Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
383 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
More than just a romantic-comedy, "Breakfast" is a real love story
Damian_21 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
The main reason I like "Breakfast at Tiffany's" so much is because I think it is one of those rare romantic comedies that actually transcends the genre and becomes a genuine love story. I have a theory that most love stories that get made aren't really about love. They're either about romance or lust. I don't think that many people in Hollywood (or society in general today) even know what real deep, meaningful love really is. "Breakfast at Tiffany's," on the other hand, is one of the most beautiful real love stories ever told.


"Tiffany's" is basically about a woman who is incapable of loving. She considers herself a "free spirit" a "wild thing," an independent, adventurous woman who lives for the moment. She is also a bit of a social outcast because her "profession" is essentially that of a call girl. Whether or not she actually sleeps with all of these men (or just some of them) who pay her is unclear, but she definitely uses them. She is not a woman of high moral character and despite her constant "up" attitude and optimistic outlook, she is really quite lonely. It's all a reflection of how she really feels about herself I think. It's almost as if she needs to keep trying new things and distracting herself from the truth, because if she were to actually take a moment to stop and look at herself, she would be confronted with how unimpressive and ordinary she really is. She would also have to face the fact that she is not really that stylish. She is an actor playing a part. "Holly Golightly" isn't even her real name. As I said, she is incapable of loving others because she doesn't really even love herself. She feels she is unlovable. Her self-perception is really quite low and that's why she concocts these huge, elaborate fantasies about being elegant, classy and witty. When I first saw the film, I was so impressed by the charm and beauty of Audrey Hepburn that I instantly fell in love with her. The more I watch the movie, the more I realize how utterly sad and pathetic (yet still likable) her character really is. As Marty Balsam says in the film: "She's a phony, but she's a real phony."

Paul Varjak, the character played by George Peppard (pre A-TEAM days of course) is in a similar situation. He is also playing a role and has a lousy self-image. He wants to write but has had such a hard time at it that he has resigned himself to taking money from a married, rich woman, who considers him to be her "good time" on the side, for his living. Paul and Holly start out as simple neighbors, later become friends and eventually fall in love which ends up scaring the pepper out of Holly. She's okay flirting with someone but as soon as she crosses that line over into falling for someone, she becomes afraid and runs away. She sees love as a "cage," something that stifles people and sucks the life out of them. She needs help. She needs someone to love her and she needs to be able to love them back. This man is the perfect one for her because he needs her just as much as she needs him. They can help each other. They can lift each other up. By themselves they are nothing but together they are complete. They are two miserable people who can find happiness in one another.

I like movies about redemption. Stories about otherwise lowly people who are raised to the heights of happiness through love (without it seeming forced or sentimental) are exceptionally rare but when they do show up they tend to appeal to me (that's the reason why I like the story to "Sabrina" so much too). I will never EVER forget that last scene in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" where Holly is finally confronted with the painful truth that despite all her attempts to deny herself, to hide from her own "ordinariness," nothing about her has really changed. As Paul says "No matter where you go, you just keep running into yourself." She admits that she is lonely and unhappy. She goes back for the cat that she set free moments earlier upon realizing that she was coming dangerously close to "owning" him. In going back for the cat she is really going back for herself. She sees herself as the cat and, in fact, there is frequent imagery throughout the film that connects them (Holly wearing the cat mask that she steals from the shop, "Nine Lives" being the name of the book that Paul wrote, etc.). She didn't want to give him a name because she didn't want him to belong to her, she would consider that "caging" the animal. So she called him simply "cat," but over time "Cat" ended up becoming his actual name. In reclaiming the cat she is sort of reclaiming her own life. For a few moments it looks like "Cat" may be gone forever, but when she hears the soft "meow" and pulls him out of a cardboard box, she is elated. She is the happiest woman on earth. Like the cat, she was lost but now is found. She embraces the cat and kisses her love, Paul, as they stand in the rain. The music swells (Gotta love that "Moon River" song) and the screen fades to black. It is, in my opinion, one of the greatest endings of any movie ever.
54 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fluffy, if a bit empty, but delicious breakfast.
Poseidon-324 June 2004
An army of fans consider this Hepburn's signature role and in many ways it is, even if she overcame miscasting to portray it. Based on a rather biting novella by Truman Capote, he (somewhat surprisingly) wanted Marilyn Monroe to play the role. The casting of Hepburn couldn't be more different, yet she made it her own and in the process created an icon that is every bit as lasting as Marilyn's skirt-over-the-subway-grate or Bette Davis's off-the-shoulder, chain-smoking Margo Channing. She plays an offbeat, effortlessly sophisticated party girl in New York City who subsists on the favors of various rich men. Though her livelihood couldn't be more tasteless, somehow Hepburn's presence adds a sheen of innocence and sweetness to it. When blocked writer Peppard moves in upstairs ("kept" by married socialite Neal), the two find themselves developing a friendship which eventually begins to turn into love. But since they are both people who use their bodies to earn their keep and are heavily dependent on others, the chances of their relationship lasting are slim at best. To read the above synopsis, one would expect a gritty, vulgar film. However, in director Blake Edwards' hands and with Hepburn floating around in exquisite Givenchy gowns, the movie is a candy box of color, style, humor and romance.

