Good movie but grossly overrated

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

I have almost every Audrey Hepburn movie ever made , just ordered Robin and Marian. There will never be another Audrey Hepburn and no actress could ever compare to her just ordered the Hollywood Collection of Audrey Hepburn remembered. It is excellent it goes into the whole story of her entire life. They don't make women like this anymore sad to say, she had class. Jennifer Love Hewitt did all right but no one can compare to the original.

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

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.

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.