It is a performances centric movie

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

The one question I have to ask I would be: What the hell did mickey rooney think he was doing? His horrible "acting" was clearly over the top and racist as he made a mockery of Japanese men. I liked Miss Hepburn very much, but rooney overacts in the movie. Give me Roman Holiday or The Nun's Story anytime over this movie.

I always heard this movie is one of the best... plop! It's quite the opposite. Here's why: a hero impossible to root for, a weak storyline, some scenes that doesn't move the story forward. Things in favor: good music, nice cinematography, acting, remarkable costume design... and -of course- the cat!

Who is this dolled up beauty in this early 1960's New York scene? Is she the Manhattan socialite and model Holly Golightly? Or the lost and confused southern grifter, Lula Mae Barnes? In the span of two hours, we don't really know what of who Audrey Hepburn's character truly is, but we what we know for sure is that she finds solace inside the confines of Tiffany's. To her, a guy is a dime a dozen but diamonds are forever.Breakfast at Tiffany's might seem by today's standards to be a superficial exercise in the culture of the ultra rich, but in 1961, this was essentially an American fairy tale, and to many, it still is. The luxury, the fashion, the beautiful people, the wild parties.. and all with none of the expenses. It's a caviar covered, golden encrusted piece of bliss. Also, if that weren't enough, it's a classic love story. Hepburn is of Hollywood legend for this film alone. She is beautiful, but more than that, she is effortlessly graceful and carefree. She loves the simplest pleasures in life despite being such a material girl. She even calls her feline companion simply "Cat". I mean, that's just plain adorable.What hinders this movie is the obvious elephant in the room. Mickey Rooney's Asian character. Yes, it was racist and unnecessary. Other than being a punching bag for comic relief, there isn't anything that the character is useful for.

Watched this for the first time today, in 2017, and thought it was a great film thanks to Aubrey Hepburn, George Peppard, and a mostly unembellished and familiar New York City. It's refreshing to see how a film about the relationship between a female escort and a man with a sugar parent was not at all hypersexualized as it would be if it were made today. In fact, I would go as far to say that this implicit representation of sex is what made it interesting yet still incredibly classy and allowed Aubrey Hepburn's character some grace and dignity, despite her being an escort and her, to put it plainly, craziness. A film made like this is definitely a thing of the past which is why it is a treasure.The flaw of the film for me is what also makes the film great: the odd persistence of a man to love a girl that at times seem unbelievably troubled, Holly's amicable relationship with an ex- husband who doesn't seem too different from Holly to be honest (he doesn't believe they're not married anymore? That doesn't sound concerning to you?). It's all far-fetched, but that's just what it is: a modern- day-ish fairy tale.It's definitely something that everyone should watch at least once. It is a piece of history, yet something that feels so recent that it can still captivate the viewer in 2017.