pad it out as they got it ready for release. I'll bet that this was the case also for Marlene Dietrich's brief appearance and Noel Coward's small role as Holden's producer.

Paris - When It Sizzles was supposed to be a light hearted farcical look at the art of movie script writing. Audrey Hepburn plays a stenographer typist who is hired by Holden to help him out with dictation. As Holden spitballs his ideas out, we see a whole bunch of fantasy sequences with the two of them and Tony Curtis in various proposed scenes from his film The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower.

Paris - When It Sizzles was held up in release by Paramount for two years, a sure sign this was going to be a lemon. The critics roasted it and the public stayed away in droves. Fortunately both the stars had better work ahead of them and Holden did end his Paramount contract.

It would have been nice had he gone out on something a lot better.

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.

This self-conscious tale about a screenwriter and his assistant might be a little skinny on plot, but it's wink-included self-consciousness feels surprisingly modern. As it stands, "Paris When it Sizzles" is an unrecognized godfather to movies like "Spaceballs" (think "dissolves") and "The Naked Gun," where everyone seems in on the fact that a movie is on screen, and not reality.

In 1964, Audrey Hepburn and William Holden were among the very top movie stars in the world. Because of this and their excellent track records, you would expect "Paris When It Sizzles" to be a very good if not a great film. Well, this would be a mistake, as even though the film featured these two likable and bankable stars, it's a terrible movie--a complete misfire and a waste of their talents as well as Tony Curtis' and Mel Ferrer's (Hepburn's husband at the time)--who appear in a few short cameos. I have no idea if the film lost money, though I am pretty sure it must have. It also, according to IMDb, was Audrey Hepburn's least favorite among her films.

William Holden plays an alcoholic* playboy who occasionally takes time off from this busy schedule to write a film here or there. He's been under the gun to stop his partying and get to work when he hires a new secretary (Audrey Hepburn). Most of the rest of the picture consists of the pair talking out the plot to a particularly stupid film. And, as they talk, you see the pair acting out the film as if they are the stars. You also see that despite Holden's best efforts, they fall in love.

"Paris When It Sizzles" sure has the look of a vanity project. The film is way too cute and self-aware. And, if he love the joke or are a die-hard Hepburn fan (and there are some who simply cannot accept that this actress EVER made a bad film), then you'll probably like the film. But the end results are not particularly convincing and the film that the pair talk about throughout the film is just plain stupid. Overall, the film comes off as boring inside joke.

*This is a sad case of art imitating life, as Holden was rather notorious for his heavy drinking that appears to have helped put him in an early grave. This seems to a rather bad inside joke--referring to his drinking problems (which, according to IMDb, were severe enough to force him into rehab just before the actual filming was complete).

I love practically all movies for one reason or another, and I absolutely adore Audrey Hepburn. However, when I watched this movie, it was with two people who would never have considered watching an "old" movie. Fortunately for them I had the remote and they were forced to watch it, and to my great surprise, they loved it. To the intelligent lover of movies who enjoys the stop and go style of movies from that era, you will not be disappointed. The plot may seem slow at times, but when it moves, it flies. Definitely check it out if you are in an Audrey kind of mood.

Paris WHEN IT SIZZLES is an attempt to cash-in on the popularity of Audrey Hepburn, the heart-winning starlet who rose to fame in a series of light romantic comedies in the 1950s and 1960s. This one's a steamy, silly tale of love and fantasy in Paris, with Hepburn assisting a past his prime screenwriter (William Holden) with his latest masterpiece.

Unfortunately this is one of the worst Hepburn films I've sat through, as it really is a chore to watch in places. The whole story is slight and silly, with lots of unbelievable and twee scenes. The structure of the thing is scattershot and the regular fantasy set-pieces are hardly successful. One of the worst things about it is the acting, with Holden failing to fulfil the criteria of a romantic lead and Hepburn coming across as nothing more than a bad actress.

Perhaps fearing they had a dud on their hands, producers throw a number of extra stars into the mix - Tony Curtis, Noel Coward, etc. - but they fail to make much of an impact, leaving Paris WHEN IT SIZZLES one of the flimsiest and most unsatisfying of all Hepburn movies.