Even when she's hungover or just getting home from an all-nighter (as in the famous opening scene), Hepburn strikes a graceful and glamorous figure. In fact, it's when she's trying to act disoriented or disheveled that her performance is at it's weakest. It's as if she was so inherently stylish that she had to try (too) hard to present anything else! She does a very fine job with the role, even if the character's past is nothing short of preposterous. Peppard comes off as blandly attractive, but wooden. His arrogance regarding his role (fiercely protecting the traditional leading man image) not only undercut his own performance, but also slighted that of Neal's who was diminished as a result. However, sentimental filmgoers probably prefer his more heroic approach and Neal would certainly recoup her losses, earning an Oscar a short time later for "Hud". The most controversial aspect of the film is Rooney's portrayal of an Asian man who lives above Hepburn and who is awakened at all hours by her lifestyle. Whether or not one is offended by the over-the-top stereotype of the buck teeth and slant eyes, the role is not funny anyway! It's all way too forced and obvious, with his pratfalls in sight long before they occur. (A lamp exists RIGHT over his bed for the express purpose of giving him something to hit his head on continuously. Move it, already!) There are many memorable moments in the film including a sequence of Hepburn and Peppard doing things they've never done before, Hepburn sitting on the fire escape plaintively singing the Oscar-winning song "Moon River" (which is used throughout the film by master composer Henry Mancini) and wacky party scene (a prelude to Edwards' "The Party"?) in which all sorts of outre things take place including the cry "Timber!" when a tipsy guest begins to collapse. There's a surprising frankness, for the time, regarding Peppard and Neal's relationship. It seems to be one of the earliest Hollywood films in which the leading man is implied to be nude under the covers in his bed. The film is not without its flaws. Some of the dialogue is annoyingly indulgent and the storyline is fairly patchy (with a tacked on ending.) Still, with the sparkling presence of Hepburn (in some mind-blowing hats and costumes) and the slick work of Edwards, it is easy entertainment.
155 out of 217 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Audrey Hepburn - The "It" Girl of the 60s
misslv8012 April 2004
I've loved "Breakfast at Tiffany's" since I was nine. Even before I completely understood about Holly's "profession", I was captivated by the grace and magic that was Audrey Hepburn.

George Peppard plays Paul Varjak, a writer who has to earn his living through a wealthy socialite, Patricia Neal, as her "kept" man. Audrey, who plays Holly Golightly, is a gold-digging call girl, who is looking for the right rich man to marry. Though you would think these two would be unflattering characters, they are both very charming and put on phony personas (especially in Holly's case) in order to survive.

You have to marvel at how a woman like Audrey could look so good in anything she wore. At the beginning of the movie when she first meets Peppard, she's only wearing a simple white shirt that she wears as a nightgown or at the party scene when she first comes out and greets her friend O.J. Berman wearing nothing but a sheet made up to look like a dress! Gorgeous!

It's a marvelous piece of acting when Holly first meets Paul in her apartment, and she's talking about how she has to get ready to meet one of her "clients" in jail, Sally Tomato, and she's talking about her profession, looking at herself in the mirror, getting dressed, asking Paul to find one of her shoes, etc., and then, voila! the famous basic black dress and hat with the wide brim. Very stylish - and in the scene she is given much to work with, the way she has to juggle the dialogue and the action of what she is doing all at once. Very natural and sophisticated at the same time.

