Disappointed
-
deforest-1 — 11 years ago(September 15, 2014 07:56 PM)
"I was not just disappointed, but completely disgusted with the film. I too couldn't find one quality in Holly that I liked. She was selfish, shallow and materialistic. She was a thief and even treated her cat badly. Let's just say, I actually began to hate her. I can't find one thing I liked about her. Not one."
Have to agree with you CindyH. I watched this movie (almost) right through for the first time today and struggled to get through the whole thing actually the last hour and a half because so slow moving but mainly because I found Holly/Lula-Mae was insufferable. Far from the "sweet bundle of neuroses" one review here describes her as, I would place her at least one step more destructive into the manic-depressive category, with narcissistic tendencies. The character reminds me very much of a woman I've known who didn't miraculously turn herself around on the spot as Audrey Hepburn does at the end, but is still basically the same person in her mid fifties, still clueless about how to behave with simple consideration for others. -
irishm — 9 years ago(August 02, 2016 09:19 AM)
I agree as well. The character of Holly was a total turn-off with no redeeming qualities. I was expecting a charming, wacky young woman based on comments I've read about the movie, and it was nothing like what I expected. It doesn't make it impossible for me to enjoy a movie if I don't like any of the characters, but it does make it more difficult.
-
equalthree — 14 years ago(October 23, 2011 11:53 PM)
I also only watched this for the first time the other day and I honesty can't believe what all the fuss is about.
Holly's character (IMHO) is mentally unstable. I don't think it's just a matter of being shallow or pretentious. She's bonkers, and even at the end, you feel that she will just go ahead and dump the poor sod.
At the very start I felt sorry for her when she was window shopping at Tiffany's while eating her breakfast (you'd think that she may have gone there more than once to have breakfast in the film - being the title and all, and also where someone can sympathize with her plight) but not long after I found myself not caring about her at all.
It's not my cup of tea. -
cyclee — 14 years ago(October 24, 2011 12:06 PM)
I have different opinion on this. I just watched this film over the weekend and was surprised how good it was. I totally expected a film with no substance and only took the fame because of Audrey Hepburn, but instead I got a story that made me think. I too do not like Holly, but I don't think that was the point. I saw an ordinary person desperately wanting to be "somebody" because she hated to be "nobody". Now, look around you, how many of those you know are just like that? Granted not many are as extreme as Holly to go out of her way changing names, moving to places and hunting down only the rich guys, but a lot of people do have that mentality. I know so many people who dislike themselves so much that they would take the chance to be somebody else in a heartbeat. For me, though I know I'm definitely nobody, but I still don't want to be anyone else but myself. Also, the movie gave me the idea of going out to do something I haven't done yet and I'm trying to involve my husband in this game. Life is too short, do wake up and start living before it's too late.
Please don't compare me with the hormonal teenagers. Youth is not one of my strong traits. -
kkhannah — 14 years ago(December 14, 2011 10:29 PM)
I have to agree with this post, to a point. I thought that Hepburn looked absolutely stunning in this role and I thought the cat was quite sweet but other than that, I can't really imagine what the fuss is about. I found nothing likeable about either main character; I actually found Holly absolutely grating on my nerves. I couldn't empathize with her on any level, even though I definitely tried to.
I must admit that I don't really understand why this film is deemed a classic but oh well. Everyone has different opinions. -
loonieloona — 14 years ago(December 23, 2011 09:35 AM)
I can't say I found anyone all that likeable in this movie either. Holly was a selfish princess, Paul was a doormat, and poor poor Cat I just wanted to take the cat home.
But Audrey Hepburn's portrayal of Holly Golightly was very well done and the acting in general was good. It was a good movie, just not one about likeable people.
And yes, Mickey Rooney's character is shocking and indefensible and I cringed all the way through his scenes. -
Gustafal — 14 years ago(December 30, 2011 03:35 AM)
Did you not listen to Paul's speech at the end, he clearly states that holly acts in her ways because she wants to claim to be a free spirit but what she is ending up doing is trapping herself in a cage with all the reasons you all don't like her, but she is finally going to give in to love and let Paul love her so that she can be his and he can be hers and also cat can be theirs. AND she wants to have enough money to be able to support her brother when he comes back from the war, which doesn't seem so selfish to me.
-
Gustafal — 14 years ago(December 30, 2011 03:38 AM)
*and you can see how much she really does love cat when she starts looking for him she doesn't even go for the kiss right away she looks for cat because she wants him back she made a mistake in trying to protect herself from getting too close to something.
-
Gypsy12 — 14 years ago(March 17, 2012 03:42 AM)
Sometimes it takes more class and nous to understand that just because something is classified as a 'classic' by some people, doesn't mean it is. This movie is a CLASSIC MESS. Thats the only thing 'classic' about it.
I've never seen that. I've never seen anybody drive their garbage down to the street and bang the hell out of it with a stick. I-I've never seen that.
