Movie News

You don’t think I’d steal a Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day that didn’t belong to me, do you?

Published at: Jan. 15, 2011, 9:08 p.m. CST by quint

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with today’s Behind the Scenes Pic!

This one is a little on the obscure side and I apologize for that, but it’s really a good little movie and I’d love for you guys to give it a view. I stumbled upon HOW TO STEAL A MILLION when I was doing my run of A Movie A Day and fell for it.

Starring Peter O’Toole and Audrey Hepburn, both incredibly young and attractive, this goofy romantic caper flick is kind of a spiritual cousin to the great Michael Caine flick GAMBIT.

In the flick, O’Toole and Hepburn have to steal… something… from a guarded museum and end up in very tight quarters. Director William Wyler makes great comedic use of this space, O’Toole’s lanky limbs splaying everywhere!

That is the moment featured in the below still. Hope you guys enjoy it!

 

 

Tomorrow’s pic is holey!

-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Jan. 15, 2011, 9:08 p.m. CST

    steal?

    by Keats

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 9:09 p.m. CST

    or is that a joke because its a movie still?

    by Keats

    I guess so.

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Back when "Johnny" Williams scored mostly dumb 60's caper comedies

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    Yes, the man who would eventually score Jaws, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, ect., got his start scoring silly movies like John Goldfarb, Please Come Home! and Fitzwilly (and episodes of Gilligan's Island...!).

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 11:03 p.m. CST

    stealing a movie still?

    by whiskey_dick

    what do you think is a joke, frank?

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 11:10 p.m. CST

    Awesome.

    by Nick

    Simply an awesome pic. Thanks brother.

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Quint is an utter and complete moron.

    by youridol

    A major motion picture directed by massively legendary William Wyler and starring the most famous actress in cinema history is "a little on the obscure side"?!?!! Sweet fuck what kind of moronic dicks are passing themselves off as cinema lovers these days??

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 11:12 p.m. CST

    John Williams

    by Munro Kelly

    Don't forget "Daddy-O" (1958).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Up1GmC2tOg Credits start at 4:15. John's credit, at 4:47. Good episode of MST3K.

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 11:21 p.m. CST

    Daddy Oooooo you beat me to it!

    by MST3KPIMP

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 11:27 p.m. CST

    mst3kpimp

    by Munro Kelly

    Great minds think alike. Trivia: "Daddy-O" is John Williams' first feature film as composer.

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 11:27 p.m. CST

    youridol

    by macheesmo3

    Yes, I think Quint is correct. When you compare the general notoriety of this film when compared to others made by the 3 major parties involved, it IS fairly obscure.... being a pretentious fuck is never cool.... or hip, or interesting... it just makes you a pretentious fuck.

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 11:37 p.m. CST

    @macheesmo3

    by youridol

    A major motion picture directed by William Wyler and starring the most famous actress in cinema history is anything but obscure no matter how you cut it. Unless you see things through the eyes of a dude with an online alias from a character in positively one of the most famous pictures in cinema history who defines obscure as "not listed in top 100 box office hits of all time." Describing HOW TO STEAL A MILLION as fairly obscure is like describing Kevin Smith as fairly fit.

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 11:43 p.m. CST

    @youridol

    by BillEmic

    Get over yourself, you elitist snob. Quint is correct in his assessment.

  • Do I need to define certain words for you?

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Is WAR AND FUCKING PEACE obscure

    by youridol

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 11:53 p.m. CST

    Since it only has 3,000 IMDB votes and all... You tools.

    by youridol

  • Jan. 15, 2011, 11:55 p.m. CST

    Oh my god...

    by Rhuragh

    ...that shot is enough to make me fall in love with Audrey Hepburn all over again. For the, oh, approximately 5,374th time.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Audrey Hepburn is a smokin' hottie...

    by Dark Doom

    Jesus, as my witness, I'll eat the corn out of her shit...

