James Hitchcock
Biopics of famous actresses from the past, especially of those who were noted for their beauty, often suffer from difficulties with casting, as it is not always possible to find a modern actress who bears the necessary resemblance to the woman she is playing, even with the creative use of make-up. Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh (in the recent "Hitchcock") might be quite a good match, but there have been some much more eccentric ones, such as former Charlie's Angel Cheryl Ladd as Grace Kelly or even Lindsay Lohan as Elizabeth Taylor. "The Audrey Hepburn Story" is another example. I mean, which modern actress has a beauty comparable to Hepburn's? Today, the nearest equivalent would probably be Anne Hathaway, but at the time this film was made she was still an unknown teenager. Jennifer Love Hewitt, in fact, is only slightly older than Hathaway, but by 2000 the 21-year-old was obviously already a big enough Hollywood name to act as producer of her own movies and to get herself cast in the leading role, despite an obvious lack of likeness. (Nose too pointed, chin too prominent, ears too large). The film spans the period from Audrey's childhood in the 1930s up to the making of Breakfast at Tiffany's in 1961, covering her experiences in Nazi-occupied Holland during World War II, her unsuccessful attempt to become a ballerina, the early part of her acting career including her big Hollywood breakthrough with "Roman Holiday" and her romances with the young aristocrat James Hanson, later one of Britain's richest businessmen, with William Holden and with her first husband Mel Ferrer. Her subsequent divorce from Ferrer and her second marriage to Andrea Dotti, falling after the cut-off date of 1961, are omitted. Understandably, a lot of stress is placed on Audrey's wartime experiences and her work for the Dutch Resistance. One thing that is somewhat softened is the extent to which Audrey's parents supported Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists. Her father's political opinions are, admittedly, referred to, but then trying to write about Joseph Hepburn-Ruston without mentioning his fascist sympathies would be a bit like trying to pen a biography of Jack the Ripper while tactfully avoiding the distasteful subject of homicide. What the film fails to mention is that Audrey's mother, Baroness Ella Van Heemstra, was during the 1930s as enthusiastic a fascist as her husband, although to be fair to Ella her fascism was something of an intellectual parlour-game and she seems to have abandoned it when she was confronted with the brutal reality of the Nazi occupation of her native Holland. Jennifer Love Hewitt may not look much like Audrey Hepburn, but she loses out on the Special Oscar for "Least Convincing Impersonation of a Real Individual", which must go to Gabriel Macht for his portrayal of William Holden as a blond, sun-bronzed twenty-something beach-bum. Biographers seem to disagree about the depth of Audrey's relationship with Holden and her reasons for breaking it off; here it is shown as being very brief, non-sexual and broken off when Audrey discovers that he has had a vasectomy and is therefore unable to have children. Despite the lack of resemblance, in fact, Hewitt's performance is not altogether a bad one, as she does succeed in conveying something of Audrey's personality, aided by the one physical feature the two do have in common, a pair of large and lustrous eyes. Film star biopics tend to gloss over the more lurid or sensational aspects of their subjects' lives, but in Audrey's case there seems to have been very little that needed glossing over, as she had (by Hollywood standards) remarkably few skeletons in her cupboard. Indeed, she always came across as a thoroughly lovable person both on screen and off; few people had anything but praise for her. (One exception seems to have been that old grouch Truman Capote, who didn't like her performance in "Breakfast at Tiffany's", but according to this film even he was eventually won over by her charm). Her charitable work appears to have been the result of sincere convictions and not, as with some celebrities, a mere PR stunt. Her Wikipedia entry describes her as "actress and humanitarian" rather than simply "actress". So how does one manage to make a film about her without it simply becoming an exercise in hagiography? Well, truth to tell, this film does not avoid that particular trap altogether. It is, certainly, better than the Cheryl Ladd "Grace Kelly" which resembles nothing so much as a dramatised encyclopedia entry, but then Audrey's life was always more eventful than Grace Kelly's, and certainly more eventful than the bowdlerised version of Grace Kelly's life presented to us in the film. Filmed biographies, however, need dramatic tension if they are to work, just as much as films about wholly fictitious subjects, and that is something in which this film often seems lacking, except perhaps during the wartime scenes. It manages to be informative, but is never very exciting. 5/10
