Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

elvircorhodzic HOW TO STEAL A MILLION is a romantic crime drama film which, through an illusion of fiction, merges art and fraud. A clumsy fraud, mixed with a pleasant romance, can quickly enter in our hearts.Charles Bonnet is well-known as an art collector, but actually he copies famous works of art. His daughter Nicole disapproves his "work" and is also afraid that he may get caught. His replica of a famed Cellini sculpture is inadvertently displayed in an art museum, and he begins to worry that he'll lose his reputation once the experts evaluate the statuette. Nicole decides to steal sculpture from the museum with the help of a mysterious burglar. However, her assistant is actually a well-known private detective who investigates frauds of her father...A simple story with lot flaws is enriched with a very thrilling twist. The film is full of fictional tricks, through which it develops a delicious romance. Mr. Wyler has managed to create a frivolous version of double deception. He has, through a healthy dose of humor, emphasized Mrs. Hepburn style. A scene with a key is probably one of the most memorable. I think that a key has a double meaning in this case. This is a key to the heart and the truth.Audrey Hepburn as Nicole Bonnet is, as always, a magic woman, this time in the role of a romantic rich girl and morally sensitive daughter at the same time. Peter O'Toole as Simon Dermott is a calm seducer, between an eccentric detective and inexperienced burglar. All for love. There's good chemistry between the two of them.Hugh Griffith as Charles Bonnet is funny an art counterfeiter. Eli Wallach as Davis Leland is crazed collector, who effectively shows the characteristics of a sexual perversion.Every art is a kind of deception!? Each theft is a form of art!? However, it is very difficult to mislead or steal one's heart.

Kingslaay This was a great film that showcased the talents of Peter O'Toole and Audrey Hepburn. The sophistication and simplicity of this film is a treat to watch. One should bear in mind that this was made in the 1960s and a careful and intensive heist was not necessary in those days like today. Guards and security alarms were as advanced as you could get. So considering the times this is a really well executed robbery and one you can really enjoy. Comedy and romance effortlessly flow in this classic as Audrey tries to steal back a forgery because of her father. The plans by her and Peter O'Toole are well thought of and quite clever for its time. This film should entertain and stimulate the viewer's interest as to how they pull this grand robbery off.

JohnHowardReid 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?

gavin6942 Romantic comedy about a woman (Audrey Hepburn) who must steal a statue from a Paris museum to help conceal her father (Hugh Griffith)'s art forgeries, and the man (Peter O'Toole) who helps her.At this point in his career, William Wyler was a legend and had made many successful films and critical hits. This is a man who had been working for decades in a variety of genres. And yet, after all those years, this may be one of his most entertaining.We start with the fun idea of paintings being forged, with the incredible character actor Hugh Griffith. I wish Griffith had done more films, because he seems to have taken anything people would give him, ending up in a few AIP films. And then we have a comedy for the next two hours. The description says "romantic comedy", but I think that does not really do the film justice. It is not the modern idea of what we call a "rom com".