everything you have heard about this movie is true.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Breakfast at Tiffany's: Directed by Blake Edwards and written by George AxelrodThis classic of cinema is considered a romantic comedy. I'm here to say they must have had very different definitions of what that meant back in the early 60s. The undercurrent behind this story is tragic. Two people hiding from what they used to be. They can reinvent themselves to be whoever they want. Holly Golightly does this on a nightly basis. They are running from something. For Paul, he seems to be running from his inability to write. He is running from being a kept man diminishing what he sees as his control over his life. Holly is running from the life she left behind with Doc and his children. It is strongly implied that he forced her into a marriage she didn't want at a tender young age. She seemed to do this out of love for her brother. Honestly there is so much more to the character of Holly Golightly than just the fun, carefree frothy lifestyle she lives. The parties are a mask. Paul falls for this carefree woman at first but he loves the woman behind the facade. Holly is a force of nature though. He can't have her no matter how much he might want to. He acts in the way the forceful way he shouldn't. The elephant in the room though is the awful racist caricature played by Mickey Rooney. It's painful every time he comes on screen and he shows up fairly early in the runtime. He makes your skin crawl watching him in 2018. I understand getting upset at a movie made in 1961 about a character in 2018 is kind of silly but man does it bring this movie down a notch or two. Also how Paul behaves towards Holly is very uncomfortable to watch. I understand this is a movie where two people care for each other but never speak it out of discomfort. Holly is good for Paul but is Paul good for Holly, can anybody really be good for her?Audrey Hepburn is truly amazing in this movie. It is the part that solidified her legend. It is earned because she makes the movie. She makes it entertaining. She makes it watchable. George Peppard really keeps up with her pace when he needs to. We understand why he might fall in love with her.I give this movie a B. It's worth checking it out at least once.

Definitely one of my top 10, Audrey Hepburn and George Peppard are brilliant.I am Asian, so I don't like the racist portrayal of the Japanese neighbor, but that alone can be easily overlooked because the movie itself is great!

Plot Holly Golightly is a flighty Manhattan party girl, who expects "money for the powder room as well as for cab fare" for her companionship. She has even gotten a lucrative once weekly job to visit notorious convict Sally Tomato in Sing Sing, she needing to report back to Sally's lawyer the weather report that Sally tells her as proof of her visits with him in return for payment. Her aspirations for glamor and wealth are epitomized by the comfort she feels at Tiffany's, the famous high end jewelry retailer where she believes nothing can ever go wrong. Her resolve for this wealth is strengthened, if not changed slightly in focus, upon news from home. Into Holly's walk-up apartment building and thus her life is Paul Varjak, a writer who Holly states reminds her of her brother Fred, who she has not seen in years and who is currently enlisted in the army. The two quickly become friends in their want for something outside of their current lot. What can i say? This movie is VERY dated. It's slow and vapid and nothing like what I thought it would be. I am shocked it is considered a classic. LOVE Truman Capote, but this movies surely cannot do justice to his book.It's really thing and boring and nothing seems real. Even for the sixities. And they call her a socialite but she's sort of more like a high class hooker. So's George Pepard.

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.