Audrey is very believable as Holly because her character is someone who is pretending to be sophisticated, hanging around with phony people, but really comes from humble beginnings. Once in a while you will hear in her voice the "country-girl" drawl, and you will see through the facade of Holly Golightly who she really is. George Peppard is also very handsome and believable as the "starving" writer who also has to sell himself out in order to earn a living.

Many complaints have been made about Mickey Rooney and the "stereotypical" portrayal of the landlord Mr. Yunioshi. Yes, it is stereotyped, but nonetheless, I still thought it was funny. The party scene is one of the best in the movie - hilarious! Wonderful score by Henry Mancini. Of course it's a classic scene when Holly pulls up in front of Tiffany's in the New York taxi, drinking coffee and eating a danish in front of the window. New York City itself is like a vibrant, interesting character in the movie. I could go on and on.

And to top it all off, it's a very romantic love story about two people who find happiness in the crazy, mixed-up world we live in. A classic. Recommended to anyone who loves old Hollywood cinema.
194 out of 276 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Real Charmer: Comfort Viewing At It's Best
gftbiloxi21 April 2005
The celebrated author on whose novel it was based despised the film version, describing it as "mawkish." The star wasn't much more enthusiastic; she never considered it among her best work. And the reviews were mixed. But regardless of what Truman Capote, Audrey Hepburn, or the critics thought about it, the public adored it--and the image of Audrey Hepburn wearing a black evening dress, nibbling pastry, and window shopping has passed into our cultural iconography.

The film is indeed lightweight stuff. Audrey Hepburn is a New York good-time girl who makes a living by clipping her wealthy escorts for fifty here and fifty there. When she meets handsome George Peppard--a writer who makes ends meet by trading favors with society matron Patricia Neal--can love be far behind? But Audrey's mysterious past and her determination to marry rich, George's status as a kept boy-toy, and their occasionally questionable associates provide plenty of complications to fill out the story.

What makes the film work is the remarkable charm of its two stars. Most of the attention goes to Audrey Hepburn and the film shows her to remarkable advantage: she is a remarkable actress, personality, and beauty, and she works wonders with the ultralight script. But when it comes to charm, George Peppard is no slouch either: the film catches him at the height of his early golden-boy good looks, and he is the perfect foil for Hepburn in both their comic and dramatic scenes. Mickey Rooney's excessive performance as Yunioshi aside, the supporting cast is also very entertaining, with Patricia Neal, Buddy Ebsen, Martin Balsam, and Dorothy Whitney all give enjoyable turns. The film looks great (make sure you get the widescreen version), the score (which includes "Moon River") is excellent, and director Blake Edwards keeps everything moving at a pleasant pace. This a great film to cozy up with on a cold night--romantic, entertaining, and as comforting as a cup of hot chocolate. Recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
41 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great Art or Guilty Pleasure?
smc716 February 2006
I am never sure which Breakfast at Tiffany's is. I can certainly think of movies which more accurately portray the human condition, but of few that are more fun.

Neither Holly nor Paul seem to represent real people. Their attraction, which is the focal point of the movie, is a character unto itself. Paul sees Holly as scared, vulnerable, and in need of rescue and enjoys his role as potential knight in shining armor to her damsel in distress. She is drawn to him because he sees beyond her facade of fabulousness to the scared little girl she is inside and which she tries (not that hard really at all) to hide. Adding to her attraction to him is the fact that he stands up to her when she treats him shoddily. This probably does not happen to her too often, and it intrigues her.

These are mostly the tricks a romance novelist uses to keep readers baited and rooting for a fictional, possibly doomed romance to work and do not reflect the real nature of love. There is, however, enough chemistry, genuine affection, and respect between the two characters to keep the story from seeming utterly implausible.

Of course, a movie doesn't have to be realistic to realistically portray what is right and what is wrong with the world we live in. Breakfast at Tiffany's doesn't do a whole lot of that either, though. After watching I can never pinpoint one solid message from it.

What it does have a lot of, as many others have pointed out, is stylish, witty, good fun. This is almost always the movie I choose on the rare occasions when my husband is working late, my son is asleep, I have energy to spare and good bottle of wine just begging to be uncorked. Believable or not, it is well-told and compelling, and remains one of the better movies a gal can lose herself in.
58 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mindless fluff
George Aar21 August 2010
O.K., Audrey Hepburn had loads of charisma and was as cute as a button. There, that's the sum total of anything worthwhile in this flick. Yes, it's almost fifty years old now, but I kinda think it was as empty and confused then as it is today.

