The Audrey Hepburn Story (2000 TV Movie) User Reviews

Far From A Masterpiece, But Also Far From The Disaster It's Unfairly Made Out To Be

[tcorrell-69070 · 7/10 · 3 March 2022]

No actress, regardless of how bad or good they are or if they're neutral, would have done a better than adequate job of playing Audrey Hepburn. She was simply too unique, for better as much as for worse, for anybody to portray her better than adequately.

Honestly, Jennifer Love Hewitt (who was 19 during filming) did no better and no worse than any other actress would've done portraying Audrey Hepburn, who Jennifer portrayed from 17 years of age and older. She did as adequate a job as Sarah Hyland, who portrayed eight year of age Audrey Hepburn, and Emmy Rossum, who portrayed 12 to 16 year of age Audrey Hepburn. Sarah Hyland was eight during filming and Emmy Rossum was 12.

But poor Jennifer is the one who got such flack for it. Sarah and Emmy were basically unacknowledged for it, probably because Sarah was eight and Emmy was 12.

The movie basically covers many aspects of Audrey Hepburn's life from late 1937 at age eight until her untimely death from cancer in early 1993 before she would've been 64. I won't go through the laundry list of them.

Just watch to find out what they are as I don't want to spoil the movie for Audrey Hepburn, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Sarah Hyland and Emmy Rossum fans who watch the movie. They're only people who should watch this movie, anyway.

Recommended only to Audrey Hepburn fans who are also fans of Jennifer Love Hewitt, Sarah Hyland and Emmy Rossum. The Audrey Hepburn Story was filmed in late 1998.

It was pretty good

[oneshortkat · 6/10 · 15 September 2005]

I must admit that after reading all of the reviews to be horrified by JLH presentation as Audrey Hepburn. But I was somewhat surprised. I didn't think that she was the best actress available, I think Emmy Rossum should have played Audrey the entire movie, but JLH does an alright job. She doesn't do the perfect accent, but then I don't think that any actress could do the accent perfectly.

I never knew of the horrible things that happened to Audrey during her life and this movie made me cry, especially during Emmy's scenes. I have such respect for Audrey Hepburn now. The work she did made such a difference and it's sad that she is gone now.

Jennifer Love Hewitt is all wrong and the film should have either been made much better or else not at all!

[gerry-russell-139 · 6/10 · 17 November 2001]

Let me begin by saying that I am extremely biased when it comes to Audrey Hepburn therefore it is perfectly logical from my point of view that no one can play Audrey Hepburn but Audrey Hepburn. Miss Hewitt is (its been said before many times) too full when it comes to her bosom and she didn't flash a huge smile like Audrey did. Audrey's smile could light up a whole room (even better than Julia!) and Hewitt could barely light a candle in a corner so to speak. Her hair was pathetically streaked in the "Tiffany" scenes whereas Audrey's streaks blended perfectly with her natural brown tresses. Also, Audrey's hair was butched at the Oscar ceremony... Hewitt's was the same as it was during the filming of "Roman Holiday". As for the rest of the cast, Emmy Rossum was much better as young Audrey than Hewitt. Frances Fischer (of "Titanic" fame... she was Kate Winslet's self-righteous mother) was believable as Audrey's mother, Baroness Edda Van Heemstra. Eric McCormick was too contemporary to play Mel Ferrer, plus he didn't look a thing like him; the same applies to Gabriel Macht who played Bill Holden but Michael J. Burg captured the essence of Truman Capote to the button. The most embarrassing of all was Ray Landry as Humphrey Bogart; he had way too much makeup on him to look meatier where Bogie was a skinny, ugly railing. Plus, his accent was pathetically forced like he was trying way too hard to impersonate Bogie and he still couldn't do a good job. The film in short, should never have been made... no one can play Audrey Hepburn but Audrey Hepburn!

Doomed from the start

[chris-1000 · 29 January 2003]

Well, it's no surprise that this movie has gotten so many bad reviews. It was never going to be great. Jennifer Love Hewitt could never be Audrey Hepburn. We all know this. That being said, many of us who hated the movie have offered suggestions of who would have been better. Some say Natalie Portman, some say Winona Ryder. Many suggested actresses who looked more like Audrey Hepburn. I disagree.