I wish that I could remember the very first time I ever tasted chocolate, or felt a cool breeze, or laughed at a funny joke. I can't, sadly, but if I had to wager, I'd bet that any of those three events felt very similar to my first watching of "Paris.. When It Sizzles." Watching this movie feels like falling in love; sweet and joyful and slightly decadent all at once. It's often given a bad rap, and I can't for the life of me understand why. It's a beautiful, lighthearted romantic comedy, and the chemistry between the incomparable Audrey Hepburn and William Holden is undeniable. I'll admit, "Paris.." is no "Sabrina," another (dare I say perfect) Hepburn/Holden film, but I still feel it deserves a nod as a true classic and as a highlight of the careers of both of its stars. Tony Curtis's cameo is pure comedy, delightful as they come. Make your own decision and see this one for yourself, especially if you are an Audrey fanatic like I am. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I had to make sure that my 1000th review was special, and what's more special than a romantic comedy starring Audrey Hepburn and set in the most romantic city in the world, Paris? Well, Paris When it Sizzles isn't the most Hepburn film, nor is it probably her best film set in Paris, but it represents everything that I love about her short lived career, dreamy, innocent, and always fun.

More along the lines of a classic spoof than a true romantic comedy, Paris When it Sizzles is a valiant effort in trying to comment on Hollywood filmmaking and all of the frustrating tropes most movies use. I guess in some ways it's like taking Deadpool's style of 4th wall breaking humor, just without all of the blood, violence, and language. It's that innocence and fantastical nature of Paris When it Sizzles that is really appealing, even if all of the jokes and gags don't necessarily hold up.

Considering this film was essentially forced upon Audrey Hepburn and William Holden because of a clause in their contracts, it's no wonder that the story feels all over the place. Perhaps adding to the dreamy feel, Gabrielle and Richard fall in love with each other while writing a Hollywood script, and spend the majority of the film acting out scenes from their script which mirrors just how obscure the plot can get. Nowhere near as moving or magical as last year's La La Land, but it certainly captures the essence of how everyone wishes they could fall in love. For that alone, I appreciate Paris When it Sizzles for its carelessness and almost charming irreverence it goes about telling its story.

I think where the movie fails is that every time you feel like you're getting invested in Gabrielle and Richard's romance, the movie thrusts back into the adventures of Gaby and Rick on the streets of Paris. Obviously the stories should feel one and the same, but I actually found myself more invested in what was going on in the writer's room (apartment) than I did when the two are spooking their various films of their careers.

Even with a plot that wanders like no other and a script that feels like a bunch of sketches thrown together, it's hard not to get behind what Holden and Hepburn are doing here. Especially when you find out how in love Holden was with her at the time, it adds another layer to their relationship on screen. Plus, it's hard to go wrong with anything Audrey Hepburn does, right? I knew it was a good idea to make this my 1000th review.

+1000

+Another dreamy and fantastical romance

+Spoof of sorts

-Get lost in the fake characters

7.0/10

Nothing sizzles in this woodenly frenetic picture, a remake of 1952's "La Fête à Henriette". It's a "madcap" comedy ten years passed its time, reuniting Audrey Hepburn and William Holden from "Sabrina" but giving them nothing to do but flail away at silly routines. Poorly directed by the uneven Richard Quine, the movie suffers from too little story and heavy-handed over-production. A screenwriter and his assistant 'visualize' ideas for his next project, which gives the filmmakers an excuse to run rampant with star-cameos, costume changes galore and wacky slapstick. Audrey Hepburn is far too refined (and too sane a star-presence) to be convincing doing screwball comedy; her screws have always been very tight, and it's not in her to be daffy (her Holly Golightly in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" was a kook, but a sharp one). Hepburn and Holden still look great, but by this time they were too mature to be dashing about like kids. The production is plush, but the script needed a complete overhaul. What a waste! * from ****

This is a film that only screenwriters and budding screenwriters will get. You have to have more than a passing interest in the process of writing a screenplay to enjoy the witty satire, wry comedy and not have a lot of the in jokes fly over your head. In that regard the film is brilliant and contains one of William Holden's best performances. Audrey Hepburn too is perfectly cast in the role of his secretary/ultimate partner and is a performance that stands right up there alongside her more celebrated roles in "Charade" and "Breakfast at Tiffany's". One of those films that seems too smart for a general audience. I have watched it over the years too with family and friends only to have them get left behind by the plot and start saying how stupid they thought the picture was. Maybe the best movie about the madness of screen writing ever made. Period.

Imagine a great studio Paramount, a fantastic well-regarded director Richard Quine who did all those wonderful Kim Novak movies at Columbia , William Holden the outstanding leading man of his generation and the peerless Audrey Hepburn starred in this movie. in addition the beautiful Paris locales cameos by Noel Coward and the legendary Marlena Dietrich should've made this movie one of the best movies of its era. If fell flat. Paramount withheld distribution for I recall two years as it did know how to sell it. Holden was having a problem with alcohol and was edgy working with the great Hepburn whom he had an affair when they starred on "Sabrina" years earlier.