The Burbs -
Jakezen — 13 years ago(April 13, 2012 08:07 PM)
keatha has it right, you obviously did not understand the movie. the characters are very complex and conflicted, like a Tennessee Williams play. I don't know what the fuss is about Andy Rooney's character. They did that back then (see Edward G. Robinson in The Ten Commandments) Blake Edwards was great at comic movies and Rooney's character was comic relief in the movie. Whether you think it is a classic or not, is personal opinion but you have boiled these characters down to one dimensional simpletons so it is no wonder you did not like it.
-
hka-3 — 14 years ago(January 06, 2012 04:54 PM)
Holly is , to put it simply, rather shallow, superficial and pretentious
That is how she's intended to be, at first. She and Paul were people who were 'lost' and trying to find more legitimate foundations to build their lives on. They were looking in the wrong directions, then discovered they could lean on each other and try to build their lives together.
As for the Japanese character, a lot of people make a big deal about him. I like to think of him as some random crazy person who wants attention. I used to have a neighbor like that -
zebulonguy — 14 years ago(March 20, 2012 02:35 PM)
Everybody's taste varies- personally I love the film, beautifully acted, gorgeous, memorable music and characters with flaws, not cardboard cut outs we are supposed to identify with- rubbish, Holly was totally flawed and I loved her character, it entertained, each time I watch the film I enjoy it more. Finest performance Buddy Ebsen ever gave on film is in the part of Doc, her ex husband, the point is Holly really does not know what she wants, she lives in a dreamworld, it's a beautifully made film but obviously not to everyone's taste, no film ever is, classic or not.
-
statuskuo — 13 years ago(July 11, 2012 03:18 PM)
Late to this discussion, but your response got me thinking why I like this movie so much. I think the style of the film is really a comment on the generation. Which, to me, is lacking in today's "comedies". It has a really sharp wit and has a female character that is incredibly fierce in her goals. But deep inside she's broken and flawed. And doesn't come to grips with reality until it hits her (re: her real brother Fred). I think the point of the film was illustrate the contrast between who we are deep down inside and who we want to be, and ultimately be happy for who we are. The flaw is that the real Holly Golightly would probably be murdered in some shipyard somewhere, by a jealous longshoresman. In the book, they claim she was killed and had her head shrunken by some tribe in Africa. I met my own Holly Golightly in college. She had that same whimsy and I fell really hard for her. But she isn't a caged person. She floats from person to person. Being exactly who you want her to be. And living on her own terms, fake or not. That is really an intoxicating person.
-
Strausszek — 13 years ago(July 13, 2012 04:43 PM)
Good points, but part of the issues one can have with the film and the lead character is that,
in today's Hollywood
the arenas for wit, banter and mutual challenge have mostly become single-gendered instead of male-vs-female. We get movies about bands of young women prowling through cityscapes, schools and jobs - and on the other hand, lad reels about young men, soldiers, cops or college guys - only interacting within their own gang. And like it or not, our way of reading older films is coloured by the conventions of film-making today.
Now imagine a film about a bunch of Hollies, all of them as flawed, volatile, careless and prone to shift their own goals by a whim - and all of them conveniently rich. It would be intolerable to many of us, but today that kind of film is lucrative stuff, and it's not even considered quite okay to say you don't sympathize with those characters. If you do, you are played off as someone who basically despises women. When Tiffany's was made, Holly did not seem close to any kind of popular model of what a young, stylish contemporary woman should be like, but in today's world she is, and this means the film appears weighed down with a claim on what is the way to succeed for a woman, in general, and what we have to accept (as men or women) to be perceived as bright modern people.
You are a lunatic, Sir, and you're going to end up on the Russian front. I have a car waiting. -
bonettastiltfur — 13 years ago(October 14, 2012 10:47 AM)
"When Tiffany's was made, Holly did not seem close to any kind of popular model of what a young, stylish contemporary woman should be like, but in today's world she is, and this means the film appears weighed down with a claim on what is the way to succeed for a woman, in general, and what we have to accept (as men or women) to be perceived as bright modern people."
Do you really believe that prostitutes are role models for women today? -
Pierre_D — 13 years ago(October 20, 2012 06:34 AM)
Not to put too fine a point on this, but Sex and the City, countless pop stars that expose themselves (Kim Kardashian et al.) yeah, I think society wants women to devalue their creativity and intelligence, sadly.
As to the movie, loved it.
We have a pretty varied age group (40ish guys, 20ish guys, early 30 guys) and the 20something loved Holly, he was like "Alright she's awesome! She parties nonstop, is a little crazy and she looks SO HOT in that black dress!"
I can't really get mad at Holly bceause I've seen so many women (and men) like her just in my day to day life, that want the next big thing, want to be the center of attention and they might not get paid for it but they're just as unattainable and have their price for their company or friendship. Paul seems like a decent enough guy but he too had to compromise himself for life's wages.