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 1:03 a.m. CST

    And who says...

    by Rhuragh

    ...that tact and courtesy are dead?

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 1:27 a.m. CST

    Never seen the movie but-

    by sonnyfern

    You can put up a pic of Audrey Hepburn anytime you want Quint!

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 1:39 a.m. CST

    Good Lord

    by Darkefire

    The movie is over 40 years old, features nothing particularly nerdy or iconic and was neither nominated or awarded any major awards of any kind. Unless you're a serious fan of the collected works of Hepburn or Wyler, that qualifies as obscure in these here parts. It's not elitist if you've seen the film, but it's not moronic if you've never heard of it before and are fully forthcoming about that fact. Saying as much either way makes you a jackass of the highest order, though. I always love a good picture of Hepburn, she's beautiful from any angle and with any expression.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 3:11 a.m. CST

    And RIP Susannah York

    by palimpsest

    Is the Grim Reaper on some kind of incentive bonus this year?

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 3:13 a.m. CST

    That's true

    by funkylovemonkey

    it means at least 6,300 people have heard of this movie. Maybe more. I had no idea that the IMDB vote count was how we decide whether something is obscure or not, although I'm not entirely sure it's scientifically accurate. And even if it were... Inception has 281,652 votes on IMDB. Casablanca has 175,564 votes. So I wouldn't say 6,300 is a huge number for IMDB. In fact, using that metric to judge just other Audrey Hepburn movies, this movie tends to err towards the obscure side since; 10,373 rated "Wait Until Dark," 28,792 rated "My Fair Lady," 38,095 rated Breakfast at Tiffany's, 33,069 rated Roman Holiday. Of course those who did decide to vote on How to Steal a Million only gave it a 7.4/10, so maybe that's why. It doesn't seem that the movie was particularly Also, I'm not POSITIVE about this, but I'm pretty sure that War and Peace is famous because of the book, not the 1956 movie version of the book.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 6:34 a.m. CST

    This picture is sure to be a hit in the nursing home

    by _Venkman

    BOOM!!! Haha, +1 for the asshole talk backer

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 7:07 a.m. CST

    "Oh no, John Williams?! BEFORE he heard Stravinsky...!"

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    "He-e-e-e-e-e-e-y, dig that crazy John Williams groove, baby!" "Uhhhh, this music is makin' me nervous. Can someone please tell John Williams to keep it down?"

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 8:52 a.m. CST

    your idol, ace of wands and whoever else I've missed:

    by marvelfett11

    It never fails to amaze me that some people have to (very crudely) insult other people whose opinion and movie knowledge is different from their own. I mean wow, I am embarrassed for you. Quint recently discovered this film and then decided to share a pic and story about how he appreciates it. Thanks for that Quint. I would imagine that you guys, being the fountains of motion picture knowledge that you are, might still run across a movie that you've never seen and say: "Wow. That was a good film." There would undoubtedly be someone out there who would reply: "What?!!! You've never heard of that film?!! Are you an idiot?" I mean seriously? That's how you respond to someone saying they like a film that you, yourself agree is good? Perhaps you should start your own website that people only as cool as you could visit. What a happy place that would be!!! Oh, and yes, as you can tell by my handle, I am a Star Wars fan. As we are undoubtedly all idiots who have no true understanding of film you had better type your repsonse slowly and with small words so that I might understand you.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 9:36 a.m. CST

    Obscure...

    by maxjohnson1971

    "not famous or acclaimed" and "not drawing attention" and "hidden: difficult to find" I hadn't heard of this movie before, despite Hepburn and O'Toole being in it. To all those saying that those of us that haven't heard of it or seen it are idiots or that our film knowledge only goes to 77, go fuck your mothers if you have them! What a bunch of douchebags. I mean, if a friend of mine says something about a movie that he has never heard of and I have, I'll say "Hey, that's good. You should check that out" or whatever my opinion of it is. What I WOULD NOT say is "You fucking idiot. What do you mean you never heard of (insert title here)?" But I guess that's what the previously mentioned asshole pretentious fucksticks above would do. Right?

