I'm quite interested to know if there are any of you who didn't think this movie was as spectacular as most of the people on this board believe. After watching this movie, i felt kind of empty. Not because of the ending... but because i didn't really buy their "chemistry" or "love" or whatever you call it. In the end, i didn't care for any of them... is this because i've watched too many movies with similar tones/plot? (I'm sorry this isn't a very good elaboration on my part). In any case, i really look forward to reading your views on why you didn't like this movie.
Watch it again. Sometimes you have to see a film a few times to really start to appreciate it. Also, as other people have brought out, you have to realize that when it was made the story would have seemed much fresher than it does today after so many similar movies have been made.
Maybe a bit, but it's still my favorite Hepburn film. I liked how she looked in it, the setting, and of course the fact that GREGORY IS IN IT TOO.
But mostly cuz it was a little easier to get into than Sabrina (which wasnt bad) and Breakfast at Tiffany's (which is very overrated), the only 2 films of hers I've been able to see so far.
I saw this film for the first time last night. I agree that it's a bit overrated. Don't get me wrong. It was a good film, I like the leads (in almost anything), and I thought Eddie Albert was great as the photographer. But it wasn't quite the four stars that my cable company gave it. I would probably give it three.
And I'm SO glad there are other people out there who think Breakfast at Tiffany's is overrated. I've watched it twice, and I just do not get that movie's appeal. Not to mention that I was horrified by Mickey Rooney's impression of a Japanese man! I was sitting there, thinking "What the heck am I watching!?"
I love Wyler and thought he did a great job directing a genre he wasn't known for. In actual fact Wyler was pretty good directing anything, from war dramas, to westerns to religious gladiator epics, much like another great director, Robert Wise. Both very versatile and unfairly labeled as non-auteurs as if that really signifies what being a great director is!
I thought it was a charming rom-com for the time period it was in. Nowadays it would be considered cliché , but for what it was, Roman Holiday was a charming rom-com with talented stars, good direction, and a wonderful setting. 7/10
Oh no, not Capra. He would have made it a "Capracorny" ending, and it would have ruined the whole film, even when keeping the rest the way it is now. I guess the realistic ending is one of the reasons why Roman Holiday is my favorite film, another being Audrey's acting (in her first big role!). Eddie Albert is great too.
i) replaced Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck (this sounds mean, but make it Robert Stack and Hope Lange instead - both of whom I like, but whom I don't think are magical)
and then
ii) removed that last scene and replaced it with a wistful postcard received from her by Peck at his home --
then it might be just average.
I.e., the direction, the screenplay itself, the incidents in which they are involved, even the beauty of Rome - aren't what make this movie magical. It's not the funniest film anyone has seen by a long shot.
It's the actors' marvelous touch for this film -- and that ending - and they make it the favorite of millions.
I found very little in this movie. I wonder if it's a "chick flick", as in it mainly only appeals to women for some weird, psychological/physiological reason. Of course there are people like stevenvh above, but I wonder if I can take the opinion of someone who thinks this movie had a "realistic ending" seriously.
I'm a guy and like this movie a lot, as well as some so-called "chick flick" movies. The ending of this film gets mentioned a lot in discussions because of its bittersweet nature, and I think most of us understand where stevenvh is coming from when he uses the term "realistic ending". It's not a typical happily-ever-after Hollywood ending. It's actually quite surprising and bold an ending.
Naw, you're wrong. It's a very good film and far above the average manufactured chick flick (though I have to admit I quite like some of those too). Also, there have been several programs here in the UK about Princes Margaret and the Royal Family recently and when you relate this film to the events in her live and the time it was made I believe it actually is a realistic ending.
I wonder if it's a "chick flick", as in it mainly only appeals to women for some weird, psychological/physiological reason.
According to the ratings page, this movie averaged 8.0 or higher with male voters. Females over the age of 45 actually rated it less than 8.0 which was lower than the rating by males of the same age range.
Oh no, not Capra. He would have made it a "Capracorny" ending, and it would have ruined the whole film, even when keeping the rest the way it is now. I guess the realistic ending is one of the reasons why Roman Holiday is my favorite film, another being Audrey's acting (in her first big role!). Eddie Albert is great too.
Frank Capra already made a movie with set-up similar to "Roman Holiday"- "It Happened One Night" You can probably call IHON the precursor to RH, but with the "capracorny." In fact, it was through Capra's award-winning classic that I discovered the gem that is "Roman Holiday." =)
reply share
I like Frank Capra films but I think he is a sentimental director and I think this film is sweet enough as it is. Any more and it would have been sickly sweet. I'm not 100% sure about Gregory Peck either but I believe I prefer him in this to the more comedic Cary Grant. In fact I cannot see anyone else in the role but I would have been interesting to see Mongomery Clift try.
I suspect it might well be because you've seen too many similar films - but I will suggest that this was the one of the originals and all the others are just remakes and copies mostly inspired by the success of this film. Also, I'm not sure spectacular is the right word to describe this film but it is sweet, funny, poignant and very very good.