The Light Touch

Pier was 19 years old during filming. She looked like a 14 year old girl. Pier was miscast simply because she looked years younger than her age. Looking years younger than your age is a blessing but come on. Imagine Cary Grant opposite Pier Grant would have looked like her grandfather. The scenes with Granger are disturbing because Pier looks so much younger than Granger. Pier's youthful appearance was a handicap imo. The movie is boring, I'm watching the movie as I write my review. There's nothing more to say. I won't recommend this movie.

(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.

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!

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).

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.