InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

davidgarnes I expected to like this film...Gary Cooper, Audrey Hepburn, Billy Wilder, Paris...But I was disappointed by its cynical manipulation and totally contrived ending.The great age difference between Cooper and Hepburn, made even more so by the fact that she's supposed to be a young student in this film (making him more like her grandfather), was remarked on, I believe, in some contemporary reviews. But this is not a reason to find fault with the relationship. It's more that it is difficult to understand how an intelligent young woman, albeit one who is somewhat naive and romantic, could be infatuated by, continue to be beguiled by, and eventually fall in love with the unpleasant lecher played by Cooper. Despite the charm that Gary Cooper has shown in many of his films, here he seems...well, tired and not really acting as though he at all believes in the rancid character he's playing, and he's right.The premise of the film is sour and cynical and the farce doesn't work. The ending injects a jarring sentimental note that only confirms the earlier implausibility of the "relationship" that the script would have you believe the two leads have. Doesn't work.Audrey Hepburn is her usual magical self, but even she can't make me believe in her character. She is certainly worth watching, however, for the moments when she is, indeed, someone who might appeal to the Cooper character as more than a one-night stand. Maurice Chevalier is surprisingly appealing here and doesn't lay on the French accent and mannerisms that he continued to polish over the years. But, again, he's done in by the script. In his very last scene in the film, he does a total flip-flop in point of view, again demonstrating the screen writers' (Wilder and Diamond) manipulation to ensure a romantically satisfying and totally unbelievable ending. So...nice musical score, lovely black and white cinematography, a charming Hepburn, an appealing Chevalier...but a Wilder misfire, big-time.

Thomas Drufke From Billy Wilder, director of Some Like it Hot & The Apartment, comes another romantic classic, Love in the Afternoon. A Rom-Com-Dram about a middle aged playboy who falls for a young innocent woman in Paris. Sure, the film takes place in what is known as the most romantic city in the world, but it was a truly romantic story. Gary Cooper and Audrey Hepburn give great performances as two completely opposite people who end up sharing a little more than just one kiss.Wilder does a great job of setting the tone of the film within the first few minutes with Maurice Chevalier's voice-over with the beautiful Paris landscape shown. He tells us about all of the different kinds of love and how it can be beautiful in even the most unpredictable circumstances. The film then takes a little while before our leads meet, but we get introduced to Monsieur X, who is pretty much the comedic relief of the film. The film is almost 60 years old, but I found myself laughing quite a bit. Whether it was the Monsieur's strange responses and interactions with the cast, or the ongoing gag of Mr. Flanagan's 'gypsies', the film is quite hilarious.But that doesn't take away from the romantic drama and tension that formulates between Hepburn & Cooper. At first I wasn't sure I believed that she would fall for someone that unlikable, but over the course of a few hours it was pretty obvious the feeling became mutual. I highly recommend this film for giving us a different take on romance, and for just how beautiful of a film it is. It really gets you in a great mood.+Hepburn in top form +Wilder paints us a beautiful picture +The Gypsies and 'Fascination' +Very funny -Takes awhile before love is believable8.2/10

SimonJack For anyone who thinks "Love in the Afternoon" is a nice romance or love story, I posit the following questions to ask yourself. As a mother or father, would you want your daughter to go out with – or "fall" for Frank Flannagan, or someone like him in real life? Or, as a brother or sister, would you want your beloved sister to fall for such a man? I think Maurice Chevalier's character, Claude Chavasse, got it right. He told his daughter, Ariane (played by Audrey Hepburn) that Flannagan was a cad, despicable character – that he was no good. Flannagan, played by Gary Cooper, is an aged American millionaire playboy. He has no qualms or regrets about his many affairs with women – married or not. "Love them and leave them." That's his motto. Is that the type of man anyone would want a daughter, sister or friend to go for? I think not. Of course, we viewers know that Ariane knew about Flannagan's character (played by Gary Cooper), because she sneaked into her father's files. Yet she falls for this guy anyway. Is that romance or love? It may be romantic daydreaming or fantasizing, but love or real romance it isn't. We parents, grandparents and others who have experienced such things ourselves have known it by another term – infatuation. Ariane's father cautions his daughter, but she pursues Flannagan anyway. The demure Hepburn's character feigns a nubile persona, but we audience members can't disregard her puerile innocence, if the Flannagan character can't see through her. So, the first big problem with this film is that it is not a love story, or even a romance. It is a slice of life, of course, with some comedy. I am not averse to a story of young and old love. Some other films have handled this very well. "Battle Circus" was a 1953 film that had a young Army nurse fall for an older Army doctor during the Korean War. Humphrey Bogart (late 40s to early 50s) and June Alyson (late 20s) were very believable in their roles. On the other hand, some other films also have treated age differences quite well – as infatuation. "The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer" was such a film in 1947. It starred Cary Grant as a late-30s or early-40s playboy artist and professor, with Shirley Temple as the teen sister of Myrna Loy. Most reviewers have noted the huge age difference between the two leads in this film. Many found it a problem that takes away from the films' believability. And thus, its appeal. Audrey Hepburn was 28 playing an 18-year-old; Gary Cooper was 56 playing a 65-year-old – at least he looked it, for that time. And the script never tries to specify what his age is – just that he's an older playboy millionaire. Try as they do, with the old news clips of a wild Flannagan (played by Cooper), the movie makers couldn't convince this viewer – or most viewers – that Flannagan was in his 40s. As "hip" as the script tried to paint him, Flannagan definitely was not so. And that is the problem. A 35 to 45- year-old would have been an older man for a teenage girl in the 1950s. Another reviewer commented that Gary Cooper's was a grandfather character. I agree. Audrey Hepburn and her performance are the main reasons this film earns even 5 stars from me. Maurice Chevalier did very well with his role. Cooper was wooden. The idea of the film was OK and had possibilities. But it needed a younger character and actor as the playboy who could find true love and mend his ways. As it is, this script is terrible. That and the big age differences, and the casting of Gary Cooper as Flannagan made this film a dud.

gavin6942 Critics originally said this film was no good based largely on Gary Cooper's age. I concur with that assessment. I kept wondering why Audrey Hepburn's character would be attracted to an old man. But more so, why is she attracted to a man who makes his life nothing but a series of conquests? I have seen almost all of Billy Wilder's films and enjoyed them (some immensely), but this one just never felt right with me. The attraction seemed too awkward, the film ran a bit too long... I just could not see it. And for the father to support such a thing was even more astounding.If I have to say one nice thing about the movie, it is how it brings out the classic double standard of men and women with dating. The playboy travels from country to country, glorified in the newspaper for being a man of loose morals. But when he confronts a woman who has seemingly done the same, he panics.