The Light Touch

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.

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.

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.

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.