When I first saw this film I hadn't even reached puberty yet, so I'm sure the concepts of what Holly and "Fred" did for a living were mostly over my head. And given my immaturity at the time I seem to remember it as a "sweet" story with a typical happy, Hollywood ending.

After viewing it as an adult, with a little more life experience, I find the story to be off-putting, if not downright disturbing. Both "Fred's" and Holly's life seem to be a string of non-sequitors, leading nowhere and meaning nothing. And in the end, even though Holly is on her way to the airport to fly off to Brazil to continue her career as Golddigger, her and "Fred" have an epiphany in the back of a taxi and realize that they might as well get married! Awww, gosh isn't that sweet? Yeah, until tomorrow when they run off to get an annulment. How absurd to portray such a toxic relationship as some sort of icon.

And then there's Mickey Rooney's embarrassing, racist caricature and Buddy Ebsen's bid for the most miscast roll since Pat Boone played the angel in "The Greatest Story Ever Told". This was NOT good work. Not for the actors, the director, and especially not for the writer. I'm amazed that it still garners such a following.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good. Very good.
patrick32011 May 2001
A lot has been said about this film, so I won't repeat too much of it. I just thought the following points stood out for me as wonderful:

-The telephone Holly keeps in a suitcase so she won't hear it. Holly. Ahhhh... Holly. Like some kind of female opposite of James Bond (stick with me here), men all want her, women all want to be her. We need to see *more* eccentric women in leading roles, as opposed to the dull boring stodge of overpaid 'sex symbols' like Julia Roberts or Nicole Kidman who can be pretty or serious but never interesting.

-George Peppard in his finest role, and brilliant it is too. It's a real shock to my generation that has been more accustomed to seeing him tragically underused on trash like the A-Team. It made me want to see more of his early films, and wonder what happened in the intervening years (alcohol, apparently :-( ). An icon of male sensitivity, and there are few enough of them around too.

-That chap who sells them the telephone dialler in Tiffany's. A tiny role that achieves its aims perfectly and makes life seem better, which is what you want really.

Many have said Tiffany's is too saccharine and cheerful, but I think it actually hits the perfect balance of cynicism and sentiment. There are moments of intense depression (which people often forget) as well as hopeful optimism, and these two working together are what make the film so uplifting and memorable.
52 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Audrey's a Delight
gbheron15 March 2001
"Breakfast at Tiffany's" preserves an idyllic time and place in the American psyche, New York City between WWII and The Great Society. A time when being hip and urbane were accessible (and desirable) to the middle-class.

The film's" the two romantic protagonists are Holly Golightly, played wonderfully by Audrey Hepburn, and Paul Varjak, played by George Peppard in an understated performance that well complements Hepburn's. Holly is an aspiring socialite and party-girl looking for a wealthy sugar daddy. Paul is an aspiring writer and kept-man of a wealthy older woman. Neither is happy, but both go through the motions in a swirl of Manhattan parties and parings.

Everything falls nicely into place in this romantic-comedy; directing, musical score, acting, and screenplay. Filmed on location in New York this is a beautiful, captivating movie, that has not only aged well, but is a time machine to a wonderful place that probably really never existed except in our imagination.
116 out of 170 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good, too compromised to be great
dj_bassett15 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Much beloved movie, mainly because it's the iconic Audrey Hepburn role. And as an image she's fabulous, the definition of early-Sixties glamor. The opening sequence, which shows Hepburn eating pastry and staring through the window at Tiffany's as the melancholy strings of "Moon River" wash over everything, is one of the classic intros in movies and a personal favorite.

Considered as a movie it's flawed, though, full of off-key notes and wrong turns. Rooney's Asian caricature is pretty offensive, but a worse problem I think is the dialog throughout, which is very arch and mannered and "writerly" sounding, as well as the nods to Hollywood convention (the party, the gamboling about NYC , the silly paternal Mafioso -- one can imagine somebody insisting that there better be some fun, dammit, in this movie). Most importantly there's a general restraint throughout the picture: the real story here is sad and dark, and it's aching to get through, but instead it's stamped down with a lot of overly-cute Hollywood bits.

Yet that dark story is powerful. Both Peppard and Hepburn are badly damaged people, the fact that they get together (albeit awkwardly) is a tribute to the magic of movies, but their relationship, full of quiet suffering and little hurts, seems very real to me. Peppard is effective as a nice guy who's falling for the wrong woman; Hepburn has some pretty awful dialog, but her performance as a woman who's self-deluding as a way to defend herself from despair (as Martin Balsam says, she's a "real fake") is very strong. This is what I liked best about the movie.

