Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Ronald Epstein, Jun 9, 2014.
I didn't care for it at all - very disappointing after hearing so much about it.
I can't claim to be the world's biggest Audrey fan, but I do strongly dislike "Tiffany's"!
How can anyone dislike Breakfast At Tiffany's it's simply iconic in very sense. It's not my favorite Audrey film of all time, but it's in my top 5 though. Tiffany's cemented Audrey into what she is remembered to today.
ROMAN HOLIDAY has been restored and looks superb in HD. There is no excuse for withholding the Blu Ray of Audrey's Oscar wining role!!!!!! Warner continues to plummet in my estimation!
Now Available for Preorder
Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.
well.....(since you asked ) I think it's an ugly story about some severely damaged people who get by by using everyone around them, which would be fine except that they've cynically tried to sanitize that scenario into a family friendly romantic comedy. For me, those two disparate elements never gel and it doesn't work. I find most of the movie to be forced and the attempts to add cutesy moments to soften the hard edges irritate the hell out of me.
I like George Axelrod but his screenplay reads like a Hollywood exec's idea of 1950's Bohemian New York. He wasn't (he's usually a great writer of "New York") and he should have known better.
The movie is gorgeous to look at and the performances are uniformly good (the fact that I don't believe for a minute that Audrey Hepburn could ever be a backwoods child bride notwithstanding) but I don't ultimately care about any of them because I can see the tacked on, out of place "happy ending" coming from a mile away. Is she going to continue to call her lover by her dead brother's name? How "kooky!"
The whole thing is uncomfortable and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think it's a creepy movie.
Listen, I know I'm in the minority (Axelrod was even Oscar nominated for the script I loathe so what do I know?) and it's pleased a lot of people for a long time but, there you have it. As I always tell people, "Don't go by me, I actually LIKED Lucille Ball's MAME."
I reviewed the movie on DVD so my opinion about it is out there for all to see. They were certainly users, but they both eventually learn from their mistakes and move into something they've never really experienced before - love for someone other than themselves, so it completely wins me over. And that immortal Henry Mancini score (and I'm not just talking about "Moon River." I used to listen to the album for hours on end contemplating my life and loves).
Mickey Rooney's work is a blemish, no doubt about it, but I truly enjoy the movie's chic kookiness and its mix of comedy and drama.
To each his own.
Don't apologize for disliking the movie - own it, man! :
And you left out a major reason for antipathy toward the film: Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi!
I'm not an AH fan, but I'm completely fascinated by the fact that, although she couldn't be more miscast, she's so captivating in the thing. To me, her only real acting performance is in THE NUN'S STORY. All other films, she manages to get by on her incredible face, and screen presence. I hated her in WAIT UNTIL DARK, because I had seen it on Broadway, with the infinitely better, Lee Remick, but have come to sort of like it, over the years. At any rate, the guys are good and Mancini's score is great, even if she does come off like she's in a high school play.
Oh I GET it, I just don't BUY it!
Well, I admit to being a little gun-shy because I see so many opinions on the internet being passed off as authoritative fact that I want to make it clear that it's just an opinion and isn't authoritative to anybody but me.
I'm always one to look for a silver lining to every cloud.
WB have Roman Holiday and Wait Until Dark in high def. If they didn't think they'd sell as standalones and wanted to unload them cheaply they could have stuck them in this box and whopped $15 on the price.
This hopefully bodes well for standalone releases, which they presumably think can sell on their own.
There are almost certainly flaws in this argument through which you could drive the proverbial coach and horses, just let me dream.
I don't think Hepburn's performance is bad, per se - I just think she's woefully miscast. As I mention in my review, Marilyn Monroe - originally thought of for the part - would've been MUCH better. I've never been a big Marilyn fan, but she fits that role to a T...
For everyone who is moaning about the fact that they didn't choose new titles to include in this collection, just remember this is simply a repackaging. They aren't going to spend money to author new Blu-rays for a slapdash box set. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't even press any new discs for this set but are just putting them together using overstock!
Which is exactly the point I was making. She's completely miscast, yet, it is her defining role; and, rightfully so. She's mesmerizing in it. I just never thought she was much of an actress, and am perplexed by those who think she's is. She's too lovely to ever dislike her, though. Although I really do hate her in MY FAIR LADY, but then, I hate everything about that waste of high quality film stock.
This is a great discussion. Stealing an analogy from Pauline Kael (about The Way We Were), Breakfast at Tiffany's is like a ship full of huge holes that should sink but instead sails calmly into port and docks without a hitch.
Everything mentioned here is true: Audrey is miscast, the story is neutered beyond plausibility, the particular New York milieu is sanitized beyond recognition, Mr. Yunioshi is a cringingly racist caricature, and yet...people love this movie, including me.
Part of the reason is that I first saw it at what turned out to be a peak movie-going experience in my life:
The Paramount Theatre in Oakland is a restored movie palace--gloriously restored--that showed (shows?) a variety of programs, and they had scheduled Breakfast at Tiffany's for a night in January of 1993.
As it turned out, Audrey died the week before that Friday night, though Tiffany's had been scheduled months in advance. So that showing turned into a wake: 3000 seats (it's a huge theatre) all filled, all there to see Audrey in her trademark role and say goodbye. People applauded all through the opening credits, most loudly, I think, for "Cat." And I have never seen or HEARD such an ovation at the end of a movie.
We're social creatures, and that certainly informs/skews our taste and appreciation. But I will always love that movie for all the love wafting toward the screen in 1993.
(Oh, yeah, and Audrey's Eliza Doolittle is execrable.)
I've been hearing for years that Audrey was miscast for Holly, but I can't think of any other actress that could've been more right for that part than her.
It sounds like those saying Hepburn was miscast are really saying the character was incorrectly written, as Hepburn is indeed the perfect choice for that version of Holly. If Monroe had been cast instead, for a Holly more like the one in the novella, no doubt she'd be perfect for that version of Holly. Or at least that's my attempt at mediating the issue. ☺
The first time I purchased any Audrey Hepburn film on my own was in 2004 when I picked up Paramount's "Audrey Hepburn DVD Collection" in its first of several incarnations. That set contained Roman Holiday, Sabrina, and Breakfast at Tiffany's, which I've taken to think of as my Holy Trinity of Hepburn.
Seeing a three-movie collection that replaces Roman Holiday with Funny Face (a fine film, regardless) just feels (arbitrarily) wrong to me. I know it's more due to the order in which Warner decided to release her films to Blu-Ray. But I'd have been more interested in this set had it been my Holy Trinity again. More for the sentimentality of it than any practical reason.
I'm sorta surprised that they didn't put My Fair Lady in this collection, but I guess Paramount got to keep that film as its owned by CBS.