DKosty123 This film is totally different from most as it actually tries to celebrate movies writers who rarely get more than a credit in films. There is a lot to be said for doing this and the comedy of doing it is very stung in cheek. There are a lot of things in this one that work better than some recent attempts to redo it with other titles. I challenge younger viewers to name the recent film comedy which redid this script theme?Audrey Hepburn and William Holden are not a match made in heaven. The script pokes fun at that in more than one scene including a Hepburn line about him being "Well Preserved." There are a lot of little things here about the writer that just are put in this film deliberately to see if the viewers notice them. In fact, so far IMDb has failed to note the fact that in the films credits a song in the film is actually sung by Fred Astaire. This is one of the few films that only Fred Astaire's voice appears in. Fred hated his own voice but when it came to a script about writers, they cast him in the films rare musical moments (along with unaccredited Frank Sinatra).The true writer celebrates their script off camera when it is a great movie, and slinks away into the night when the film is a dud. Sometimes, when a film becomes a "Cult Classic", they get to do both. This story does celebrate some imagination of the story. "Lets put in a stranger who, no lets go back and take the stranger out."The cameos here are not as many as one would like, but a rare one of Marlene Dietrich, and 2 of Tony Curtis are rare in films. The color and locations used are well filmed. The fictional script - "The Girl Who Stole The Eiffel Tower" is not exactly a gem. This is a film in the uncut gem stage. This shows in the scenes in the studio lot on empty stages. Is this film perfect? Heavens no, as no writers script is ever perfect. Is the humor great? No, it is subtle, and that is the way it should be. When something Sizzles it is burning, but it can be saved by pulling it off the fire. That is what we have here, a film celebrating writers being grilled fast and then removed from the pan. Holden is over done, Hepburn is under done, and the theme is too trivial. For what it is, it works.

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.

sol- Given two days to finish a screenplay that he has supposedly been writing for months but has actually not yet started, a washed up screenwriter enlists the help of an imaginative young stenographer in this comedy vehicle for 'Sabrina' alumni William Holden and Audrey Hepburn. While a predictable eventual romance between the pair adds very little to the story, it is delightful to have the Oscar winning stars back together with equally as much chemistry a decade on. As the plot furthermore consists of both leads imagining and reinventing (as they go along) what the screenwriter's movie will eventually look like, ambition is in no short supply here. The results are not, however, entirely successful. Amusing as all the reversed footage is as they change their mind about scenes - and as curious as some of their deflections are as they wonder how the film could be turned into everything from a heist comedy to a vampire horror flick - there is absolutely no escaping how tepid the film within the film eventually ends up being. The characters of the film-within have no character and the plot does not really make sense. One might, however, argue this as intentional on behalf of the actual filmmakers, George Axelrod and Richard Quine, who (intentionally or not) prove that it is impossible to write a lucid one-and-a-half hour film in less than 48 hours! Whatever the case, the film is an interesting celebration of the human creative process and some hilarious cameos by Marlene Dietrich and Tony Curtis in a glorified "bit part" do not hurt at all.

imdb2-556-923983 This movie isn't everyone's cup of tea. Hepburn called it her least favorite film. Audiences shunned it. At the time of writing, IMDb gives it a measly 6.0 rating. Nevertheless, it is one of my all-time favorite movies.The problem with this film is that it isn't what everyone seems to be expecting it to be: a mindless romantic comedy. Quite on the contrary: this is a work that I can only compare with "Adaptation". It is a story about how stories actually get written: non-linearly, spasmodically, through much self-doubt and simultaneously excessive (narcissistic, really) introspection. (Although, to be fair, in Hollywood the practice has mostly been to call in a whole bunch of writers to fix up the messes left by writers of earlier drafts, so this is least true of how Hollywood movie scripts get written, but it is true just about everywhere else.) Like "Adaptation", this is a movie that takes the plunge into the mind of the writer as he creates a miniature, constantly shifting and bubbling world for us to visit, only to find a second world inside that first, and probably more where that came from. I don't think that you can appreciate it without having written something yourself, but if you have, then you know the feeling: life mimicking art, mimicking life, mimicking art. Personally, for me, the greatest cameo in this movie isn't the appearance of Tony Curtis or Frank Sinatra, but the fact that in mid-shooting William Holden had to be checked into a rehab clinic. How's that for life and art? Again, like in "Adaptation", the story makes no sense, and, in fact, cannot make any sense. Its what the movie is about. To let us watch and keep our sanity, humor is used abundantly. It is well written wit and quite funny, but it isn't what this movie is about, and taking it to be what the movie is about is perhaps what led to its being so underrated."Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" says the Wizard of Oz, and as far as box office success goes, he's right. Audiences don't like it when the magician shows how the trick is performed. This movie is a prime example. Another is Schwarzenegger's "Last Action Hero". If you like romantic comedies, you should probably avoid this movie. If you want to see a smart film about the madness of writing, this is a soft introduction to the topic.