Here's the deal: Audrey Hepburn had a style, grace, charm and elegance without equal. She had a talent and a screen presence like no other. She was a gifted actress who gave up showbiz and dedicated her life to UNICEF and helping children across the world. She had a rare beauty both outside and in. Who could play Audrey Hepburn? No one.

I don't know. there seemed to be something lacking in Hewitt's performance

[silentsyni · 6/10 · 28 March 2000]

I do not know much about Audrey Hepburn. All I have seen was My Fair Lady, but there seemed to be something missing in Hewitt's performance. I enjoyed the movie but something was always off about the way she portrayed Audrey.

Audrey deserved much better

[Vogue189 · 1/10 · 10 June 2001]

I have been an Audrey Hepburn fan, for as long as I could remember, and was dying to see this biopic actually. I wasn't going to judge it right away, but after seeing it twice, it turned out to be the worst biopic I've ever seen in my life. Jennifer Love Hewitt, not to bad-mouth her, but just did not fit the part at all. She lacks the looks, the poise and the maturity to portray such a film legend. For those who disagree, just rent some Audrey movies-(Breakfast at Tiffany's, Roman Holiday, The Nun's Story) and compare. Also the biopic only shows half of Audrey Hepburn's life. It starts off with JLH (Audrey) making Breakfast at Tiffany's, then through a series of flashbacks she recalls some event's of Audrey's life. So half the time JLH is staring dreamily into space in those big dark sunglasses. Emmy was terrific as young Audrey during the Nazi occupation, which made me stuck around, but afterwards it became just awful. They got the facts all wrong about Audrey as well. Her Oscar speech, her meeting with Givenchy, were incorrect. The supporting cast were not much help either.Please before you see this biopic, (if you dare too) look at some of Audrey's websites, watch her movies, read a good biography on her (Audrey Adieu is good) Don't rely on this TV biopic to give you all the facts on her. She was a talented, beautiful, elegant and compassionate woman who deserved much better than this biopic.

Jennifer Love Hewitt was well cast!

[macpherr · 7/10 · 5 April 2000]

Jennifer Love Hewitt (I Know What You Did Last Summer), one of the producers, cast herself as Audrey Hepburn. At first I did not think that she was the one to play Ms. Hepburn, then as the movie progressed I realized that she was well cast. She did the part really well. "Ella Hepburn" was a nice single parent played by Frances Fisher (I) (Titanic) well known by the audience. Eric McCormack (Will & Grace) was great playing Mel Ferrer the famous producer whom Audrey Hepburn married. He had a vast diversity of work as a producer, actor, director. We can find movies and television series such as: (El Greco, Falcon Crest (television series), War and Peace. I could never have guessed that he was directing Falcon Crest. I never had realized it until now that he was born in the U.S. either, I always thought that he was from somewhere in Europe. "Joseph Hepburn" Keir Dullea (2001: A Space Odyssey) was a man that should never have been a parent. He was a very strange man. The movie raises the issue of how important it is for all of us to have the love and support of our parents. She kept trying to establish a relationship with him, but never succeeded. A terrible situation. Over all the movie was a well-done movie for television. I liked the fact that although she had a dysfunctional family Audrey lead a quite normal life with very solid moral values. I always loved Audrey Hepburn and I will always miss her. My favorite scene: While filming the breakfast scene for "Breakfast at Tiffany, " she had problems eating the pastry. That shows that she was in such a good shape because she did not indulge in sweets since she was a child. I enjoyed the movie. Way to go Jennifer, I like the fact that you are already producing.

A great disappointment.

[23skidoo-4 · 3/10 · 2 April 2001]

My comments are based on the video release of this film. I only just learned through the IMDb that a three-hour and even a four-hour version of this film exists, so some of my criticisms may not apply to those longer edits. There may be some spoilers, but since the film more-or-less follows Audrey's well-known life, there's little surprise to ruin.

Based on negative reviews I had read of Jennifer Hewitt's performance, I decided to reserve judgement on this movie until i actually watched it. For one thing, I knew any project attempting to cover the life of such a beloved star is doomed to failure based on impossibly high expectations. That's why we haven't seen a Cary Grant or Ingrid Bergman movie and only recently did Judy Garland's story make it to the screen.