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 10:23 a.m. CST

    Even a Star Wars child can love this movie

    by Valmont10E

    I may be a Star Wars kid but I love this movie. It was a frothy mix of sexy and funny. And the heist is freakin' great. From the planning stages to the actual stealing of the Venus statue. And could Audrey Hepburn look any more beautiful than she did here.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 10:30 a.m. CST

    Obscurity...

    by CaptEgo

    The notion that this film is *not* obscure is massively laughable. Additionally, the idea that votes on IMDB are any kind of rational assessment of a films lack of obscurity is high-frikkin-larious. The idea that pretty much any internet based assessment of popularity/obscurity is, well, inane. One obsessed fan-dork can change these kinds of numbers more or less on a whim. Let's put it in a way that you might understand. This film has been seen by a tiny, perhaps all but statistically insignificant portion of the population of planet earth (the movie going part that is) means that it is *OBSCURE* you movie-snob, self important, elitist twats. Let's put it another way...this film makes 'Paint your Wagon' seem like a world spanning filmic juggernaut. The odds are that given a random sample of people (specifically those whose film memories go back to the time before Star Wars...yes we all got the reference o smarmy ass) who watch movies, I'd bet that this film and 'The Ghost and Mr. Chicken' would be running neck and neck in the 'Obscurity' department (with a slight edge going to Don Knotts in recognition factor). Your histrionic reaction is just that...might we suggest a deep breath.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Great movie

    by SmokingRobot

    Poor Peter O'Toole. Most wasted talent in film history.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Wow Again

    by marvelfett11

    Your knowledge of the film does not make you elitist, you're right. Your reaction and response to those who consider it obscure does.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 11:12 a.m. CST

    Reality check

    by youridol

    I had never heard of NEVER TRUST A GAMBLER (1951) when I saw it listed as upcoming on TCM. I checked it out on IMDB and it had 0 votes or reviews. Now, awhile after its TCM airing it has 41 votes and 5 reviews. It qualities as obscure. A readily available picture, the 20th Century Fox DVD of HOW TO STEAL A MILLION remains in print, directed by one of America's most famous directors and starring the most famous actress in cinema history -- does not. It just outs Quint as an embarrassingly ignorant.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Peter O'toole = The man that should have played Dumbledore

    by RedBull_Werewolf

    search your feelings, you know itto be true

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 11:47 a.m. CST

    geoffrey_fourmyle

    by marvelfett11

    "A disgusted reaction to those who ignorantly dismiss things as obscure simply because in their insular little world have not heard of them makes one elitist." Actually it does, as the very comment itself is belittling and condescending. "I hope you don't have or ever have children. We have enough idiots in the gene pool as it is." Actually I dont. But I do teach them, as well as adults, and when someone is unaware of something I don't respond to them in a negative and condescending way. It is the students that I've had whose parents relate to others and express themselves as you do that have ended up with "issues." They are usually socially awkward to the point of not being able to function properly in society.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Geoff Baby...

    by CaptEgo

    Everything about your response pretty much exclaims how much of a self important little 'film fan' you are. I could care less about how much of a 'knowledge of film' I have in comparison to you beyond the fact that I like some of them (films that is). The fact that you paint a clear picture of yourself as the 'record store nerds' in 'High Fidelity' says everything anyone needs to know. Your shrieking reaction to the unthinkable reality that this film was and is relatively obscure does not change the reality of the situation. Your vitriol is, I suppose, what one might expect when someone points out how laughable your delusional little world view is.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 12:38 p.m. CST

    There was originally a typo in the headline.

    by Keats

    “Still” instead of “steal.” Thought maybe it was intentional.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 12:38 p.m. CST

    good gravy...