Well, that and Audrey Hepburn herself -- one of those performers for whom movies were invented, she is just amazing to watch. You've heard the cliché "the camera loves her"? Never was that more true than with Audrey Hepburn.

Good, too compromised to be great.
32 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Meagre Meal of One Famous Breakfast...
drbagrov6 March 2008
The famous film "Breakfast at Tiffany's" is supposedly based upon a brilliant novel by Truman Capote.Excellent music by Henry Mancini, the striking elegance and charm of Audrey Hepburn, the big name of Blake Edwards as the one of the best Hollywood entertainers promised an unforgettable picture.Alas! It turned out to be the most disappointing film versions of all the times.First, there is no trace of the original message of the novel(I hear that the author was not very happy about film version either), which gives no hint of any sugary-sweet romance at all, and the character of Hollie had been grossly transformed (if not mutilated).Second, the actors and their protagonists are a horrendous mismatch:Audrey Hepburn (with all my sincerest admiration and love for her)plays some girl poor Truman Capote had never dreamed about of putting into his novel: too naive and pure, too high-class and too sweet to be a "real phony" as one of the film's characters (O.J.Berman )calls her.Mr Peppard is absolutely wooden, so he looks and sounds the phoniest of all with his love confessions.Mickey Rooney is a bad (really bad!) caricature of a Japanese ( forget about political correctness, it is just bad taste!)man. It is a great pity that a really wonderful piece of writing has had such a disappointing destiny in Hollywood! Though for those who know Hollywood tastes and culture it is no surprise at all.
38 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Another poor adaptation though Hepburn shines
brii-117 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was amazed at what a terrible adaptation of the book, by Capote, the movie was. While Audrey Hepburn does give a wonderful performance the Breakfast at Tiffany's the movie is not the same story as the book- not at all. The main difference is that the book is not a love story but a story about this marvelous character Holly Golightly. The movie is turned into a love story for cheap Hollywood thrills and probably because Axelrod wasn't creative enough to write a believable character such as Fred who does not fall in love with the leading lady. Heavens to Betsy the audience might think Fred is gay if he doesn't fall for Holly! What a typical bungling of an adaptation of an incredible piece of literature. Oh and my favorite line in the movie is the final scene in the cab where Holly goes, "Golly gee damn!" Also, Mickey Rooney's character was completely overdone and not in the spirit of Capote's book which is not a comedy but a brilliant exercise in character development of Holly's character. Don't bother with the movie except for Hepburn's on screen charisma. Read the book instead.
30 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So painstakingly long and contrived ** May contain small spoiler**
Sascha Walsh19 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I have always heard so much hype regarding this film and after watching it I can honestly say I just don't get it. There are literally no likable characters in this movie other than The Cat. Even he gets thrown out like trash by the self absorbed Holly. The story, and dialogue are just so ridiculous. From the clichéd story of coming from humble beginnings and leaving a much older red neck pedophile, down to two sex trade workers finding love. Why was the scene with her hillbilly husband even attempting to appear sad in the least. Her husband married her when she was fourteen, probably when she had like no food or money or means to survive. Who gives a crap about his sadness or appearance in the movie, and why is she so sad when he leaves. So much weirdness. Holly's character was so long-winded and started off in the movie as contradicting herself. From the first scene with her and George alone in bed, she leaves after appearing to be crying and exclaims "No one likes a snoop." Hello you just invited yourself into his apartment and opened a closed door. WTF??!! George offered nothing as well, who wants a man that shakes the crap out of you and yells in your face " You belong to me!"

There is so much I dislike about this film, but most of all they should have just left the landlords character out of the film even if he was in the book. He served no purpose other than to be a racist stereotype. How embarrassing....

