| Overall Grade: |
A- |
|
| Story: |
B+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
A- |
|
|
| Direction: |
A- |
|
|
| Visuals: |
B+ |
|
|
A classic, for sure, but....
by Yahoo! Movies User (movies profile)
Jun 16, 2007
3
of
4 people found this review helpful
An American classic, for sure. Audrey Hepburn has a stage presence that very few, even to this day, can come close to matching. She's one of those actresses whom if they are on the screen, you cannot look at anything else. Probably those doe eyes. But alas...
I'll give this film an almost perfect rating simply because you have to take into account the time the movie was made. Things were different in the late fifties, early sixties. What I find most interesting about this movie is it gives us a window into our own collective past, one filled with too many vices and too many "unnoticed" problems. While I'll let them slide due to the era in which this film was made, I'll take the liberty to point out the things I kept noticing in this film.
The most obvious is the horrific stereotypical Asian man. Mickey Rooney would be villified today for such a performance and Blake Edwards would be shot.
Everyone in this film is continually smoking a cigarette. Interesting to see the change in the social conscience about smoking. You can tell that people of that era had no clue that it might be bad for them.
The drinking. Good lord. "I've never had Champaigne before breakfast. I've had it with breakfast, but never before!" claims "Fred". What would today be considered a prime candidate for an AA intervention is considered the norm back then.
Anorexia. I'll bet Audrey Hepburn couldn't have weighed in at over 90 lbs right after the ending scene in the rain; and that's holding "cat". While I am not her physcian, I am quite curious as to whether she actually had an eating disorder. Beautiful women, no doubt but a reed. I'll have to look that up and see.
George as a male prostitute? There's something that became "socially unacceptable" after this era. Okay - maybe Richard Gere and Rob Schneider both tried their hands at it but compare how many movies you see with hookers versus ones with jiggalos. Interesting. In this movie it was played as a normal thing. Blake had to do this, I think, to give Paul something to connect with Holly about. Otherwise, I wouldn't have seen a single reason for a logical, intelligent writer to put up with the flaky behaviour of Holly. I can just see Blake in the directors chair - "you know what...we should make you a jiggalo George! We'll have you sleeping with a socialite for cash."
But don't get me wrong. I do love this film for it's time. It's hard to even consider it dated because of the nice use of outdoor shots in New York. So many films of this time used nothing but sets...those fake looking rooms that you were sure someone could poke a finger through the wall. Some movies never left the stage. It was a necessary and nice touch on his part. This film will remain a classic for eternity, I think. Something all serious filmakers have to study to graduate from school. Audrey is stunning, her best role ever. It's nice to see George before his horrible stint as Hannible in the "A-team".
A top ten film of all time, for sure. Might even sneak in at number 5. |
My Public Profile 