    by zyklonbeaarthur

    yeah, this is a pleasant, quaint little gem from the tail-end of Wyler's career. Funny, breezy, comfort food for when you want to get away from more...cynical fare. While it may not seem obscure to some, I'm gonna make a safe bet it's obscure to most. Just because you might know more about film than most doesn't add inches to your dick, folks. Gotta love the endless battle of elitist man-children that mucks up every damn discussion thread on a movie site. I hate to break it to you, but I'd even go so far as to say if you went into a busy place and asked everyone in the room if they'd heard of William Wyler you'd get mostly "uh, who?" I know, that's pretty sad, the dude was a goddamned legend, but that's the way it is. Some people need to get the fuck over themselves and realize that most folks don't pore over films like the average bored dude on the internet does.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Elitist film fans...

    by Bootskin

    Expecting younger 'film fans' to have the same emotional attachment and cultural response to a movie that came out in 1966, or even the KNOWLEDGE of it is completely ridiculous. There have been HUNDREDS of great films released after "How To Steal A Million" that can be considered GREAT films, that younger viewer can be familiar with, and still be considered a 'film fan'. Considering the Godfather I and II, Jaws, The French Connection, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Deliverance, The Sting, The Last Picture Show, Alien, The Great Train Robbery, A Bridge Too Far, The Man Who Would Be King, Raging Bull, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Blade Runner, Rocky, Das Boot, The Untouchables, Ghandi, Ghost Busters, Die Hard, When Harry Met Sally, Platoon, Raising Arizona, The Right Stuff, My Left Foot, The Killing Fields, Out of Africa, Stand By Me, The Last Temptation of Christ, Goonies, Shawshank Redemption, Schindler's List, Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, The Big Lebowski, The Sixth Sense, LA Confidential, Usual Suspects, Miller's Crossing, Resevoirs Dogs, Leon the Professional, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Unforgiven, Ed Wood, Nightmare Before Christmas, JFK, Twelve Monkeys, Fight Club, Good Will Hunting, Casino, Heat, The Matrix, Silence of the Lambs, JUST TO NAME A FUCKING FEW..... I'm pretty sure those of us in the mid-twenties to late thirties range don't need your permission to be 'fans of film.' Kindly now fuck off to your nearest "Lost in Space" convenion, you old fuck.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Hmm...

    by Bootskin

    ..that's supposed to say: "Considering the Godfather I and II, Jaws, The French Connection, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Deliverance, The Sting, The Last Picture Show, Alien, The Great Train Robbery, A Bridge Too Far, The Man Who Would Be King, Raging Bull, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Blade Runner, Rocky, Das Boot, The Untouchables, Ghandi, Ghost Busters, Die Hard, When Harry Met Sally, Platoon, Raising Arizona, The Right Stuff, My Left Foot, The Killing Fields, Out of Africa, Stand By Me, The Last Temptation of Christ, Goonies, Shawshank Redemption, Schindler's List, Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, The Big Lebowski, The Sixth Sense, LA Confidential, Usual Suspects, Miller's Crossing, Resevoirs Dogs, Leon the Professional, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Unforgiven, Ed Wood, Nightmare Before Christmas, JFK, Twelve Monkeys, Fight Club, Good Will Hunting, Casino, Heat, The Matrix, Silence of the Lambs, JUST TO NAME A FUCKING FEW.....were made WELL after "How To Steal..." was, and are considered by MANY to be GREAT films in their own right, I'm pretty sure those of us in the mid-twenties to late thirties range don't need your permission to be 'fans of film.' Kindly now fuck off to your nearest "Lost in Space" convention, you old fuck." Somehow got garbled in the posting.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 1:09 p.m. CST

    By bootskin's rationale...

    by youridol

    85% pictures ever made would be considered obscure. Since HOW TO STEAL A MILLION is easily in the top 15% of most recognizable pictures ever made. A self-professed cinema-lover not being aware of it doesn't make it obscure it just makes displays the "cinema-lover's"ignorance.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Top 15%????

