Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Wally-E Good things: Beautiful sets, decent songs, ok performances, Higgins is fairly funny, and an easy to follow story.Bad things: WAY too long, useless songs especially from the dad, Audrey Hepburn has one of the worst voices of all time in the fist half of the movie (I know this is on purpose, but my god), and Higgins is a huge ass.My biggest and worst complaint about this fine movie, is that the run time is bloated with useless musical numbers, this is a 1hr 50min movie tops, but because of Bollywood type musical numbers it (like a Bollywood movie) is bloated to 2hrs 50mins. I think it's perfectly fine, but with heavy flaws.

Charles Herold (cherold) One of the great struggles in theater is emotional truth versus emotional satisfaction. Witness George Bernard Shaw's play Pygmalion, which aimed for a true ending of emancipation but which was turned by various producers and rewriters into something less uncompromising to satisfy the audience's emotional desires.The musical My Fair Lady is Pygmalion with songs. An obnoxious linguist who believes class is not fundamental but is simply a matter of virtue signaling through things like language bets he can pass a flower girl off as a high-born lady. It's a virtuous belief, but the linguist is an obnoxious jerk. But as in the old movie, that jerkiness is sanded smooth with actorly charm. Which is why the ending bugs a lot of people, some of which will advise you to simply stop watching after "Without You," which would result in something close to what Shaw wanted.I don't disagree, and I think Shaw's idea that Charles Laughton would be an ideal Henry Higgins shows you how far afield Broadway and Hollywood have gone.The movie version of the musical also suffers from the casting of Audrey Hepburn. While the play is meant to show that language and a basic knowledge of social niceties is all that separates one class from another, Hepburn goes through a complete character change from feral child to conflicted and elegant lady. From clips I've seen of Broadway originator Julie Andrews singing some of the songs, I suspect she would have done better at making Eliza the same person and keeping the changes to grammatical ones while making Eliza cannier at first and flintier at last.It's also unfortunate that Hepburn's songs were dubbed. Her singing, as heard on youtube, was okay, and while Marni Nixon was the better singer, it seems unfair to insist on perfection from Hepburn while allowing Harrison to talk through his songs.Still, the songs are excellent, catchy and witty, and the production is solid. If you aren't too bothered by terrible people being portrayed as charming and quirky, or by Hepburn's overacting in the early scenes, this is still a lot of fun.Personally, were I to direct this I would have Higgins and Pickering realize they were in love with each other during the play. But that's just me.

ajrosen Julie Andrews was my first love - at 3 years old I had worn out 3 records of My Fair Lady playing it over and over again - Years latter I found out that my mother used to sing to me in her womb and I was trying to find her again threw Julie's voice. I was adopted. At 8 years old my grandmother took me too see My Fair Lady in the theater with Julie Andrews - Rex Harrison - Stanly Holloway - Wow.No one compares too Julie Andrews in this roll - Audrey Hepburn totally wrong for the roll. Don't know why this film got 8 academy awards. The only thing good about it were the costumes. Camera work was insensitive too the music although beautiful but sterile. Direction was terrible nothing was believable or fun. They should have waited 2 years for Julie to finish Sound of Music and Marry Poppins and got a different director and then we would have 3 classics. A disappointment and Crying Shame. Total waist of money.