The Audrey Hepburn Story could have been so much better, even with JLH in the lead. There were so many opportunities for dramatic payoffs that were ignored. In the 134-minute edit, Audrey is shown moaning about her dancing and singing ability -- yet the production of Funny Face is IGNORED, even though it would have been a perfect payoff to these worries (since the producers end the show at Breakfast at Tiffany's and ignore My Fair Lady). Also ignored is the animosity towards her on the set of Sabrina by the worst Bogart impersonator ever to appear on film. This would have been a nice preamble to Audrey's later attempts to woo Truman Capote, but it doesn't happen. There are a couple of throwaway lines, but there could have been some real tension shown between Audrey and Bogie, but they didn't bother.

I was also not impressed at some of the sloppiness and factual errors. Audrey is shown playing a succession of cigarette girls in her early films when in fact she only played ONE. They also show Roman Holiday being filmed in what appears to be a Hollywood studio when everyone knows it was shot on location in Rome. And they have Audrey's miscarriage happening immediately after her accident on the set of The Unforgiven when it happened months later -- while her earlier miscarriage during War and Peace seems to be ignored completely.

Jennifer Love Hewitt's performance is variable. In the opening few minutes she DOES do a good job of imitating Audrey. Her look and her voice work really well and she gets to deliver some good lines. BUT ... it's not enough to sustain an entire movie.

I was much more impressed with the young actress who played teenage Audrey. They should have waited a few years and hired HER for the main role.

Frances Fisher was OK as Audrey's mom, though she came across as playing a variation of Kate Winslet's mom from Titanic. Kier (2001) Dullea is good as Audrey's dad, but the way this subplot is approached is all wrong and completely different from reality. (Spoiler alert): in this movie, Audrey leaves her father saddened and estranged, but in real life she maintained close ties with her dad until he died.

To sum up: The movie misses a lot of opportunities, makes sloppy factual errors, and relies too heavily on an actress who is not right for the role (but then I don't think anyone would be considered good enough). On the good side, the Breakfast at Tiffany's recreations work well (though "Blake Edwards" looks like he's fresh out of high school and the Capote imitator is hilarious), and there are a few other moments where the film ALMOST works. But it's not enough. It's not a good sign when the 10 seconds of REAL footage of Audrey Hepburn seen at the end outshines the previous 133 minutes.

Here's hoping someone -- like Sir Richard Attenborough -- someday tries again to give Audrey's story justice.

Made with more "Love" then anything

[AH-54 · 10/10 · 23 April 2000]

This movie is one that is to easy to criticize because its strength is in its heart. Jennifer Love Hewitt is almost perfect in the role that no one could play perfectly. While the supporting cast is weak, Hewitt makes it watchable because of the amount of heart she puts in and is able to convey on the screen. Amazingly she looks great in Hepburn's signature dress, and is somehow able to master her accent like no one expected. If you watch a couple of Hepburn's films and then watch this movie, you will see how well Hewitt does at Hepburn's mannerisms as well as her unique charm. If your an Audrey Hepburn fan, thank Hewitt for making this movie possible.

Captivating story about a captivating woman.

[paul-464 · 7/10 · 28 March 2000]

Yes, it took a while to forget that it was Jennifer Love-Hewitt on the screen and not Audrey, but JLH is skilled, and after awhile I forgot it was JLH, not AH.

The material transcended any minor flaws. I let my 10 year old daughter stay up and watch it with me. I felt it covered a lot of important topics and feelings (family abandonment, unrequited love, insecurity, innocence, dreams) that get glossed over, hyped, or made light of in traditional Hollywood shows. I gave us some topics for discussion on the way to school. I felt the producers did a fine job bringing a classy portrayal of a classy lady to the screen.

The difficulty in this show is the fact that several distinct people show up and its hard to duplicate a Bogart, Hepburn, or Holden with out making comparisions. However, I wasn't bothered by this fact.

Can't we leave well enough alone?

