A Classic that stands the test of time!
Audrey Hepburn's best movie, and a Hollywood classic if there ever was one. I saw this movie over 40 years ago at a drive-in movie theatre, but it's even better today on my new 65" H.D. TV screen. It looks and sounds better than ever. As I think about it, it might also be one of the best performances of George Peppard as well. And don't forget Patricia Neal. What an actress. Am I in love with this movie and the memory of Audrey Hepburn? You bet . . . This is one of the few movies that I can sit through time and time again. And this new special edition looks absolutely terrific. You will not be dissapointed, I promise.

I must say I'm amazed
This movie is an absolute must-see for anyone. It combines everything a classic should have - great actors (Audrey is tops and Peppard was never better), a great screenplay, a perfect score and New York (as usual) doing its best. The screenplay departs from the Capote's original but it does so in a way which makes the story work and which could be presented on the screen in 1961 - actually, the story is quite daring for the early 60s but you have to read between the lines every now and then to get it. Anyway, why shouldn't you reach for the original book once you are done watching?
In short - How does it look? I must say I'm amazed.
PS I wouldn't, however, recommend the movie to anyone who wants to quit smoking... ;)
PPS If you need more, you should also reach for Love and Other Disasters.

I want to have breakfast with Holly...
There is a lot of love for this movie; that is clear. `Breakfast at Tiffany's' is usually heralded as a classic film, and has definitely proven to be Audrey Hepburn's most popular movie role. Truth be told though, this is really nothing more than a romantic comedy; a very good one mind you, but nothing more. In fact, don't hate me for saying this, but `Breakfast at Tiffany's' reminds me of the type of film I could see Kate Hudson or Jennifer Lopez doing in a year or two. What makes this film stand out though as noteworthy and has helped garner it that `classic' status is the phenomenal performance given by Audrey Hepburn; a performance that utilizes her natural charm and charisma to create a character that is deeper than the film she inhabits.

Hepburn plays Holly Golightly, a charming and illusive young woman who lives off the affections of wealthy men and dreams of finding a home that makes her feel as warm and fuzzy as the jewelry store Tiffany's. Holly is not all surface though, for there is a past there that haunts and in a way motivates her current struggles for prominence. Her character could have seemed generic and cliché ridden but Audrey's delivery allows the audience to relate to and understand Holly.

So the story follows Holly as she forms a bonding relationship with her upstairs neighbor Paul. Paul is a writer and a `kept' man, living off the generosities of the beautiful Mrs. Failenson (2-E). Paul is fascinated by Holly, completely lost in his infatuation with her, and as their relationship grows so does his love for her, but Holly is not the type of girl you can just fall in love with because Holly is the type of girl afraid of her own heart.

The script is expertly crafted, especially for a film in this genre so overburdened with clichés and unoriginality. Sure, there are many `familiar' plot twists, but the dialog and character development is sharp enough to forgive the films few missteps.

The one thing that is hard to forgive though is the horrendous performance given by Mickey Rooney as the stereotypical apartment manager Mr. Yunioshi. He's not even funny, and his over the top antics actually knock this rather enjoyable film down a notch. `Breakfast at Tiffany's' could have easily garnered itself an `A' from me, for the makings of a cinematic classic are all here, but Rooney ruins the party and drops my overall rating down to a `B'. What can I say; I just couldn't accept him here.

There is no denying though that Hepburn is pure love (one of the greatest screen actresses of all time, and in my humble opinion far better than her sister) and her performance as Holly Golightly is one of her finest (I would have given her the Oscar that year). George Peppard matches her greatness frame for frame as Paul, never allowing himself to fall out of minds eye but remaining in step with Hepburn. Patricia Neal is also memorable as 2-E, delivering a sly and seductive supporting turn (glorified cameo?).

In the end I can say that `Breakfast at Tiffany's' is truly a good movie, almost great even. It has a lot of supporters and remains a cinematic favorite among many, and I can understand that. In fact, had Rooney been written out of the script I may be obliged to place `Tiffany's' on my list of greatest romantic comedies of all time, for when you strip away that small sliver of mediocrity you have a glorious gem of a film.

Silly Chick-Flick, But Not A Total Waste Of Time
After years of hearing what a classic this film is, I was disappointed after finally watching it. The story is unbelievably absurd at times (If Audrey Hepburn's character really grew up on a farm in the mid-west and came to New York just a few years before, no amount of speech and voice training could make her sound like that!) Also, Holly Golightly seems way too sweet and innocent to be a prostitute.
Nevertheless, the film is worth watching to see 1960's New York City looking so clean and inviting, Audrey Hepburn's outfits, and -- above all --- George Peppard falling in love. Plus, after watching the film I couldn't get the song "Moon River" out of my head. I found out the lyrics are not so great but the music is very beautiful.
I wouldn't call "Breakfast at Tiffany's" a must-see film, but it wasn't bad.

Wait til the end
Breakfast at Tiffany's was one of my mother's favorite movies. Many times, late at night, you could find yourself outside her TV room listening to her croon the words to Moon River along with the TV. Many times I'd catch the end of the movie, with Audrey Hepburn, George Peppard and that cat. And the rain. Can't forget the rain. I thought it was all 60s and sentimentality.

Then I rented it for myself. I had to see what this classic was all about. I was surprised at how racy it was. How wild the 60s gold diggers party was. How crass Peppard's patron was.

And then there were long moments of atmosphere, where I almost fell asleep and missed the whole point. Because when our heroine finds she must make a choice between remaining the way she is and taking a chance on love, it is anything but sentimentality.

Movies today are just not as smart as this one.