ElMaruecan82 George Cukor's "My Fair Lady" is as close to auteur cinema as "Baby Geniuses" to "The Godfather", nothing remotely ambitious on the field of philosophy, religion or any form of abstract thinking, but I'm still using a word (one I personally hate) to describe it: it is a pretentious film. As intellectually vacuous as it is, it is pretentious in the sense that it takes a sweet, enchanting story, made of charming and engaging characters, and drag on for almost three hours for a plot requiring one hour less. This is a case where a little less would have been a lot more."West Side Story" was longer but its fast-paced rhythm and the catchy songs actually drove the plot instead of slowing it down, "The Sound of Music" felt a tad long, but it had a rather dense plot, while "My Fair Lady"'s can be summed up into a spot-it with a marker. It is about linguist Professor Higgings meeting a vulgar flower girl named Eliza Doolitlle and after months of training, he turns her into a lady, in the process, he falls in love with her, although he refuses to admit it. But in the end, they get together, bada-beep, bada-boom. There are a few subplots but they are merely dressing, the piece of resistance is what everyone remembers.Now, I'm not criticizing the conventional fairy-tale aspect of the story, but it was two-hour material, plain and simple. No, they had to stretch it to three hours, with the obligatory intermission. Obviously, they knew they had a Best Picture contender so it had to pretend to be as epic as "Lawrence of Arabia", "West Side Story" or "Tom Jones". So it takes like half an hour for the film to take off and basically, each significant moment is interrupted by a musical interlude, I liked the "With a Little Bit of Luck" song but what did it have to do with the story anyway? Apparently, we were supposed to enjoy it and that was enough a reason.The film actually makes me question the appeal of musicals, why should people singing and dancing together be an entertaining sight? My guess is that it was the taste of the time, and people loved to enjoy in theaters what they could see on the stage, or maybe it was the star-system and Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison were the kind of offers one couldn't refuse. But I'd rather have that sirtaki in "Zorbas" or five minutes of "Dr. Strangelove" than any of these tiresome musical acts, at least these films had something to show, even "Mary Poppins" had animation, I'm afraid "My Fair Lady" had a rather thin plot with music used as fillers,It is a difficult-to-review film because I'm not really even interested in reviewing it, it is even based on a lie, that Audrey Hepburn could be believable as a crass girl, it's like imagining Grace Kelly playing a prostitute, there's nothing such as limited range, but we know Hepburn can only "act" her way through a character like Eliza Doolittle and gets easier to handle once she becomes the classy woman she's always been, that ugly duckling thing couldn't fool anyone, and if she didn't overact, she way overdid her accent. Rex Harrison, as annoying as sexist as he was, was pretty convincing as Higgins but the whole relationship rang abominably false. It is supposed to be a love story but most of the time, these two keep snarling at each other, they couldn't even exchange one lousy kiss at the end, I know it's all about subtext, but still. Still, this film worked and became one of the all-time box-office successes, an event by itself, one I would never get. And don't get me started with the Oscars. Granted the film won the Best Costume, Art Direction and all the categories you'd never remember the names, but Best Picture? Best Director? What makes Cukor's directing so exceptional? Is it more difficult to direct a film like this than "Strangelove"? The 60's used to reward cinematic excellence but art shouldn't be made at the expense of a story, and it's only justice that "Dr. Strangelove" is more celebrated today than "My Fair Lady". And if you want an excellent romance with Audrey Hepburn, take "Roman Holiday" or "Sabrina".There's one thing I enjoyed though, it was the Bonus features and I was more interested to see Rex Harrison being natural and Audrey Hepburn as sweet as usual, I thought to myself, I don't know if younger actors would've been as good, but if the cast had played these parts as naturally, it could have been something. And then there was Jack Warner who, during a press conference, made a remarkable speech about old school Hollywood cinema and wished directors wouldn't try to copy European filmmakers, you could tell the disdain in his tone, well, he was right in foreshadowing the end of the studio system (and even in the interviews, the productions costs were a matter of discussions), these costly musicals almost bankrupted the studios, because for one "My Fair Lady", you had a few disasters.The film marks with "The Sound of Music" the swan songs of an era , the time for better movies were to come, and it's extraordinary to believe that the film was only two years before "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" and three before "Bonnie and Clyde" and "The Graduate". Being a hardcore New Hollywood fan, a production like "My Fair Lady" could only make me feel cold, I'm not even sure this will be a review I'd love to read again once.... but I'll end with a piece of advice, you want to see it? Fine. Be sure you're doing something at the same time, otherwise, time will feel painfully long.