[FabAudrey20 · 1/10 · 10 April 2002]

I'll restrain myself as best as possible, but this biopic was beyond awful. Perhaps I'm biased as an Audrey Hepburn fan, but what fan wouldn't want to see her role model done justice? The performance by Hewitt in this film is contrived, and I get the feeling that she didn't really do much research or put that much effort into this particular role -- especially seeing that Hepburn was supposed to be Hewitt's "idol." Who would give their idol such a cheap accent, two facial expressions and gratuitous cleavage when this idol was known for her sexless appeal, grace and ethereal charm? This biopic does no justice whatsoever to the timeless Audrey Hepburn. If anyone is curious to find out more about Miss Hepburn, I highly suggest avoiding this film and instead renting "Roman Holiday," Audrey's first starring role film and the role that won her an Oscar.

Jennifer Love Hewitt answers her critics

[buddyrud1 · 10/10 · 9 April 2000]

I was pleasantly surprised, if not amazed, by Jennifer Love Hewitt's performance in "The Audrey Hepburn Story." Her detractors have been carping for months about how she possessed neither the physique nor the talent to effectively portray the cinematic icon. I'm happy to say they were wrong.

Hewitt wisely chose not to impersonate Ms. Hepburn, per se, but rather convey a suggestion of the look, mannerisms, and presence that made her so endearing.

The 21-year-old teen queen undergoes a remarkable transformation in the film, so effective that despite the enormous narrative gaps in Marsha Norman's script, I soon forgot that I was watching Jennifer Love Hewitt portray Audrey Hepburn and believed that I was watching Audrey Hepburn.

As a film critic, I have suffered through Hewitt's previous performances in drivel such as the "I Know What You Did Last Summer" films, but I think "The Audrey Hepburn Story" has finally given us an indication of the enormous potential she has, and truly marks her arrival as an actor.

No, Hewitt wasn't quite able to maintain the illusion seamlessly throughout the film; as a 21-year-old who has apparently led a rather sheltered life, she had no possible frame of reference to draw upon to convey some of the more difficult passages in the actress' life.

But what Hewitt does succeed in doing is capturing the PRESENCE of Audrey Hepburn, not with Movie-of-the-Week histrionics but with subtle moments, such as the one in which she finally wins over the bile-spewing Truman Capote on the set of "Breakfast at Tiffany's."

The film as a whole is less impressive. It ends at the filming of "Tiffany's" -- the midway point of Hepburn's career -- and only tells half the story of her remarkable life.

I was also a bit bewildered by the casting of Eric McCormack as Mel Ferrer. McCormack is a fine comedic actor with a great sense of irony and timing, but he comes across as far too young and earnest as Ferrer -- who was a good ten years older than Hepburn and arrived with four children of his own, a fact not even addressed in the film. The "Will and Grace" star conveys none of the oily charm Ferrer has displayed in his wildly uneven film career, and emerges as a stalwart, monochromatic cheerleader for Hepburn, giving us not even a hint of Ferrer's enigmatic presence that left millions asking "Is she really going out with HIM"?

So the film's not perfect. It won't go down in the annals of television history alongside "Lonesome Dove" or "Rich Man, Poor Man," but when it is rebroadcast or released on video, it is worth seeing for one startling revelation -- Jennifer Love Hewitt's performance.

Blame the script/screenplay - not the acting.

[dsquid · 7/10 · 28 March 2000]

Love Hewitt was fine in this made for TV movie. Obviously the role is a big step up from anything she's attempted in the past, and I thought she did well. The accent, while not dead on - and a tad uneven, was still impressive. I also was impressed with Hewitt's "look". All in all, a significant step forward for the young actress.

Where this film suffered was in the way it told Hepburn's story. It's basically a documentary, but you felt dragged along rather than compelled to watch.

Clueless without Painful

[AZINDN · 1/10 · 14 July 2006]

TV starlet Jennifer Love Hewitt as Audrey Hepburn is a casting fiasco. That an actress with small frame and fine facial features was necessary for the generation of TV spawn who have never seen her films like "Breakfast at Tiffany's" or "Roman Holiday," was the likely reason Love-Hewitt was selected for the role seems the only reasonable explanation. It certainly was never because of her staggering talent as the young woman extended her range from A to a and got to wear her mother's dresses simultaneously. This is cartoon pablum at best and worst. The excellent character actress, Frances Fisher as Audrey's elegant aristocratic mother wipes Hewitt off the page by just a restrained glance and her considerable talent. Eric McCormick as Mel Ferrar seems a tad too animated and beefy, but it is the remainder of the cast who seem to have only been cast because of their minimal resemblance to known actors such as Gregory Peck and William Holden who are truly forgettable with cause.

