After a professional art thief steals a religious painting from an Italian museum, he tries to cheat his partner by claiming the painting was accidentally destroyed but his suspicious partne... Read allAfter a professional art thief steals a religious painting from an Italian museum, he tries to cheat his partner by claiming the painting was accidentally destroyed but his suspicious partner and the police are determined to find it.After a professional art thief steals a religious painting from an Italian museum, he tries to cheat his partner by claiming the painting was accidentally destroyed but his suspicious partner and the police are determined to find it.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 2 wins total
Ben Astar
- Hamadi Mahmoud
- (as Albert Benastar)
Eugene Borden
- Mayor
- (uncredited)
Renzo Cesana
- Father Dolzi
- (uncredited)
Andre Charisse
- Guest
- (uncredited)
Louise Colombet
- Frenchwoman
- (uncredited)
Hans Conried
- Leopold
- (uncredited)
Robert Conte
- Waiter
- (uncredited)
Henry Dar Boggia
- Hotel Clerk
- (uncredited)
Giulio de Capua
- Italian Bus Driver
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaStewart Granger later wrote in his memoirs he had to make the film or go on suspension: "I wasn't particularly enamored of the thought of working with [Richard Brooks], as I had heard he had reduced a small-part actor to tears. That actor was Ramon Novarro. The thought of anyone reducing one of my childhood heroes to tears filled me with anger, but that's Hollywood. When a star is down he's fair game for anyone. I had to agree in order to avoid suspension and went along to meet Brooks. His opening words [were], 'I have to tell you that I wanted Cary Grant' . . . [introducing leading lady Pier Angeli] '[She will] play opposite you. Doesn't speak very good English but we'll get around that'. I spoke very good English but wondered how the hell I would get around his dialogue".
- Quotes
Felix Guignol: Here's to art. The only world where age comes before beauty.
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $1,163,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 33m(93 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content