plutus1947
What I can never understand is why an American is chosen to play the part of someone who had a pristine British accent and vice versa. (I know Hepburn was born in Belgium). This movie reminds me somewhat of the now legendary role Dick Van Dyke played (Bert) in Mary Poppins. His cockney accent was to say the least 'atrocious'.Although I must say that the British accent of Jennifer Love Hewitt was better than Van Dykes's it still left a lot to be desired.SPOILER BEGINS This movie charts 'part' of the life of Audrey Hepburn who was in my opinion one of the most beautiful women in the world. That is not to say that Love Hewitt is not stunningly attractive.The movie takes us from her very young age, through WW2 when she was taken to live in Holland where her parents thought she would be safe but of course it turned out that she was raised in German occupied Holland, up to the period when she was one of the most sought after stars in the movie world.I must say that I learned a lot about Audrey Hedpburn watching this movie. For example she actually helped the Dutch underground when she was in Holland and she witnessed the atrocities the Hitler Army was capable of.However, the movie did not go far enough and in my opinion the latter part of her life should have been covered also. She worked tirelessly for UNICEF for several years, right up to her relatively untimely death in 1993 of Appendiceal cancer. This was a two part mini-series and I feel that they could have made a three part series in order to cover her later life.There was only a brief written reference to this in the end credits.SPOILER ENDS I do like Jennifer Love Hewitt as an actress having first seen her in the bittiest of bit parts in Sister Act 2 and then in the popular TV series Ghost Whisperer.It is simply that I feel that she was very wrongly cast in the role of Audrey Hepburn because her English accent was simply not up to it.Had the part of Hepburn be played by someone else (a Brit) and had the whole story been told I feel that the movie would have been wonderful. Even if Jennifer had not tried to emulate an English accent and used her American accent I feel this would have been better.Love Hewitt was Producer & Co Executive Producer of Ghost Whisperer and she was also one of the Co Executive Producers of The Audrey Hepburn Story so I am wondering if that was the reason she played the title role.For the most part the remainder of the cast played their roles extremely well, especially Francis Fisher who played Audrey's mother Ella van Heemstra. She was nothing like the hateful woman Ruth Dewitt Bukater in Titanic.I also liked the way Eric McCormack played Mel Ferrer. He too was nothing like the despicable Ray Summers in Dead Like Me.All in all I feel that the Audrey Hepburn Story could have been a great deal better but nevertheless I will say it is still quite watchable.This mini-series was nominated for one award, the Golden Reel Award, for Best Sound Editing, which it did not win.
Surfer-23
This film did have problems, but I felt I had to chime in if for no other reason than to offset some of the mean-spirited commentary.Why must actors or performances that people dislike be described as terrible? Jennifer Love Hewitt is a talented actress. She may not have been in tip-top form in this film, but I think she deserves a lot better than some of the "reviewers" have given her.Re the physical similarity or dissimilarity between Ms Hewitt and Ms Hepburn: Very few people in the world look like Audrey Hepburn. Of those, precious few are marketable in a nationally broadcast TV movie. Jennifer Love Hewitt wasn't perhaps the ideal choice, but she wasn't a senseless one either.
AudreyHepburnJR
I am one of the biggest Audrey Hepburn fans out there and this movie made me literally cry.Jennifer Love Hewitt was horrible. Her accent in the movie was NO where near Audrey's. Her laugh and personality didn't capture anything. Plus, not only was Hewitt horrible, but the plot was too. A lot of the events in the movie did NOT happen in Audrey's real life. Sean Hepburn-Ferrer, Audrey's son said he watched this movie and was very disappointed. Well if i was her son, i would be too! When people say someone else should have played Hepburn, like Natalie Portman, or Winona Ryder, that's also ridiculous. NO ONE in Hollywood history could EVER be Audrey Hepburn. She was graceful, classy, had an amazing sense of style and something that can't be described.What a disappointment.