Affected and lacking the grace of Ms. Hepburn, this made for TV drama is worthy of a Rassie award for worst of the worst. It is painful to see the memory of Ms. Hepburn reduced to farce. Stick to her films and skip the made-for-TV insult.

Great movie, great dedication

[karchad · 20 May 2004]

Don't listen to those nasty IMDB critics. They only would have been happy if Audrey came out of the grave and portrayed herself....

I think Jennifer Love-Hewitt did a wonderful, wonderful job here. If there is a fault to this movie, it's in portraying Audrey Hepburn as some sort of perfect, almost female Jesus Christ. Come on, she couldn't have been THAT perfect.

JLH obviously is a very dedicated fan of AH, and should be commended in helping bring about this movie, and capturing much of the Audrey Hepburn charm and sexy self-doubt. Let's face it, for we AH fans, NOBODY can compare to her. To compare AH and JLH is unfair. One is a memory, one is not. And people here have stooped to compare makeup and smile. Give me a break!

I've seen JLH's other movies, and read much about her. She is worthy of portraying AH in both heart and talent, and I'd bet AH would say so herself. This movie is well-worth seeing. Please don't pass it up due to negative comments.

A bit slow...but Jennifer did a somewhat good job playing Audrey.

[Juliet Gabriella Kaleigh · 6/10 · 27 March 2000]

I was shocked when I heard that Jennifer had been picked to play Audrey, I was so sure that Jennifer would mess the movie up, I am not the biggest fan of Jennifer's acting skills. After watching the movie, I found that it was slow. The movie made my head ache. I do think that Jennifer did a somewhat good job at playing Audrey, nobody but Audrey can play Audrey, though. Jennifer had Audrey's accent down. I read the first review for this movie, and I don't think that the person who wrote it even saw the movie. Jennifer's chest size does not have anything to do with this movie.

I knew that it wouldn't be worth anything and I was right

[smtracy82 · 1/10 · 26 August 2000]

As a die hard Audrey Hepburn fan I was looking forward to the story of Hepburn's life...until I heard that JLH was going to star as Hepburn. That right there did it for me...JLH is not a talented actress and was not deserving of the role of Hepburn. Not only was the acting and script corny, but JLH's accent was way off and the several sports bras that she claimed to use did nothing to flatten out her figure. I know that something as petty as breast size shouldn't be used to judge an actor's performance, but appearance does affect the presentation of the movie and JLH just did not have the body type. Of course it will never be possible to perfectly cast Hepburn's part but why didn't they look further past JLH? What about Natalie Portman? Of course, Natalie Portman probably wouldn't stoop so low as to appear in a "made for TV" movie. That's just my two cents...

Lovely story, kudos to Love

[yuhui · 7/10 · 27 March 2000]

This is a touching story of a young woman's desire and eagerness to become the best at whatever she did, and as she did so, she became a famous movie star.

Aside from the seemingly fake accent and air of pomposity that she carried around throughout the show, Jennifer Love Hewitt seemed well cast as Audrey Hepburn, I could replace her face with Ms Hepburn's and everything would fit nicely. Her grace and style seemed to match what I know of Ms Hepburn, which isn't a lot, but probably sufficient enough to appreciate it.

Emmy Rossum also did a good job as the young Audrey Hepburn, playing the frail but strong-willed young girl who was driven to become an accomplished dancer.

Two things kept nagging at me: the show seemed to point out that Ms Hepburn's life revolved around her desire to be reunited with her father, and that all she wanted in life was to have babies and if the man couldn't provide, he was off her list. These 2 things seem to remove some of the charm but were probably added to make her a more real person, but unfortunately they were done in a fake manner which made me a bit put off.

But overall, a lovely show that makes me want to watch it again and every Audrey Hepburn movie.

