The Light Touch (1951)

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Title of the Light Touch is surely an indication of a charming tale of a thief who has no scruples and lures a young naive girl into a web of deceit. Pier Angelli is very good here, as the young artist taken in by an older, wiser, and unscrupulous Stewart Granger. She is totally in love with him and goes along with the art forgery plan. I like this movie, it is as said, light. Granger is suave and manipulative and of course George Sanders is just as charming as the dealer of stolen art. Some have said it does not take on the same chemistry as the Love in the Afternoon movie with Cooper and Hepburn, but I think it is just different. After all Cooper was a playboy seducing a young Audrey Hepburn. Here we have a man with a purpose who feels that the end justifies the means. Pier Angelli was sort of a sweet presence on the screen, probably because that is her in real life. Giving up James Dean destroyed her.

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).

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.

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.