Again The Cat was the only likable character. Poor Audrey she just looks odd with huge fake eyelashes and her bony limbs. Meh I'll pass on recommending this to anyone.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
My favorite movie
kearls-13 March 2006
What can you say about Truman Capote's masterpiece? It is brilliant!! Hepburn is wonderful as a young woman who is on the verge of insanity, but unknowingly to most around her. She is confused and lost in the world, and she meets Paul, both having sex with the wrong people, both confused about who they are and where they are in the world... they are"two drifters." Holly is a character that remains classic, and Hepburn played her brilliantly!! I love this movie, it will make you believe in love, and what girl doesn't truly love Tiffany's? Moon River is also a truly beautiful song that expresses the mood throughout the movie. It also has a few surprises, and is witty and charming.
91 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The movie is over rated...
Steven Torrey26 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The movie is over rated, if Holly Golightly is seen as a disgusting drunk. When she throws her cat out of the cab into the pouring rain--that is the lowest point in the movie. What immediately follows that incident in the last seven minutes of the film does not redeem her or Paul or the movie . The movie hints that Holy might be a prostitute, but only hints at that. The role of Micky Rooney as a Japanese Y. I. Yunioshi is downright offensive and of the stupidest roles of any in Hollywood.

Truman Capote had his problems with alcohol and pills. People drink alcohol in dangerous amounts without understanding its affect on the mind or the body. Hollywood is a place just filled with drunks and pill addicts--most so besotted with themselves and drink and pills--they don't know shi* from shinola--and this movie is a celebration of that ignorance. (It's not like alcohol addiction is a huge secret in Hollywood; Spencer Tracy was renowned for his drunken binges--those in the know in Hollywood were more than aware of them.)

While Audrey Hepburn was captivating as an alcoholic waif--her costumes were elegant and she wore them with elegance--the truth of the drunk and pill addict soon enough descends to uncontrolled bowels, bladder, mouth--which this movie barely hinted at. George Peppard had that vacuous and vapid look that Hollywood so loves (Tom Cruise, Matt Daimon, George Clooney)--and not for a moment was he convincing as actually capable of caring for Holy Golightly--the drunk; not for a minute did he come across as the one who could 'save' Holy Golightly from her alcoholism. Just another co-dependent relationship--one person as besotted as the other.

It would be interesting to see a remake of this movie...placing emphasis on alcoholic Holy Golightly with more naked skin revealed and with her love interest taking her to AA meetings at the end of the movie--as Joan Watson 'saves' in the current series of Sherlock Holmes--"Elementary". (Wow, Lucy Liu as the new Holy Golightly--portrayed as an alcoholic prostitute with lots of naked flesh exposed--with Johnny Lee Miller as Paul Varjak--now that would be worth seeing.)

This movie FAILS on so many levels...
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A lot of fun, Audrey was a true beauty and actress of her time
Kristine27 June 2007
Breakfast At Tiffany's is a pretty famous movie, it's recommended in my movie books and is usually on a top film critic's list as a classic. Before Roman Holiday, I had never seen an Audrey Hepburn film, and I have to say that I am becoming more and more of a fan of her's. She was so beautiful and very talented, not to mention she seemed like a very classy and elegant lady. But the film itself was a pretty good one, this was the movie that made romantic comedy clichés, so that's why I let it go so easily. It seemed like this film had what a lot of romantic comedy films steal now a days.

Holly is a huge socialite in her grand world, she finds happiness and joy in the jewelery store, Tiffany's. She is also being paid 100 dollars to visit a drug Mafia leader in prison to make his day. But things begin to change when a very handsome man moves in down stairs from her, Paul, but she calls him Fred since he looks like her brother. He's also in a similar situation where his "Decorator" is paying him for a good time. But together they find themselves helping one another and realizing they may need each other.

Breakfast at Tiffany's is an elegant classic that I would rate up with Seven Year Itch starring Marilyn Monroe. It has great humor and sizzling romance that anyone could fall in love with. Audrey Hepburn took on a role which the character could have been neuritic and annoying, but she made Holly into someone every woman would like to be. Her and George were great together, I would highly recommend Breakfast at Tiffany's, it's a great classic.

29 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pernicious garbage
bspirit29 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
OK, so a girl grows up in Buttscrew, Texas and marries some weirdo at age 14, then runs away to NY on a whim, and works as a high-end call girl until she meets a seemingly normal guy. A two-hour romantic freak show ensues, leaving no doubt that this woman is mentally unfit to participate in society. But after a 15-second inspiring speech by the leading man, at the last moment, she realizes the error of her ways, they kiss, and credits roll.

And this BS is not even relegated to the independent-movie fringes of mainstream society. It's a central part of our common culture! No wonder 50% of American marriages end in divorce!
56 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't get why this movie is so popular
dunnavilles9 March 2006
After years of hearing what a classic this movie was, I finally took it out of our library and I must say it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I think "Moon River" was the only enjoyable part of it aside from watching Audrey Hepburn play such a frivolous, shallow and fickle woman.