There's Only One Audrey

[RobertCartland · 5/10 · 28 March 2000]

Audrey Hepburn fans can enjoy this film if they are willing to keep an open mind, consider it is made for television and remember there is only one Audrey. Even considering the difficulty of the task, Jennifer Love Hewitt is far from convincing as Audrey Hepburn. The problem goes beyond Hewitt's struggle with the accent and different appearance (smaller eyes, larger breast and pointy nose). Jennifer Hewitt simply fails to capture Audrey's charm, playfulness and grace. There is the occasional scene when one sees a glimpse of Audrey such as when she is receiving direction from the writer Colette. Unfortunately, these scenes are few and far between. I would have preferred to see Calista Flockhart or Gwyneth Paltrow (assuming Paltrow would consider a TV movie) try the role.

There are some enjoyable aspects to the film. It was interesting to see Hepburn's childhood and early life dramatized. Hepburn's mother was portrayed with depth and sensitivity. Ironically, the actor playing William Holden ('Sabrina') looked, sounded and acted like George Peppard ('Breakfast at Tiffany's') -a missed opportunity. We also get a nice view of the love and frustration she experiences in her dance career and learn a great deal about her marriage with Mel Ferrer. Some of the scenes are touching, Audrey in Africa meeting the real Sister Luke from ' A Nuns Story', the parting with her father and the scenes with her mother.

Unfortunately, most of the characters fall flat and the film trudges along as Audrey parts with lovers and eventually her father. The film would benefit from some quick cuts and lighter moments. There are also some strange omissions including any mention of 'War and Peace' -the only film featuring Audrey with her husband at the time Mel Ferrer. There is no mention of her Tony award for Gigi (Hepburn's one of the few to win both awards in the same year), her other academy nominations or her later films. The film essentially ends with the filming of 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' so little is told about Audrey's later life. We learn nothing of her second marriage with Dr. Andrea Dotti, her two divorces, her relationship with her children, or her other love interests. It would have been especially touching and inspiring to see a portrayal of her struggle with cancer and her work with UNICEF. What is covered is worth a look if you are a fan of Audrey Hepburn and know little about her life. Afterwards, you will have to watch one of Audrey's films, to experience her true playfulness, charm and grace.

Better Than Expected Hepburn Biopic

[SFTVLGUY2 · 8/10 · 25 September 2005]

While Eric McCormack as Mel Ferrer never shakes his Will Truman persona, Jennifer Love Hewitt is shockingly good as Audrey Hepburn, far better than I ever imagined she could be. For an actress with relatively limited talent, she does an amazing job of capturing the actress' essence and slightly-accented voice. The film is a fairly accurate retelling of the actress' life and career, although the story doesn't extend beyond the filming of "Breakfast at Tiffany's." Whoever submitted the goof claiming Hepburn and her father reconciled and were close until his death goofed himself - although after reuniting with him in Ireland she sent him financial support on occasion, he remained emotionally aloof and never acknowledged her success, privately or publicly. As biopics go, this is a fairly straightforward and rather dull account, only because Hepburn's personal life and career were scandal-free, with no "Mommie Dearest" dirt to spice things up.

Perspective . . .

[Surfer-23 · 6/10 · 27 August 2006]

This film did have problems, but I felt I had to chime in if for no other reason than to offset some of the mean-spirited commentary.

Why must actors or performances that people dislike be described as terrible? Jennifer Love Hewitt is a talented actress. She may not have been in tip-top form in this film, but I think she deserves a lot better than some of the "reviewers" have given her.

Re the physical similarity or dissimilarity between Ms Hewitt and Ms Hepburn: Very few people in the world look like Audrey Hepburn. Of those, precious few are marketable in a nationally broadcast TV movie. Jennifer Love Hewitt wasn't perhaps the ideal choice, but she wasn't a senseless one either.

Poor Audrey is turning in her grave

[soccerbabe585 · 1/10 · 9 July 2003]

This movie is terrible in and of itself, but what makes it so sad is that it is an attempt to chronicle the life of Audrey Hepburn, one of the greatest actresses ever. The biggest slap in the face is that Hepburn is played by Jennifer Love Hewitt, who can't act her way out of a paper bag. She does resemble Hepburn slightly in appearance, but COMPLETELY lacks the elegance and class that made Audrey who she was. Her horrible attempts to imitate Hepburn's voice and mannerisms are so bad they're almost funny.

