SimonJack Shirley MacLaine has top billing in "Gambit," a very entertaining caper comedy by Universal in 1966. Although he has about equal time, Michael Caine has the slightly larger part as being behind the gambit. But MacLaine's star was firmly established by this time, and Caine's was just beginning to rise. Fans may be surprised to learn that most of the first decade of Caine's career was spent in TV series, with an occasional TV movie. His solid grasp of stardom didn't come until 1964, with his performance in "Zulu."The entertainment of this film is based mostly on the cleverness of the plot and screenplay, over any witty or funny dialog. It has a smattering of antics, but mostly it's a nice caper film with a light treatment of the crime. This is one of those films that, for true appreciation and enjoyment, one must not know much of the actual plot. Just know that it has some surprises. Caine is good as Harry Dean, and MacLaine is very good as Nicole Chang. But, the supporting cast helps enrich the plot and movie overall. Herbert Lom is very good as Ahmad Shahbandar and John Abbott is very good as Emile Fournier. Roger Carmel is good as Ram. Without much comedy in the dialog, or funny antics, "Gambit" doesn't get near the top of the caper comedies. For instance, it can't compare to one of Caine's top films, "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" of 1988. But this plot is ingenious, and the film holds one's interest very well. So, it belongs on the list of good caper comedies and is worth the price to watch.

Leofwine_draca I really didn't care much for GAMBIT, a heist caper comedy which is so light-hearted as to be completely insubstantial and lacking in anything approaching depth or narrative. I couldn't stand Shirley MacLaine in it either, from her self-centred character to her stupid hairstyle, everything about her was repulsive. I'm a fan of Michael Caine but he acts little better than a clothes horse here and merely stands around looking vacant for long stretches of time. The reliable Herbert Lom is better but given little to do throughout. The plot tries to resemble the likes of CHARADE and ARABESQUE, two films I did enjoy, but it feels inferior at all times, and oh-so-dated.

mmallon4 Like the other notable twist laden Michael Caine movie Sleuth I can't say much about Gambit without spoiling it. During the first 25 minutes I was doubting if I was even going to enjoy the film. The characters appeared to be forgettable and two dimensional. Michael Caine outwits everyone but in an uninteresting manner while Shirley MacLaine never speaks nor shows any emotion or vulnerability with Herbert Lom plays an unimaginative caricature of a reclusive, eccentric millionaire. Like Sleuth on first viewing I thought that film was making a mistake during a certain section; with Gambit I felt the same way about the first section of the movie. However when it is revealed these first 25 minutes are just the idealised scenario for a heist played out in Michael Caine's head I had the biggest smile on my face and the reaction of "You clever bastards!". All of a sudden this seemingly boring film became fascinating with the scenario I had just seen played out now occurring again with a welcome sense of realism and with interesting, flawed characters, with much of the humour stemming from the differences between fact and fiction. It reminded of that popular internet meme 'expectation/reality' and came off to me like a satire of sorts on unimaginative writing and characters. Watching the film a second time I can now spot the moment of foreshadowing such as Michael Caine saying to his accomplice "Now pay close attention". Of course it wouldn't be a heist movie without suspense and does the third act deliver, full of nail biting moments and clever solutions.Released in 1966 just prior to the rise of the New Hollywood movement, Gambit sees the final days of that distinctive old Hollywood glamour. Gambit is a very exotic movie at that with Shirley MacLaine being presented in the image of a goddess throughout and even her more common looking attire during the heist at the end is exceedingly stylish. Plus who can look more dapper as a cat burglar than Michael Caine? The back and forth between Caine and MacLaine is pure heaven. There are few other actresses with as playful an on screen persona as Shirley MacLaine while Caine gets annoyed by her giddy, child like attitude. I don't care how many films I see which contain the "the hate each other but secretly love each other" dynamic, as long as it's between a screen pairing with superb chemistry then I'll never tire of seeing it.

gftbiloxi In the 1960s Hollywood combined the classic "caper" film with a healthy dose of romantic comedy. The result was a series of charming films such as CHARADE (1963) and HOW TO STEAL A MILLION (1966)--films that combined major stars, clever plots, witty scripts and which balanced suspense with comic and romantic complications.Made in 1966 and released in 1967, GAMBIT was among the last of these films, and like all others in the genre it had a complex plot. Ahmad Shahbandar (Herbert Lom) is quite possibly the richest man in the world and a recluse to boot, a man who has never gotten over the death of his beautiful Eurasian wife some twenty years ago. Harry Dean (Michael Caine) devises a clever plan to gain access to his luxury apartment and rob him blind: he will use honky-tonk dancer Nicole Chang (Shirley MacLaine), who bears a striking resemblance to Shahbandar's long dead wife, to breach Shahbandar's defenses.There's only one problem: it won't work. To tell exactly why it won't work is to betray the plot, which is extremely clever; suffice to say that Dean has made a number of incorrect assumptions about both the situation and the personalities involved. When the plot begins to twist, it does so in a truly unexpected way, taking both Dean and the audience completely by surprise.This is the sort of film that Hollywood used to do so well but which we seldom see today, a frothy, glamorous confection with first rate production values and expert performances from major stars. MacLaine gets top billing, and she is quite fine, but the weight of the film rests on Caine and Lom, who give memorably dry performances, and director Ronald Neame (who was responsible for a host of memorable films including THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE) keeps everything moving along at a smart pace with plenty of style.This may not be the best of the genre--I think both CHARADE and HOW TO STEAL A MILLION, to name but two, outpace it. But even so it is a perfectly charming film, the perfect antidote to a drab afternoon. Just add popcorn! GFT, Amazon Reviewer