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.

Eka Herlyanti This movie really reminds me of Alex & Emma where Kate Hudson and Luke Wilson play as the main casts. Of course it's Alex & Emma that imitates Paris When It Sizzles, not the other way around.I didn't enjoy the movie that much. The idea of the movie is making me uncomfortable. Like there's so many stories to offer and then suddenly they are modified almost every time, like it is a real unfinished and unprepared movie. I understand that this movie uses Richard Benson's view as a script writer, but I really need to stay focus. And this movie just didn't give me what I need. So glad that Audrey Hepburn is in. She's the only reason I watch this movie. And she's so funny as always. However, I don't like the male cast. I think they're not a perfect match. He's too old to be paired with Audrey.

James_Moriarty I don't know what movie the other reviewers were watching, but it's hard to believe that it's the same film I saw. Yes, Audrey Hepburn is lovely; that's worth one star. Chemistry between her and William Holden? I didn't see it. Forget the fact that the inner narrative (the script of "The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower") makes no sense - OK, that's the point. But the outer narrative is little better. It's impossible to believe that Gabrielle would allow Richard to become so familiar, so quickly - despite his supposedly smooth approach that allegedly sets her on her ear. I could barely make it through this mess. It's just too bad that the camera negative and the only work print weren't stolen and burned, thereby sparing us this sorry spectacle.

ackstasis 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.