Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

atomicgirl-34996 Breakfast at Tiffany's is one of those films I desperately wanted to like. It starred Audrey Hepburn at the peak of her beauty and fame, and it captured the glamour and sophistication of the early 1960s right before it went to hell.But in all honesty, I couldn't really love this film. It's not bad. It's just average. I think I've always felt lackluster about it because of the casting. Holly is supposed to be a dumb hick from the sticks who's pretending to be something she's not. Though Hepburn is quite fetching pretending to be a NYC socialite, she's completely miscast as a country rube. Apparently, Truman Capote desperately wanted Marilyn Monroe to star as Holly and was bitterly disappointed when Hepburn was chosen. Being that Monroe came from humble beginnings in real life and had a fragility about her, I can see how someone like her would've been a better choice for the role. As for George Peppard, he is an even worse casting choice than Hepburn. He's handsome enough, but he's completely wooden, has no personality and zero chemistry with Audrey Hepburn. He's so bad here that I consider him one of the luckiest men in Hollywood; no way would someone this wooden have lasted more than a year before being shown the door. Yet he was able to sustain a career lasting decades and even became the star of two TV series, Banacek and The A Team. (Lucky him.)As for the love story itself, even though it was based around edgy material, it was surprisingly pedestrian and cliche. The ending was so incredibly predictable that it just ended with a huge clang for me. I suppose I would've enjoyed it more had the leads been better cast. As meh as I am about the movie, its one saving grace (and what makes it watchable in spite of its average-ness) is the extended party scene at Holly's apartment. That scene makes the entire movie for me. For one, it's fun to see so-called 1960s sophisticates let it all hang out. Secondly, you can tell that everyone, especially Blake Edwards, had a blast shooting it, and that he loved it so much that it inspired him to later film The Party with Peter Sellers in 1968. It was the right call because that movie wound up being the most fun and the funniest out of any Edwards film next to Victor, Victoria.All in all, I didn't really enjoy Breakfast at Tiffany as much as I would've liked. 6/10, with the 6 being for the fun party scene and how beautiful and stylish Hepburn looks.

Carol I saw this in the 1970s as a girl and like many people was entranced by Audrey Hepburn's performance. Now, in re-watching it and reading how Truman Capote wanted Marilyn Monroe to play Holly Golightly, it dawns on me that someone like Anna Nicole Smith would've been perfect for the role, had she been an actress. I'm surprised this film has not been remade yet.

ljubicababi Breakfast at Tiffany's tells story about Holly Golightly,played by It Girl of 60s - Audrey Hepburn who becomes interested in life of her new neighbour Paul Varjak,played by George Peppard. This masterpiece was based on Capote's novel and directed by Blake Edwards,it was first collaboration between Blake and Audrey.Movie is perfect for anyone who loves Manhattan,as well romantic comedies.The most interesting thing might be the connection between Holly and Paul as well how they met.This movie shows that it doesn't have to be meet cute to draw audience's attention and to create great romance.Great chemistry is all that takes.For me,most annoying character is Mr Junioshi.He claims to be an artist and the only thing he does is complaining on Holly because of noise and parties which breaks his sleep routine.Most notable scene is Paul watching Holly while she sings Moon River.What I most like about Holly's personality is that she calls herself "wild" and free spirit but she's actually different.And I think that ot was her destiny to meet Paul,because he made her realize what kind of person she really is and that she actually has someone to rely on,even if it's just him.

tetsugakusei Watched this for the first time today, in 2017, and thought it was a great film thanks to Aubrey Hepburn, George Peppard, and a mostly unembellished and familiar New York City. It's refreshing to see how a film about the relationship between a female escort and a man with a sugar parent was not at all hypersexualized as it would be if it were made today. In fact, I would go as far to say that this implicit representation of sex is what made it interesting yet still incredibly classy and allowed Aubrey Hepburn's character some grace and dignity, despite her being an escort and her, to put it plainly, craziness. A film made like this is definitely a thing of the past which is why it is a treasure.The flaw of the film for me is what also makes the film great: the odd persistence of a man to love a girl that at times seem unbelievably troubled, Holly's amicable relationship with an ex- husband who doesn't seem too different from Holly to be honest (he doesn't believe they're not married anymore? That doesn't sound concerning to you?). It's all far-fetched, but that's just what it is: a modern- day-ish fairy tale.It's definitely something that everyone should watch at least once. It is a piece of history, yet something that feels so recent that it can still captivate the viewer in 2017.