Overall, this movie is an embarrassing "tribute" to a truly great star.

Ok Script, Jennifer a Believable Hepburn

[Sefardicus · 8/10 · 18 December 2022]

While I enjoyed this movie, the pace could had been better. Jennifer Love Hewitt was a very convincing Audrey Hepburn. Jennifer's accent was a great ode to the Transatlantic accent, though I think this accent was more natural, than rehearsed.

Hewitt's genius, was in that she was able to emulate Hepburn's grace, charm and vulnerability. Hewitt was very likable in this film, and has raised my interest in Miss Hepburn's work and life.

Gabriel Macht was sensational as Holden, and McCormack was a triumphant Mel Ferrer. Frances Fisher played a layered, complex, but extremely likable Baroness. I truly hope Audrey's mom was like Frances played her.

I cannot believe that I hadn't seen this film. While this movie is by far riveting, it is a respectable must for Audrey Hepburn fans, and a Hollywood who could remember what class is.

Could Have Been A Lot Better

[plutus1947 · 6/10 · 19 August 2012]

What I can never understand is why an American is chosen to play the part of someone who had a pristine British accent and vice versa. (I know Hepburn was born in Belgium). This movie reminds me somewhat of the now legendary role Dick Van Dyke played (Bert) in Mary Poppins. His cockney accent was to say the least 'atrocious'.

Although I must say that the British accent of Jennifer Love Hewitt was better than Van Dykes's it still left a lot to be desired.

SPOILER BEGINS

This movie charts 'part' of the life of Audrey Hepburn who was in my opinion one of the most beautiful women in the world. That is not to say that Love Hewitt is not stunningly attractive.

The movie takes us from her very young age, through WW2 when she was taken to live in Holland where her parents thought she would be safe but of course it turned out that she was raised in German occupied Holland, up to the period when she was one of the most sought after stars in the movie world.

I must say that I learned a lot about Audrey Hedpburn watching this movie. For example she actually helped the Dutch underground when she was in Holland and she witnessed the atrocities the Hitler Army was capable of.

However, the movie did not go far enough and in my opinion the latter part of her life should have been covered also. She worked tirelessly for UNICEF for several years, right up to her relatively untimely death in 1993 of Appendiceal cancer. This was a two part mini-series and I feel that they could have made a three part series in order to cover her later life.

There was only a brief written reference to this in the end credits.

SPOILER ENDS

I do like Jennifer Love Hewitt as an actress having first seen her in the bittiest of bit parts in Sister Act 2 and then in the popular TV series Ghost Whisperer.

It is simply that I feel that she was very wrongly cast in the role of Audrey Hepburn because her English accent was simply not up to it.

Had the part of Hepburn be played by someone else (a Brit) and had the whole story been told I feel that the movie would have been wonderful. Even if Jennifer had not tried to emulate an English accent and used her American accent I feel this would have been better.

Love Hewitt was Producer & Co Executive Producer of Ghost Whisperer and she was also one of the Co Executive Producers of The Audrey Hepburn Story so I am wondering if that was the reason she played the title role.

For the most part the remainder of the cast played their roles extremely well, especially Francis Fisher who played Audrey's mother Ella van Heemstra. She was nothing like the hateful woman Ruth Dewitt Bukater in Titanic.

I also liked the way Eric McCormack played Mel Ferrer. He too was nothing like the despicable Ray Summers in Dead Like Me.

All in all I feel that the Audrey Hepburn Story could have been a great deal better but nevertheless I will say it is still quite watchable.

This mini-series was nominated for one award, the Golden Reel Award, for Best Sound Editing, which it did not win.

Nauseating & Dire

[Jools-10 · 1/10 · 4 April 2001]

I have not watched this movie and I am never likely to so how come I want to say a few words? The reason is this from the moment I read that that thing had been cast to play Audrey Hepburn I was sickened. Audrey was a tall and willowy creature that had all the vulnerability of a child. That is a midget with a hard cruel sucking a lemon face. I have had the misfortunes to catch a glimpse when I have turned over channels and found it on and everyone else in it well what can I say? Who or what used their only brain cell and cast it to represent a legend? The casting director should be sent forth from all production for the rest of their miserable life into the wilderness.