the often reliable leonard maltin say this be a delightful romance and that sander be superb . maltin must have confuse this movie with something else . sander be snide and droll and superb and a usual and you can imagine his delivery of the line regard adultery and sometimes the chain of matrimony be so heavy they have to be carry by three and but dull and wooden and dated describe this movie more accurately . the storyline itself and an autobiography with sander a a suave jewel thief and francois eugene vidocq and who become chief of police but can hardly resist the lure of fine jewel and be entertain enough and but it have the same kind of hollow historical hollywood treatment that mar such period epic a marie antoinette and and certainly the deplorable forever amber ( which scream for a classy remake ) . though and in his defense and sander try mightily to add some depth to his character and it be all for naught . i be an unabashed douglas sirk fan and but this be 1946 and and it be one of sirk early american effort and lack many of the signature touch that would define his florid and breast heaving potboiler . sirk be just get his foot wet here and and make a number of unmemorable film over the next ten year until he strike gold with magnificent obsession and and hit his stride and bombard u with such estrogen fests a all that heaven allows and write on the wind and and imitation of life . but scandal in paris be hardly his best work a relatively low budget affair with cheesy set and ineffective costuming .