Pas de lauriers pour les tueurs

Absolutely lovely movie. A lovely 60's Stockholm and its Grand Hotel, an adorable and extremely beautiful Elke Sommer, a very young and charismatic Paul Newman, the glamour of the Nobel prize and lots of what we now a days consider that romantic innocence from the older times.

The movie itself is not exactly a good one. First of all you can notice that every scene outside is shot with a film behind so that very probably, Mr.Newman never got to go to Stockholm at all, but was filmed in some studio in Hollywood. Then all these stereotypes that are making angry to Italians, Swedes and even Danes. Well, take a look at any Hollywood movie happening in Spain and you will find see that those old stereotypes are there for every nationality and are certainly annoying. We are bullfighters here theoretically.

The plot is very simplistic, the bad guys are really clumsy, some scenes are taken from other movies and as mentioned before by someone else, it is a photocopy of Hitchcock's Torn Curtain as well.

Still, as imperfect as it is, it is just lovely, and the little romance of Newman and Sommers, those innocent but very hot kisses dressing up so smart are worth the movie for those who feel romantic.

Paul Newman and Edward G. Robinson struck me as a curious combination, so I chose to watch "The Prize" not having any idea what it was about.

This story about a number recipients in Stockholm about to receive their Nobel Prize, will show how their lives are intertwined in the days prior to the annual event. It is a mystery story that I almost gave up on after a handful of minutes -- my own fault for being impatient. A flower takes time to blossom, and so does a movie that is over 40 years old. But I am glad I didn't switch it off.

The intrigue does start to capture after a while and the insights the viewer is granted are satisfying, while our hero is denied these sensations as no one believes him. The 21st century participant of this drama may find parts predictable, but it is very enjoyable, even if a little dated.

Paul Newman gives everything you would expect. And you could say the same for Elke Sommer, since I wouldn't expect anyone to describe her as a terrific actor -- good performance for her, and she always wonderful to look at. I would have enjoyed more screen time by Edward G. Robinson in this role that had him more timid than I am accustomed to.

I recommend this movie to everyone that enjoys these actors, although one viewing is probably enough.

To say that this is an Alfred Hitchcock movie made by Mark Robson is not a put down, it's just a fact of life. Look at the framing and you'll know immediately that we're not in Hitchcockian territory. But the the Hitchcockian ingredients are there even if not mixed or cooked at the wrong temperature, or something. Paul Newman, absolutely gorgeous and funnily enough he'll make a spy film with Hitchcock set in Sweden during the Nobels. Elke Sommer is like an imitation Hitchkcock ice blonde made in Germany. Diane Baker was the brunette in Hitchcock's Marnie and she's a real delight. Edward G Robinson, of course, always a pleasure but then Mr Robson casts Micheline Presle, Micheline Presle from "Devil And The Flesh" and ignores her. She is framed as if Robson didn't know who she was. Another unforgivable bit of business, Sergio Fantoni's Italian mamma. What was he thinking. All that aside. It's entertaining and Paul Newman can take me anywhere, anytime.

If you have read the book, what the film has to offer is unfortunately a replay of what Hitchcock created in 1959.

Ernest Lehman was the script writer for Hitchcock's "North by northwest." I was surprised that two scenes from the classic were modified by Lehman for "The Prize". The famous scene of Cary Grant being almost killed by a plane in the open field is replayed here with Paul Newman being terrorized by a car on an empty bridge at night. A few minutes later into the film Lehman replaces the auction sequence in the Cary Grant film with Newman in a nudist conference. If you have seen the Hitchcock film you know what follows. Was it a homage to Hitchcock or was Lehman suffering a bout of creativity loss? Or was Director Mark Robson a die hard Hitchcock fan?

The book, pulp fiction at its best, made good casual reading. The film is good to pass the time, watching Paul Newman and Edward G. Robinson re-enacting roles similar to what they have enjoyed playing so often. The wisecracks (thanks to Irving Wallace) make the otherwise dumb and predictable film worth your time.

I absolutely enjoyed this 2+ hour-long movie, and the fact that, as others have mentioned, it's inspired by Hitchcock doesn't change anything.

I liked Newman's character. A man who is more interested in women and drink rather than the Nobel Prize, who has a devil-may-care attitude towards everything, decides to endanger his own life when he realizes his colleague is in trouble. Maybe he does it partially because he is bored and partially because he has been writing detective stories for the past few years, but it is interesting to watch his behavior anyway.

Although the plot is pretty simple, there is something that gets you hooked from the very beginning and doesn't let you go until the very last phrase. The film is very interesting, and the supporting characters play a significant role here.