    by marvelfett11

    Recognized by whom? You? or the general poulation? IF you are speaking about the latter, and IF you are including EVERY film EVER made (every independent film, fan film, short film, toutube video, and home movie), then yes, it is easily in the top 15% of recognizable films, because it has classic actors in it. If you are counting ONLY Hollywood/commercially released films.........well I think the responses in this forum blow that theory out of the water.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 1:32 p.m. CST

    ummm...

    by zyklonbeaarthur

    excuse me, but I can love what ever goddamn piece of cinema I damn well please. Just because I may be "ignorant" of films you hold in high regard doesn't nullify my love of cinema. People enjoy different shit, and go looking for different movies. "How To Steal a Million" isn't exactly sweeping the nation and blowing kid's minds these days. Also, similar to what Bootskin was talking about, right after this movie was released, a little era in film happened called the late 60s/70s. Things changed, tastes changed, etc. "How To Steal..." just sort of got swept under the rug. It's a decent little flick, but I wouldn't exactly call it "important" or even relevant anymore, really.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 2:11 p.m. CST

    O'toole so doesn't want to hit that...

    by Mel Garga

    shame.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 2:17 p.m. CST

    sheesh

    by thebastard

    still one of the most beautiful women to have ever lived

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    youridol

    by marvelfett11

    Oh. I get it. It's in the top 15% because YOU say it is. My apologies. I didn't recognize the rules of the game.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    geoffrey wrote

    by theKRELL

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    geoffrey wrote

    by theKRELL

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 2:59 p.m. CST

    geoffrey wrote . . .

    by theKRELL

    "Shut your fucking yaps and maybe you'll learn something. You too, Quint you hopeless sorry ass johnny come lately." Maybe you'd learn something if you perused a dictionary from time to time, as in an earlier post above and the word 'eminent.' As for the idiots in the 'gene pool' (which you included yourself), you're the one in the 'shallow end'!

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 3:11 p.m. CST

    ace of wands

    by marvelfett11

    Thanks. That is a very intelligently-stated and well-thought-out point of view and I respect it and see what you are saying. Many other folks that seemed to be on "your side of the argument" have expressed themselves as ranting lunatics and have NOT been able to argue their side as eloquently. Cheers -MF11

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Listen...

    by Bootskin

    ..the term "obscure", could be subjective to the viewer's experience. It would also be relative depending on what films one would be comparing it to. The point I was trying to get across is that one can be a fan of film, and consider one of say, Audrey Hepburn's films 'obscure', especially in light of of her other films like "Breakfast at Tiffany's." In point of contrast, this film IS more obscure, and this point doesn't make Quint a douchebag. With all the rich, wonderfully made films that exist out there, calling someone (even an AMATEUR film critic) out for not knowing about "How To Steal.." is just an outlet for cranky curmudgeons who feel cheated because the incredible films of the 70's have overshadowed some of their favorite films made in earlier years. Now, Quint has refused to watch Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, or other films of such caliber, that's one thing. I think we can forgive him this once for "How To Steal A Million", can't we? I mean, hell, he even mentioned it in this column. If you want to call him a douchebag, I'm sure there are better reasons to be found :) Some of you guys have to really stop obsessing over such stupidity....

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 3:59 p.m. CST

    To fully muddy the issue

    by funkylovemonkey

    How to Steal a Million isn't on the New York Times list of the top 1000 Movies ever made: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/movies/1000best.html#H I don't think it's unreasonable to not have heard of it.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 8:30 p.m. CST

    Points proved...

