Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

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

ElMaruecan82 The statement concluded the DVD commentary of Richard Shepherd, co-producer with Martin Jurow of 1961 classic "Breakfast at Tiffany's", Audrey Hepburn's signature role as the "woman who get 50$ to go to the powder room" or to put it à la "Friends": the one with the black Givenchy dress and the cigarette holder. That Mickey Rooney is still mentioned at the end of the commentary says how much a burden he is for the film's legacy. Shepherd' feelings echo those of thousands of viewers, including myself, who just love the film and consider Rooney's 'yellow face' performance as Mr. Yunioshi a disgraceful stain that needlessly soiled a classic romantic comedy.And I've seen romantic comedies, whether in the big Applesauce or any other town in the world, the direction is always the same: guy-gets-girl. But I was misguided about the film. A Youtube thumbnail showed Miss Hepburn crying alone in the backseat of a car and I thought it was the film's ending scene... when in fact, just in time, Holly realized she was renouncing true love (stud George Peppard) for some gold-digging dreams... and worse, she had just abandoned her cat. That was a satisfying climatic reunion, if only because she could find the Cat. And I've seen rain kisses too, but that one satisfied me like a few did, I wanted it, Holly Golightly was such a lively and sparkling personality she could miss everything but a happy ending. A happy ending for a great film with great acting (even the cat was good) but again, Mickey Rooney's gesticulation, buck teeth and speech pattern that made him closer to Donald Duck that any Japanese person who ever existed. He's got such a small part they could just have put a real Asian man or just Rooney playing an ordinary guy.This is going to be a riddle for the ages. How can a film so effective in its depiction of upper and sleazier New York City, of parties where people get drunk and wild, and I mean wild, where Martin Balsam takes a woman twice his size for a bathtub kiss, where George Peppard is the 'kept man' (euphemism for gigolo) to a Patricia Neal pulling a Tallulah Bankhead, where Miss Audrey Hepburn, of all the actresses, plays a prostitute (although it's never explicited), how can such a bold and mature film allowed this abomination to happen? Of course, the film sugarcoated the original material from Truman Capote's novel, Holly isn't bisexual anymore and Paul is infatuated with her like the obligatory romantic leading man and is painted in more virile traits (at Peppard's request for some scenes) while his book counterpart was a gay gigolo. The prostitution is very much toned down and reduced to quests for compensated marriage. Still, even by the 60's standards, the film was ahead of its time while Rooney's cringe-worthy performance was also worthy of the worst WWII propaganda. You had four minutes of a beautiful opening scene with Hepburn eating croissants while contemplating Tiffany's jewelry at the morning, the streets was empty, Mancini's music mesmerizing, and then Rooney spoiled everything... a real party pooper not just in the context of the film. But I guess I should look at the half-full croissants' bag, to Blake Edwards' directing and George Axelrod's adaptation (he would also write the screenplay of "The Manchurian Candidate") that even the controversy couldn't tarnish its reputation. So let's get back to the film.It's slice of Holly Golightly's life, the name fits like her black dress, she just goes lightly about everything, she might be a prostitute if you go by the book but she has a way to handle her professional as well as her social life that you can't really tell, as Balsam would say "she's a phoney, but a real phoney". When she hangs out with men, she doesn't enjoy it but appreciates the lifestyle these relationships promise, she less likes money than the comfort it provides. Like Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman", she wants the Charming Prince, the fairy tale.Indeed, Holly embodies the dreams of many Cinderellas who understood there's nothing glamorous about being poor. Since the book is written by Capote, I guess he also created a gigolo for a gender balance showing that we deal with a business: where there's supply, there's demand. Maybe it's one of the truths of life that women want to be beautiful to marry a rich man and men want to be rich to marry a beautiful woman. Wealth and beauty are two elements that can mix well, but if you spoil the dosage you either fall into decadence or loneliness. Maybe that's why the studios originally wanted Marilyn Monroe but she was advised to take more dramatic roles and rightfully so because her last film was the unforgettable "The Misfits". This allowed Audrey Hepburn to add this dimension of eternally childish naivety and gamin-like frivolity in a character who's supposed to be an escort girl. And she's so communicative that anyone hesitates before contradicting her.There's a moment where Buddy Ebsen makes his entrance as Holly's Southern husband and I expected him to be an antagonist yet he remained understanding all along. In fact, it is Holly who keeps on alienating herself from the world, and I could relate to the way she longs for freedom by escaping from the responsibilities of life, yet ironically building her own gilded cage. Maybe we're never as free as when we free from our own misconceptions. Freedom can be a trap. Many romantic comedies rely on adultery, treasons or plot twists but this one only needs a three-dimensional living paradox in the person of Holly Golightly, playful and fragile, delicate and strong-minded. And there couldn't be a more beautiful song than that hypnotic "Moon River" to translate into words that strange mood of her. A close to perfect film... if it wasn't just for (as Holly would say) the big casting faux pas.

jmvscotland This is another of those "classic" movies that are often recommended by critics and by individuals, often making it into lists of best movies of all time. I think I must be one of only a few of my age (and I was alive when this movie was made) who hadn't seen BaT until very recently.Look, it might have been a good movie in its day and some people might have found it amusing and entertaining then or now. I'm afraid I'm not one of them.Yes, Audrey was lovely in a ditsy sort of way and George Peppard was quite OK in the role of Fred in a handsome kind of way. But the story, if there ever really was one, is now terribly dated and the movie must have been pretty damned light weight, even in 1961.As I've noted with other movies from many years ago, one familiar and then original piece of music, in this case "Moon River" does not make a movie and I found myself dreading its coming back as it did time and again throughout the overly long minutes that this movie runs.Breakfast at Tiffany's is trivial and unimportant cinema at best and boring and annoying at worst. I won't be watching it again.

FountainPen No, the years have not been kind to this famous motion picture. However, in any case, I found Audrey Hepburn to be inordinately irritating and juvenile, while George Peppard came across as a rather dumb feller. The part Mickey Rooney played was asinine, plainly ridiculous, fell totally flat, seemed pointless. A few bit parts were extremely well done and helped bring the film up somewhat. 57 years since this movie came out and apparently many people still find it worthy of a very high rating. Well, I ain't one of them, that's for sure. 5/10 max.

Bella This is one of my favourite movies and the lead of the film is one of my favourite actresses, Audrey Hepburn. The most interesting character of the movie by far is the main character, Holly Golightly. I would describe her as crazy but in a captivating way. She will not name her cat, she claims until she finds a place that makes her feel as wonderful as Tiffany's does.Holly doesn't know what she wants, what she needs, or even who she is. But she carries herself well and seems so classy and sure of herself. As the movie progresses, Holly's character is revealed a lot and goes through very intense and dynamic changes. A lot of people may dislike the characters because of their negative qualities even though many people share them without even knowing it. By the end of the film, you will be full of smiles, tears, or both.This is a movie that will pull at your heartstrings. Some parts are really light and funny and others are sad and deep. The movie ties Holly's materialistic desires and her deep emotional desires well in a way that viewers are able to follow well and relate to. The music is phenomenal. The acting is amazing, particularly from Hepburn. The settings are beautiful, detailed and authentic. The dialogue and plot are also incredibly entertaining.