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.

Once critically panned, now some kind of classic, at least in the eyes of Audrey Hepburn fans and fashion aficionados (you know who you are), "Paris When It Sizzles" is one of many sparkly mid 60s romantic comedies (see "Charade"), all of which attempted to rekindle a certain old, Hollywood glamour.Hepburn, who was some kind of style icon at the time, finds herself paired with William Holden. He's a playboy screenwriter who has but a matter of hours to start and finish a screenplay. In this regard he enlists the help of Hepburn, who plays a temp secretary hired by Holden to hastily transcribe his script.This is where the film's big gimmick kicks in: it's structured as a film within a film, Hepburn and Holden desperately acting out a series of madcap, improvisational scenes for Holden's hurriedly unfolding screenplay. Much of the film then becomes a satire of Hollywood conventions and various movie clichés. Elsewhere the film homages fare like "Cleopatra", Chaplin movies, "Jekyll and Hyde", "Casabalanca", "Dracula", "Frankentein" etc. Back then this was new stuff. Now, not so much.Holden and Hepburn's banter oscillates from "pleasantly witty" to "Euthenasia, now!". It's the kind of film for which the adjectives "off the wall", "giddy", "delightful" and "charming" were invented, but may also provoke nausea in those with an aversion to Hepburn. During this period she made a number of films set in Paris ("Sabrina", "Love in the Afternoon", "Funny Face", "Charade", "How to Steal a Million") and was generally marketed as both a style icon and purveyor of European glamour. Is she still? I don't know. Today's fad is usually tomorrow's joke.7.9/10 - Worth one viewing.

In the fifties and sixties there was a general view in Hollywood that Paris was the city of love, romance, culture and Audrey Hepburn. By 1964 the Divine Audrey had already made four films wholly or partly set in the French capital ("Sabrina", "Love in the Afternoon", "Funny Face" and "Charade") and was to make one more in 1966, "How to Steal a Million". If by chance she was unavailable to make a Parisian comedy, Hollywood generally turned to the nearest thing it had to a Hepburn lookalike, Leslie Caron, to stand in for her. ("An American in Paris", "Lili"). When, therefore, someone had the idea of making a film called "Paris When It Sizzles", Audrey was the obvious choice for the female lead.Like most of Audrey's Parisian films this one is, officially, a romantic comedy, although in many ways it defies categorisation. The two main characters are Richard Benson, a screenwriter, and Gabrielle Simpson, his secretary, who is helping him to type the script to for his latest screenplay, "The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower". As Richard discusses various scenarios with Gabrielle, the two start to act them out in what develops into a film-within-a-film. Richard is never clear exactly what sort of film "The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower" is supposed to be; it is part rom-com, part spy thriller, part crime drama, and occasionally seems to be turning into a vampire horror story or a war film. Its main feature, however, is that it revolves around the romance between its two main characters, Rick and Gaby, which parallels the romance which is growing up between Richard and Gabrielle.Neither Audrey nor the male lead, William Holden, was particularly enthusiastic about doing this film, with good reason. Some ten years earlier they had made another film together, "Sabrina", and had by all accounts become very friendly on set. Whether that friendship was a sexual one or not depends upon which biography you read, but it appears to have ended less than happily. Following this experience they were not keen to work together again, but the studio insisted on their making the film. The unhappy ending to their earlier romance did not prevent Holden from trying to rekindle it on the set of "Paris When It Sizzles", only to find himself rebuffed by Hepburn, by now married to Mel Ferrer. Another problem was that Holden, an alcoholic, was drinking heavily while making the film.Given the troubled history of the two stars, there is more personal chemistry between them than one might expect. Audrey- as vivacious, glamorous and sexy as ever- is particularly charming. Holden and Hepburn dominate the film- no other actor has more than a cameo part. Tony Curtis appears as a policeman, and Noël Coward as a film producer with the oddly Germanic name of Alexander Meyerheim given that Coward plays him, as he played every part, as an upper-class Englishman. In one scene Coward, who was gay in real life, comes close to outing himself when he calls Holden "beautiful" and kisses him.A feature of the film is that it makes reference to previous Hepburn films. When Richard says that he sees Gaby as a "prostitute with a heart of gold", that is an allusion to Hepburn's character Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's, and a scene in which a gun turns out to be a cigarette lighter may be a reference to the opening scene of "Charade" in which a gun turns out to be a water pistol. (Some of the locations for "Charade", notably the Punch-and-Judy theatre, are reused here). There is also a mention of "My Fair Lady", even though that film had not yet been made. Doubtless, however, it would have been known at the time that a film version of the stage musical was about to be made and that Hepburn was in the running to star in it.Variety magazine called the film "marshmallow-weight hokum", but my main problem went deeper than mere lack of weight. After all, "Charade" is pretty lightweight stuff, and still very enjoyable. My problem with "Paris When It Sizzles" was that I just couldn't see what the point of it was. The real-life romance between Gabrielle and Richard tends to take second place to the "film-within-the-film", which is a bizarre and virtually incomprehensible piece of nonsense. Richard Benson is supposed to be a highly-respected member of his profession, so why is something as flabby and pointless as "The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower" the best effort that he can come up with? If the intention was to satirise incompetent screen writing or various genres of film-making, the material needed to be much more tightly handled than it is.Until recently I was under the impression that Audrey Hepburn was one of the lucky few stars who had not made any seriously bad movies, unless one counts Ferrer's eccentric vanity project "Green Mansions", largely because I had grown up on her acknowledged classics such as "Roman Holiday", "Sabrina", "The Nun's Story", "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and "My Fair Lady". Having tried to familiarise myself with some of the lesser-known entries in her filmography, I realise that my impression was a mistaken one; I did not enjoy either "Robin and Marion" or "Two for the Road", and this film must join those two in the catalogue of films which do not really show her at her best.The title "Paris When It Sizzles" is taken from an old Cole Porter song and has no real connection with the story, beyond the fact that it is set in Paris. In this context, in fact, the title is sadly inappropriate, as the film does not sizzle at all. A better title might have been "Paris When It Fizzles Out". 4/10

As a fan of Audrey Hepburn, I was quite interested in seeing this film. While Paris When it Sizzles is not without its charms, it sort of disappointed me. The film does benefit from some gorgeous locations and beautiful cinematography, while the music was a nice touch too. What makes the movie watchable is the cast. Audrey Hepburn has been better, but she is very graceful and charming in this movie and brings some vigour into the movie when it most needs it. William Holden is also great, the film is worth seeing for his chest, if I were to say it is a scene stealer it would be an understatement. And Tony Curtis is delightful, he always is a welcome presence and this is no exception, he has the film's funniest moments. I quite liked Marlene Dietrich's cameo too.However, Paris When it Sizzles does suffer from some problems. To be honest, I wasn't a fan of the title, after seeing the movie I thought it was misleading and lacked punch. The pacing is rather leaden here, while the direction is on the mediocre side of things. The script had its witty moments but it was often unfunny and weak, while the story is rather thin and predictable and the slower scenes and romantic moments are somewhat sappily written. The ending also falls flat, to be honest I was not surprised by the outcome and some scenes leading up to it were done in a sadly heavy-handed way. Finally, while it looked pretty and had a great cast, overall there wasn't any real fire and passion here.So overall, had great potential but fizzles out. 5/10 Bethany Cox