    by CaptEgo

    If that last little bit of self-congratulatory circle jerking doesn't prove your film-school, bullshit elitism than pretty much nothing does. Here's a hint for Geoff...elitism (in this context) is about *owning* something special and precious that the slobbering masses couldn't hope to understand because of the slobbering bit...when *they* 'dismiss' something it's because it hasn't entered the popular consciousness and is meanless to them...that's not elitism it's 'not-giving-a-fuck-about-your-precious-little-film-ism'. We're back at an old AICN saw then...why the fuck exactly do you come and bother to read the works of a repeat offender and film fraud (aka Quint) when you only to piss and moan about his lack of 'film knowledge'? I mean really? You couldn't find somewhere else that's more your kind of 'Apple Store' self important champions of film web site? Ain't it Cool has always been Genre top heavy and guys like Quint tend to be stretching the basic demographic. Having these seemingly arbitrary panty bunchings is just plain baffling. Don't like Quint? Big hint. Don't read him...dismiss his opinion and get thee hence to somewhere people give a fig about your brilliant assessment of 'Obscure'. I'd be willing to bet you dollars to donuts that if it were possible to get a straight up vote out of AICN readers (a laughable thought really but let's just think of it happening on the day world peace was declared) this film would fall under the heading of 'So goddamned obscure it isn't funny'. p.s. Quint...for the sake of your own sanity just do your thing and ignore all this *noise*...whatcherdoing is appreciated by those of us who *like* film and still have a life.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 9:41 p.m. CST

    geoffrey_fourmyle

    by maxjohnson1971

    Hmmmm...I don't recall mentioning you by name in my comment. I suppose you recognize yourself as a pretentious fuckstick then? And my mom is 72 and can barely walk. That's the kind of women you fuck? Man, you must be pretty desperate. I feel sorry for my mom. You are a total douche. Of course, that is insulting to douches.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 11:01 p.m. CST

    geoffrey_fourmyle

    by marvelfett11

    "And which ever one of you mentioned being a teacher, I really feel sorry for those kids. No wonder education is in the state it's in." That would be me. And I guess you're right. The main problem with education is that you can't get everyone to agree with you on a message board. .....and when they don't agree with you (a phenomenon I'm sure you deal with on a regular basis) you can't debate the issue in a civil and mature manner. Whatever medication you are on, you might want to up the dosage. If you're not currently medicated.........well it takes a big man to recognize that they have a problem. That's when the healing begins ;)

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 11:02 p.m. CST

    ace of wands

    by marvelfett11

    Thanks for the debate. I hope to engage in another one with you in the future.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 11:21 p.m. CST

    KO from feet smell

    by Tarantinos_Forehead

    one whif and. . .BAM!!!

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 11:24 p.m. CST

    It may not have been obscure before, but it is now

    by MissMediaJunkie

    I saw "How to Steal a Million" a few weeks ago for the first time, pretty much by chance, and I'd never even heard of it before that. I'm no slouch when it comes to films, and I had the same reaction I'm seeing here in talkbacks - How did I miss a film starring Audrey Hepburn and Peter O'Toole, directed by William Wyler? I really enjoyed it too. My guess is that it's because it's part of the 20th Century Fox film library, and frankly they're just not as good about keeping their classics in the public eye as some of the other studios and rights holders. If films aren't seen, they aren't remembered, and Fox classics of a certain age just don't get as much play.

