User reviews

Richard Brooks wrote and directed this early example of the caper film. Stewart Granger plays a canny art thief who, with the help of an innocent Pier Angeli, tries to pawn off a reproduction to his client, Kurt Kaszner. The story is admittedly thin but there's some great repartee, especially amongst the troika of bad guys played by George Sanders, Norman Lloyd, and Mike Mazurki. And really, how can you go wrong with a threesome that sinister? Robert Surtees' cinematography is excellent and takes reasonable advantage of location work in Italy, Sicily, and Tunisia. All in all, its better than you might think (and certainly better than the other two reviews for the film indicate).

In his second directed film, Richard Brooks filmed his own screenplay and you kind of get the feeling he would like to have had Cary Grant as his lead as he did in his first film, Crisis. I'm betting this film had to have been offered to Grant.

Failing to get Grant, MGM had its leads under contract in Stewart Granger and Pier Angeli. They did a reasonably good job in a caper film where the thief turns out to have a conscience.

Granger contracts to steal a valuable religious painting from a church in Palermo and makes good his escape to Tunis. Where instead of delivering it to fence George Sanders, he uses the old Granger charm to make copies and see if he can collect a few times on this robbery. Since nobody knows quite what Granger's game is, they have to wait and see including the police inspector Joseph Calleia.

The charm is used on young artist Pier Angeli and he even marries the girl. But she in the end has more effect on him than he on her.

MGM brought Richard Brooks and the whole cast over to Sicily and to Tunis with interiors filmed in their Cinecitta studios in Rome. So after going through that expense, why didn't they opt for color, given some of the beautiful locations they were filming at?

For Calleia and Angeli, this was a return home. For the rest of the cast it was a nice Mediterranean working vacation even though Brooks and Granger did not get along. I really do think Brooks must have seen this film for Cary Grant.

It's not a bad film, it does drag in spots and color would have been of immense help. Still Granger is every bit as charming as Cary Grant.

No matter what Richard Brooks thought.

Why do people feel the need to outline the plot, bandy about cast and crew names like they are insiders, mouth trade lingo and generally attempt to ape professional critics they have read or heard?? We can read all that stuff on the credits and from the places they lifted it. We have search engines on our computers too. I understand that real person reviews are solicited here, maybe with some sharing of things learned about the film. But, how about referencing the source so others can evaluate it on that basis. I think people mostly come here to find out what a regular viewer thought of the film.

On the film, I know it is not the best done by the actors. But I feel that when you like an actor, you like him/her in even a lesser movie. Enjoyed the combination of Granger and Sanders enough to want to watch and re-watch the movie just for that. To me, they have styles that are ever so delightful to watch in combo.

Thief Sam Conride (Stewart Granger) steals a painting from an Italian museum. He double-crosses his partner Felix Guignol (George Sanders) by faking its destruction in a boat fire. Their client Aramescue don't necessarily buy it. Sam comes up with a new scheme. They recruit innocent Anna Vasarri (Pier Angeli) to paint copies and sell them to unsuspecting customers who know about theft but don't know that it's supposedly destroyed.

This is a B-movie. It desperately needs a bigger star. Sam needs to be a slick charmer. Granger has an old-time leading man look with height. I don't notice his British accent. He seems more non-descript than anything. He had a long career, but I don't know much of his work. The premise holds some potential, but this can't exceed beyond its B-movie nature. I can see this being reworked with bigger stars in the two leads.

Stewart Granger is an art thief in partnership with George Sanders. Granger has stolen a prized mdonna from a church, and Sanders is arranging to sell it. Tired of the small profits, Granger claims the picture was lost on a boat. He and Sanders look for an artist to make forgeries ..... excuse me, copies, and settle on Pier Angeli. As Granger evades Sanders, two sets of willing buyers, and local cop Joseph Calleia, he and Sra. Angeli get married. When she discovers what her husband does for a living, she is aghast.

It's filled with Sanders' casually delivered, dreadfully cynical remarks, Sra. Angeli's fresh, sweet charm, and some lovely camerawork by Robert Surtees. Writer-director Richard Brooks' script lacks the light touch; none of his movies were notable for subtlety. But working with the well-oiled MGM machine, he could turn out a good movie. He does so here, although Stewart Granger despised him. With Kurt Kaszner, Larry Keating, Rhys Williams, Mike Mazurki, Norman Lloyd, and Hans Conried.

This could have been a reasonably good picture. Plot is fairly decent and location shooting is an added dimension. It is writer/director Richard Brooks second attempt at direction -- he got better. Stewart Granger has been better. The age difference between Grander and the young and naive Pier Angeli is simply too great and does not work like it did with Gary Cooper and Audrey Hepburn in "Love in the Afternoon." Kurt Kasznar is probably working as hard as he could in his first film since appearing as an uncredited child star, but I could have seen Sydney Greenstreet in his role instead (had that legendary actor not been done with films). I liked George Sanders -- but I ususally like him in almost anything. He is the one saving grace to the film. Joseph Calleia does a good job but see him instead as Sgt. Pete Menzies in "Touch of Evil." Same with Mike Mazurki -- see him as "the" Moose Malloy in "Murder My Sweet" instead. "E" web site says the film is not available on tape or DVD and does not provide you an opportunity to vote for it. Not much to recommend.

Excruciatingly boring tale of a thief who steals a famous painting for another man and then double crosses him. Along the way a young woman is brought into the deal to create a forgery of the painting and she winds up falling for one of the crooks. This crushing bore went on interminably as the 2 groups went about trying to outwit each other and come into possession of the valuable piece of art. Worse than "Canvas", another stupid 'art theft' movie.

Don't read the "Storyline" - it has too many spoilers.

Intriguing Characters & a Suspenseful Plot: I'm rating this movie a "10" in the hope of improving the ridiculously low 5.8 rating. It certainly deserves at least a 7. It's suspenseful, clever, and definitely enjoyable, especially if you don't know too much content ahead of viewing it. My husband & I both found "The Light Touch" to be well-acted, entertaining, and to have a worthy script. Some descriptions include "comedy" in the classification. Though there are some amusing lines, it's far from a "comedy." Interesting contrast in the cast of characters, to be sure!

(1951) Light Touch ADVENTURE/ THRILLER

Co-written and directed by Richard Brooks, this is yet another enjoyable Stewart Granger movie as he plays a professional thief, Sam Conride who manages to successfully steal an expensive painting from a Vatican church. He then felt to be double crossed from the buyer who then attempts to manipulates a very young lady painter, who could duplicate original works! What I've just describe to you is only just the beginning with it's many twists and mishaps happen along the way with some ingenuity! Another thing I enjoyed about this movie as opposed to the others are that the story never lags or drags any emotional punch meaning that's all business- the movie just gets to the point! The only drawback of course like most black and white movies made during this era was the imposed 'do the right thing' type of ending! This movie is more of a 85% in terms of it's entertainment value but 80% is still a very good rating.