MovieChat Forums > Roman Holiday (1953) Discussion > Does anyone else think this movie is jus...

Does anyone else think this movie is just average?

posted 15 years ago by cil_b
58 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] dblackman70 12 years ago

I love this film and have seen it several times. It's a sweet and innocent film that wouldn't be made now and wouldn't be the same if they did as all the similar films show. Audrey Hepburn is great, but, I love her in anything. I'm not a fan of Gregory Peck, but, he's lovely in this (although Cary Grant was the first choice as he was for Sabrina). They have an innocent chemistry. As I say I love this film, but, I don't think it's quite as stunning as alot of people. I always end up feeling deflated after watching it and enjoying it. It could be the ending I'm disappointed in. I know it's realistic, but, I don't watch movies - especially ones as lovely as this - for realism

[–] keep-flying 12 years ago

Yes, exactly the same for me. Their love was weird because of the circumstances. I think the movie might have been better if the male lead never realized she was a princess until later in the movie. It's a good movie, just not as 'great' as the imdb rating and fans lead to believe.

[–] Daphoenyx 12 years ago

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...

Oh, cil_b, I'm so glad I'm not the only one who feels that!!

[–] aryo-ro 11 years ago

first 1 hour of movie was below average but the next part of movie was just great and the ending was brilliant.i gave it 8 out of 10

[–] rochelle-rochelle 11 years ago

I see your point, OP, because yes, compared to movies made in this day and age, Roman Holiday was quite a simple film. However, if you watch it without comparison to modern day films, but just base it on the dialogue, chemistry, acting, music, writing, direction and settings, it's quite impressive and fun. Especially since there were a few unscripted moments in the film (i.e. Mouth of Truth). And the ending.....AHHHHH.....the ending! We are all waiting with baited breath for those two to run off together, and we wait, and we wait and we wait and he keeps walking and she's NO WHERE to be found and I'm like, okay, she's going to come running out. SHE HAS TO!! And she doesn't!!! I don't think most romantic films like this could successfully end the film like that and get away with it.

Life between Olympics:

Life during Olympics: USA! USA! USA!

[–] steven_torrey 11 years ago

Yeah--I'm with you. I thought the movie was just average. Good to see Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck, good to see Rome as a backdrop, good to see a black and white film in that leisurely pace of movies from the 1950s before James Bond, Jaws, and other blockbusters busted and blew up cinema. But the story line was superficial and for that it compares poorly with "Penny Seranade" or "Miss Pettirgrew Lives for a Day." (Saw the movie last night at Oakland's Paramount...)

[–] DracTarashV 11 years ago

Hepburn and Peck were great together for most of the film, but when their characters inevitably fell in love at the end... it just felt forced and unconvincing. The funny thing is, I actually found Audrey convincing in those "love" scenes, but not Peck. I don't know if it was his lack of chemistry, the fact that his character had a sudden change of heart (which I didn't buy), or even his acting... but it wasn't very believable.

Having said that, while I thought it was a neat and entertaining film (certainly better than average), the only spectacular thing about it... is Audrey's performance. And honestly, if it wasn't for her, I would definitely view this as just average...

They really are rude to Americans! - Al Bundy on the French

[–] bence23 11 years ago

it's not 250 worthy IMO. of hepburn movies Sabrina and Charade are way better. Even tiffanys more deserving of 250.

[–] kenny-164 10 years ago

I would not consider this to be just average, but neither is it great. I gave it an 8, which means i might want to see it again, and it is very good, but not great.

Start out with I am not a huge Audrey Hepburn fan. She's certainly nice enough to look at for any straight man such as myself, but I don't think she is all that sensually appealing. There's a certain lack of emotional depth to her performances, I think. She plays intelligence a little less convincingly than is right. Nice, but that only takes you so far. Yet despite all that she was very well cast here, so there's that.

Gregory Peck is an above average leading man who in some ways mirrors Hepburn's qualities a little too much. But he was convincing here, and for someone I can't help associating with his role as Captain Ahab, heh, he pulled it off.

Eddie Albert also very good, as was most of the supporting cast. But the editing was a bit off, and I am not sure the mix of fantasy and "reality" worked as well as some here apparently do. And the ending's apparent agreement to see their returns to their respective and distant lives seemed almost reactionary, at least too conservative.

So, above average, but not great.

[–] CountJohn 8 years ago

Sabrina would be just as good if Bogart was better cast. I don't like the others as well as I do Roman Holiday. It is one of my 30 or so favorite movies of all time.