I almost turned the movie off halfway through but hoped it would somehow improve. I think Holly and Paul are 2 of the most empty characters I have seen in a movie - maybe if we had been given more background on their lives or something - maybe then I could have believed in their characters.

Anyway, I'm sure I'm speaking sacrilege to all those fans of this movie lol, but I was very disappointed. If you're looking for some fluff, "classic" entertainment - you might like it - but I found no depth to it and very little entertainment.
21 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The cat was the only highlight
soloriamagic085 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Maybe if I had seen this movie in the 60's I would appreciate it because this was considered high class entertainment back then,but I was born in 86,and saw this movie for the first time in 2006 and gotta say wasn't in the least bit impressed. Everything that was in this movie has been done bigger and better in this time. I was really bored watching this,and the cat was the only interesting thing in the movie.

Plot: You have a young women who thinks and acts like she's rich and isn't. Basically she's a goldigger who wants to marry a rich man to get her out of her humble beginning. Here comes a male whore who falls in love with her,but she doesn't want him because he's a struggling writer and a whore to boot.Things happen for no reason.Like for example the writer just meets her and asks to use her phone,but once in her house he forgets about the call and they have a long conversation with each other. The scene transitions are poor,and they are clearly on a set. This movie's plot was all over the place,and I can honestly say it really doesn't have one.

Characters: They both are despicable as human beings so you really can't like them. The acting was okay I'll give it that.

Dialouge. Cheesy.Only missing bread in some scenes.

Visuals: From a 2006 perspective I have seen much, much better.

Bottomline: Hollywood has been spewing out garbage,but even their garbage is better than then this movie.Only comformist keep saying this and all movie's like it are the best thing since slice bread in this day and age.
28 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
alma23 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I'm famously known for loving old movies but I just couldn't go through this one. I've never read the book, maybe I should. This film is irritating in many aspects. Even not being an apostle of the politically correct, I found the part of Mickey Rooney as Holly's Japanese neighbour just plain stupid and embarrassing. There's absolutely nothing funny in his performance. I felt no sympathy for the characters, the dialogues are shallow and uninteresting.

The rest of the story is tiresome and boring and I wouldn't be surprised that Audrey Hepburn didn't feel comfortable in this role (especially if she thought she was a miscast). I gave a 2 star for the costumes and glimpses of beautiful New-York but not enough to keep me awake.

A real shame...
18 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hepburn: born in the wrong era
irish2330 November 2008
I really wanted to like this film. I've seen so many bad Audrey Hepburn movies that I was aching for this "classic" to come through. Regrettably, it failed.

The picture is very dated. The party scene alone is one long eye-roller, as the script tries to depict the swingin' sixties.

Hepburn is, of course, stunningly gorgeous throughout the film, but, as in every other picture I've seen with her in it, the picture relies on her outer qualities to carry an otherwise mediocre (& even bad) film. There are moments of charm, pathos, and fun, but the overall effect is one where we're supposed to just like the movie because it's in love with itself.

I can't help but wonder what would've happened if Hepburn had been born early enough to have been in pictures in the 30s and 40s, where women's roles were much stronger and complex. The 1960s and 70s were real wastelands as far as women's roles go. Many of the great stars of an earlier generation turned to the "legitimate" theatre for engaging roles worthy of their talents.

I'd also love to see Hepburn destroy her own myth by appearing as torn-up as possible -- a little grunge monster like Elizabeth Taylor in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe?".

The other actors in the film are barely worth mentioning. Mickey Rooney's turn is simply embarrassing. Patricia Neal plays her part well but George Peppard is barely tolerable. The extreme close-ups of Buddy Ebsen seem inserted only to contrast with Hepburn's beauty -- again, detracting from the story.

Note to self: don't bother seeing this one again unless you need a quick fix of Givenchy gowns.
31 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Awful Breakfast
JB31 August 2002
This movie is a classic how? What a dumb movie. The two main characters were awful and unlikeable. She, insane and annoying with big eyebrows (what was with the hair?). He, a boring loser who I didn't care what happened to. The best character was the cat, who Audrey Hepburn tried to kill about three times in the film. I hate movies where the all men are in love with the lead actress when her character is so unappealing - this is one of those. It was slow moving with bad dialogue and that annoying dewy camera effect anytime they kiss. And do you think he spelt his last name enough? "V-a-r-j-a-k." In the last scene, I was groaning at how pathetic this movie was. What a waste of time. Did anyone else see them squishing the cat while they made out in the street?

