How to Steal a Million Movie Review

I remember my parents talking about this movie when I was a little boy, (and never you mind how old I was!) so when I got a chance to see it for the first time the other day, I was rather hopeful.

My hopes were realized beyond my wildest dreams; this movie is a gem.

The Plot
Audrey Hepburn plays Nichole Bonnett, daughter of the famous art collector Charles Bonnett. Monsieur Bonnett has such a rare and diverse collection, because he has painted them all himself!

He is very careful; he creates "Lost Masterpieces" displays them for several years, and finally, might be persuaded to part with one at auction. He is diligent in his work, even scraping dirt from the back of canvases of the old masters to use in aging the forgeries.

Nicole, none the less, worries incessantly about him.

Then, a wrinkle enters the picture. Bonnett loans the museum the Cellini Venus, a statue carved by his own father, with his mother as a model. Apparently forgery is a family business. He can never sell the statue, because the tests to detect forgeries in stone have become far too sophisticated. But loaning it out, not a problem? Right?

Wrong. The museum insures the statue for a million dollars, as per their usual practice. And anything they insure, they authenticate. Now the Bonnetts are in a pickle.

Meanwhile, Nichole heard a 'burglar' downstairs. She crept down to find someone apparently stealing the Van Gogh her father just finished. There is an altercation, and quite by accident, she shoots him.

It is just a flesh wound. The flesh in question belongs to Simon Dermott, played by the legendary Peter O'Toole. Nicole realizes she can't call the police; in the investigation, the painting might be discovered to be a forgery.

But now, with the Cellini Venus due to authenticated in mere days, Nicole turns to the only burglar she knows, Simon, and enlists his aid to steal the statue back, but without telling why.
Simon: "Why must it be this particular work of art?"
Nicole: "You don't think I would steal something that did not belong to me, do you?"
Simon: "Sorry, I spoke without thinking."

So then Simon has to plan a robbery of one of the best guarded buildings in France, and the two of them have to steal the Venus without getting caught. Needless to say, a bit of romance develops along the way.

What makes this movie work.
This timeless classic combines two things that movie goers have always enjoyed, Love and Larceny. Part of the charm is of course the cast. Audrey Hepburn was ever the consummate professional. Her grace and poise sold the part of a rich sophisticated Parisian socialite. And Peter O'Toole, as smooth as Cary Grant, as clever as Sean Connery, and handsome beyond belief, with those hypnotic blue eyes delivers a brilliant performance. He is a much under appreciated actor in the Romantic Comedy field.

The writing is also superb. Clever and witty, ("My dear, he did not...molest you?" "Only a little.") it danced around the censors, making the romance even more tender, more delicate. And the plot is as tight and dynamic as any good murder mystery. The production value was superb, and the whole movie is a light into a time that was more beautiful, more innocent, more elegant than any that have followed.

It also is quite remarkable to find something that is so enjoyable, so bright, witty, and sensual, and then to realize that they speak not one word of profanity, and you never even see their underwear. The movie has a sensual energy, but the hottest scenes feature no more action that a kiss. And without tongues.

It makes you realize part of what we have lost in the forty odd years since this was made. There are great movies out there that do feature sex; (Dangerous Liaisons, Basic Instinct)and it vital to the plot. There are movies that use violence the same way (Apocalypse Now, Fight Club) but my point is, this movie was both extremely exciting, extremely romantic and extremely entertaining, and used nothing graphic. Perhaps we could learn something from these old movies, hmmmmm?