PedroJT

Love in the Afternoon is a late 50s Wilder classic. At least semi-classic. The story is about a French girl who falls in love with a swinger from Paris. The girl is Audrey Hepburn and the man is Gary Cooper. The first act lags. The only thing keeping me glued to the screen is Hepburn, who has such a screen presence (she's pretty).

Recent comments have also noted Gary Cooper's miscasting. I'm not sure. I agree it's hard to believe Hepburn's character falls for him. The movie just doesn't work in his favor in the first act. It does begin to work eventually. The turning point would have to be at the picnic where he obviously starts to fall for her. Cooper falling for Hepburn: more realistic. From that point everything takes off. Cary Grant could have pulled off the attraction, but I don't think he could have pulled off the 2nd and 3rd act, and Cooper did. When he's sad (dictaphone/wine cart/sauna scenes) he's a top form comic actor. Anyways - I digress.

No one can produce the feeling of heartache with so much sadness and glee as Wilder can. The gypsy band should have earned a best supporting actors nomination.

Very few people were up in arms when Steven Soderberg decided to remake Oceans 11, and now I understand why. The original is flawed to say the least. The movie took 40 minutes of introduction before even hinting at the sting operation. Meandering (supposedly improvised) dialogue, useless characters (there were many!), and throw-away scenes. Who knew it would be good source material. What's great about the remake, the actors look like they're having fun making the movie. Not to say that there was no fun on the set of the original, but it seems any bit of fun was captured off camera. You can make a drinking game and take a shot at every shot where one of the actors looks like they've just been through a drinking game. Any high class movie that can't shoot 11 people talking without breaking the action axis doesn't deserve viewing.