If I could give it a zero, I would. Unfortunately, I can't.

Janna B
50 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Disturbed by "Tiffany's"
adrienne-317 April 1999
"Is she or isn't she?" asks Berman.

"Is she or isn't she what?" replies Varjac.

"A phony!" says Berman cheerfully.

Well, the answer in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" is that Hepburn's Holly Golightly is a "real phony," which somehow is supposed to make her pipe dreams and complete denial of reality endearing.

A "real phony"? I found nothing charming about Golightly's ditziness, drinking or other balms for her pain. Here is a woman so unhappy with herself that she hires herself out nightly and chases rich men in a desperate pursuit of happiness. The superficiality of her life has indeed "caged" her. What is so real (or meaningful) about that?

Breakfast at Tiffany's has been billed in some quarters as a "romantic comedy." Me - I laughed exactly twice - both in response to supporting characters. I found the movie disturbing, despite (or maybe because of) obvious comedic tricks and a veneer of lightness. Laughter comes when you're relaxed. Golightly and her out-of-control life made me nervous from the get-go.

A final thought: Is the ultimate romantic fantasy to be involved with someone who loves herself and others so little she even refuses to name her pet cat? Am I to believe that old habits really die so conveniently in the face of romantic love?

I really, truly wanted to like this movie even half as much as its fans do. Alas, for me, "Breakfast at Tiffany's" turned out to be a phony. And a real one at that.
89 out of 164 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Way Overrated
MartinHafer30 May 2005
This is an average film masquerading as great. I'm not blaming Blake Edwards or the stars--after all, they were just making a picture. Instead, this movie is the ultimate "personality cult" picture. In other words, people are SO OVERWHELMED with Audrey Hepburn, they glomp onto a picture and act like it is one of the best pictures ever made. For movie poster collectors, they saw the value of posters from this little movie skyrocket to astronomical heights (it is currently one of the most valuable posters from the 1960s) due to the rise of this cult.

The sad thing is that this isn't one of Ms. Hepburn's best pictures. Better films such as A Nun's Story, Love in the Afternoon or Sabrina are superior when compared side by side. My assumption is that those who fuel this cult probably never saw the movie or never saw her other films.

By the way, even if I am way off in my attitude towards this film (since so many love it), you've gotta admit that the movie deserves to lost a point or two because of the insane casting of Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi--a Japanese man!!! Not only was this stupid, but highly offensive and insensitive.
23 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Capote would not understand
regular813 May 2000
I am sorely disappointed by the film, "Breakfast at Tiffany's". It's not true to the original story by Truman Capote, and it trivializes one of the most delicate, complex, and mysterious characters in modern literature, Holly Golightly; turning her into a silly fop. The casting is horrendous: George Peppard is much to daring, masculine, and capable to play the sheepish, too-easily-impressed, mousy writer. Audrey Hepburn is much too classy and sophisticated for this role, which should have been portrayed as a spaced-out deluded yet terribly attractive woman at odds with her situation but ultimately determined to ignore and overcome it, at least in her own mind. Unfortunately, the intent of the original story is lost in this film; it's unfortunate because Capote gave us a view into an unusual social and personal situation of a kind that is rare in literature, but the movie does not show it. Perhaps a more sensitive rendering of this material will someday be done. The film does have its shining moments, however. What could be more touching than Hepburn's performance of "Moon River" as she sits alone in her windowsill. That scene was worth the price of admission, but Capote would not understand why the rest of the film was done.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Excellent romantic comedy-drama
perfectbond9 September 2003
In a way Breakfast at Tiffany's is like getting two movies. The first half or so is a light-hearted comedy and the second half is a romantic drama. The entire package is thoroughly engaging. I'm not usually a fan of this genre but I was entertained throughout. What can be said about Ms. Hepburn in this role that hasn't already been said? She is perfect. Except for the odd A-Team rerun, I hadn't seen any of Mr. Peppard's work. In this film, he is the perfect foil for our heroine. The rest of the cast (including Cat) is more than up to par as well, especially Mick Rooney's politically incorrect but hilarious turn as Ms. Golightly's long suffering neighbor. Great film, 8/10.
56 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews