NOTES: Originally, producer/director Wyler cast George C. Scott opposite Miss Hepburn, but after a falling out between the two men, Wyler replaced Scott with Peter O'Toole. The movie was Number 10 on Kate Cameron's list of the Ten Best Films of the Year for the "New York Daily News". Also number 10 on the trade paper, "The Film Daily" list. And with a rentals gross of $4.4 million, one of the top thirty box-office successes of 1966 in the domestic market.COMMENT: Harry Kurnitz's script has some clever plot ideas and some witty lines buried in a somewhat over-long, over-talkative and too sluggishly paced caper, which the normally reliable William Wyler has directed with far too heavy a hand. True, it has its amusing moments and the caper itself is quite funny. It's also nice to see Fernand Gravet (looking sadly aged); and Charles Boyer (bearing up well — alas, he has only two scenes); and that delightfully comic pantomimist Moustache as one of the guards.Drastic trimming is needed. It's too heavy a champagne, too much of a good thing. Nice photography and sets; O'Toole tries hard; Miss Hepburn is Miss Hepburn to the "T" (and not always too flatteringly photographed); and Hugh Griffith flusters magnificently. But the film would be twice as enjoyable at three-quarters the length. This sort of comedy is definitely not Wyler's forte. His approach is too stolid, too wearisomely slow for tongue-in-cheek shenanigans of the debonair crime caper school. This is Ealing territory. Despite its Parisian locations and the re-union of Wyler and Hepburn, HTSAM is definitely no "Roman Holiday".As I said, the movie is very slow to get off the ground. In fact, the first half-hour is better missed. After that, there is an incredible improvement in dialogue and situations and even William Wyler's stodgy direction perks up considerably. Unfortunately, there is no improvement in Charles Lang's photography — easily the worst I have ever seen in a major movie. Or maybe we critics were shown a rough cut?

Who does not love Audrey Hepburn, and those quirky movies she made?! This is another, but it has some special features. Director William Wyler and Writer George Bradshaw have done a delicious job with some special touches you won't see in most films. First, the characters are given time to consider their responses. This is in such contrast to today's rapid-fire delivery. You see the emotions develop on the faces of Peter O'Toole and Audrey. Second, there are some zinger lines, which I cannot divulge but they are so unexpectedly funny we rolled. Third, it is in glorious color as appropriate for a 1960s film. No grainy low- quality transfer here, Lord love you. I will have to mention this, as it is not a crucial plot point but an annoyance, which made me give this 9 stars instead of 10. Audrey goes weak- kneed for the first kiss from the man. I don't know, what this really 1966 standard behavior? I wish I had kissed more strangers in 1966, woulda been a lot more fun than stamp collecting. Ah well, c'est la vie. Watch it with a friend and have a blast!

Not only did I see this better film when I was younger, and to be honest, it's a lot more enjoyable! Peter O'Toole and Audrey Hepburn have SO MUCH more chemistry together in this film, than in Charades with Cary Grant. That film was all-round dark, weird, and didn't make much sense.THIS film was light-hearted, had it's somewhat dark moments that were quick & made sense, and the film was able to be funny & smart.I just love the whole movie first hanging on the possibility that the main male character could be lying, and it turns out he wasn't a burglar but a detective instead! It's funny, 'cause at the end of the film Audrey Hepburn decides to play her own game of lying.All the more I've gotta say is, I don't want to spoil anything, go watch this movie! It deserves more attention! 8/10

William Wyler's "How To Steal A Million" takes a dull hour to get going. When it does, it develops into a fairly okay comedy caper about a pair of art thieves. Standout attributes include a last act heist and Audrey Hepburn's face.The film has a very good reputation amongst a certain subset of people, largely due to a lingering infatuation over star Audrey Hepburn. She's an odd actress: fragile, angular, funny, effervescent, pixie-like, precious and always oh so immaculately dressed. "How To Steal A Million" - it's frequently shown at Hepburn conventions - seems to be loved largely by those who view Hepburn as a style icon and salivate over her Givenchy designed wardrobe.6/10 - Strictly for the fashion aficionados. Worth one viewing.