  • Jan. 16, 2011, 11:49 p.m. CST

    Ace Ace Ace

    by Quint

    You know, I took your comments to heart when you were saying them... 2 years ago. Now I just find it silly. For someone who followed along with A Movie A Day and made sure to roast me for every title you deemed too classic to not have seen you should remember that I reviewed this movie. In 2009. It's been well over a year. How long before it's acceptable that watched it? Or will it never be because I didn't see it at the same age you were when you saw it? I think the term "obscure" is an apt description. It's not just that the film was a surprise to me when I bought it (blindly, mind you, because of the talent in front of and behind the camera), but because I spend a lot of time around seasoned cinephiles. Hate him for his childlike way of reviewing movies if you want, but Harry and his father would put your knowledge of film to shame, especially when it comes to the films of the '20s, '30s and '40s. I grew up with them. They exposed me to classics and obscure rarities alike. I've spent time in film schools, appreciation classes, speaking with students, professors, filmmakers, archivists, scholars, historians. You named it. This is my life. Sorry to say, this title wasn't one that was ever held in a "oh, my God! You have to see this movie!" Compare it to other Hepburn or O'Toole films and tell me it's the first one people bring up. Or the fifth one. Or tenth one. It's a fun, light, breezy, sweet, funny movie, but it's not one that changed the industry. Unlike your personal film education I've made mine public. You and I have a different opinion on who is allowed to express their feelings on film. I've never spoken authoritatively on a particular era of film ever, just shared my love of it. It's funny... you're like a demented piano teacher. You want me to learn, but get so pissed off all the time that I wasn't born with TCM already programmed into my brain it feels like you're putting the attempt to better my education down at every turn, dissuade me from even trying. I've survived many worse critics and horrible trolls than you. Thank God I have a thick skin or else you could have just made me decide "screw it, why even bother trying to cover this stuff in the first place?" But I love it, I get a little high from the journey of discovery, especially when I stumble upon something like How To Steal A Million which despite what you may think wasn't exactly on constant rotation in the '80s when my love of film was growing up with me. Like it or not, I'm here. I get paid to do this, which apparently chaps your ass. I just don't understand why the constant poo-pooing of shining a light on vintage film. Look at 98% of other movie-centered websites, magazines and TV shows. Who else spends so much time exploring Old Hollywood, keeping it in constant discussion alongside the big news of the day? I don't expect (or even really want) your respect, but I figured I'd at least get brownie points for opening the discussion. Or maybe not. All I know is that between this Behind the Scenes column and my vintage reviews (I believe I'm over 250 reviews of vintage film at this point) I find a lot of personal gratification and I've spoken with many readers who have not only enjoyed reading along, but felt inspired to expand their own cinematic horizons. So, I'm doing something right.

  • Jan. 17, 2011, 9:22 a.m. CST

    I'm adding it to my ZipList as we speak.

    by Royston Lodge

    'nuff said.

  • Jan. 17, 2011, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Ace...

    by CaptEgo

    More alike than we wish to acknowledge we are. Oddly enough part of the warped charm of hanging out here is the idealogical dust ups. It lets all of us wallow in occasional lawyerly nit picking about stupidly specific interpretations of words (although let's be real...some readers and responders will never get around to acknowledging that a viewpoint is out to lunch). I mainly care about the genre news because that happens to be my main fixation. However: It is a bit of a stretch to suggest that one humble reader has come to 'bow down' to the all powerful OZ hereabouts when all you know of the matter is that they agree about one point made...which happened to ignite the conflagration. Finally...let's go back and examine the initial contrary opinion and it's breathless indignation at the snub to Audrey and her film. It's just this side of Youtube's infamous 'Stop picking on Britney' video...not to mention almost as hilarious. Now *that* is some entertainment value right there.

  • Jan. 17, 2011, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Eli Wallach is going to go Leone on Quint's ass.

    by youridol

    obscure: relatively unknown. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscure Audrey Hepburn made 28 pictures. Only one is damn near impossible to view today: MONTE CARLO BABY (UK-FR 1951). But even that picture is not "relatively unknown" because it was the picture that resulted in Hepburn being cast in the play Gigi which launched her Hollywood career. Go to the Entertainment and Arts section of any major bookstore. How many Hepburn books are there? She's an icon. The most famous actress in cinema history made a grand total of ZERO obscure pictures. Pictures are not obscure because an online reviewer with an alias based on a JAWS character is "surprised" by them upon his first viewing. Pictures are obscure for being -- wait for it -- obscure. Very hard to find. Possibly lost. Two realistic reasons for "Quint" standing by his embarrassing and insulting labeling of HOW TO STEAL A MILLION: 1.) lack of self esteem which blocks his logic and therefore the strength of character to admit he made a mistake. 2.) unaware of the definition of the word "obscure."

Top Talkbacks