I read everyone else's review and I'd hate to fly with the flock but I agree 100% and I thought I'd be the only one. As a TCm fan, that of A Audrey Hepburn, this movie did her no justice. Jennifer Love did her best to 'sound' like Audrey but it seemed forced with every scene. I wanted to love the movie and wanted to continue watching this. The bio of Charlie Chaplin with Robert Downey Jr was amazing ! I was hoping the same for Hepburn. Sorely disappointed. Don't buy it. Don't bother watching it.

Biopics of famous actresses from the past, especially of those who were noted for their beauty, often suffer from difficulties with casting, as it is not always possible to find a modern actress who bears the necessary resemblance to the woman she is playing, even with the creative use of make-up. Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh (in the recent "Hitchcock") might be quite a good match, but there have been some much more eccentric ones, such as former Charlie's Angel Cheryl Ladd as Grace Kelly or even Lindsay Lohan as Elizabeth Taylor. "The Audrey Hepburn Story" is another example. I mean, which modern actress has a beauty comparable to Hepburn's? Today, the nearest equivalent would probably be Anne Hathaway, but at the time this film was made she was still an unknown teenager. Jennifer Love Hewitt, in fact, is only slightly older than Hathaway, but by 2000 the 21-year-old was obviously already a big enough Hollywood name to act as producer of her own movies and to get herself cast in the leading role, despite an obvious lack of likeness. (Nose too pointed, chin too prominent, ears too large). The film spans the period from Audrey's childhood in the 1930s up to the making of Breakfast at Tiffany's in 1961, covering her experiences in Nazi-occupied Holland during World War II, her unsuccessful attempt to become a ballerina, the early part of her acting career including her big Hollywood breakthrough with "Roman Holiday" and her romances with the young aristocrat James Hanson, later one of Britain's richest businessmen, with William Holden and with her first husband Mel Ferrer. Her subsequent divorce from Ferrer and her second marriage to Andrea Dotti, falling after the cut-off date of 1961, are omitted. Understandably, a lot of stress is placed on Audrey's wartime experiences and her work for the Dutch Resistance. One thing that is somewhat softened is the extent to which Audrey's parents supported Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists. Her father's political opinions are, admittedly, referred to, but then trying to write about Joseph Hepburn-Ruston without mentioning his fascist sympathies would be a bit like trying to pen a biography of Jack the Ripper while tactfully avoiding the distasteful subject of homicide. What the film fails to mention is that Audrey's mother, Baroness Ella Van Heemstra, was during the 1930s as enthusiastic a fascist as her husband, although to be fair to Ella her fascism was something of an intellectual parlour-game and she seems to have abandoned it when she was confronted with the brutal reality of the Nazi occupation of her native Holland. Jennifer Love Hewitt may not look much like Audrey Hepburn, but she loses out on the Special Oscar for "Least Convincing Impersonation of a Real Individual", which must go to Gabriel Macht for his portrayal of William Holden as a blond, sun-bronzed twenty-something beach-bum. Biographers seem to disagree about the depth of Audrey's relationship with Holden and her reasons for breaking it off; here it is shown as being very brief, non-sexual and broken off when Audrey discovers that he has had a vasectomy and is therefore unable to have children. Despite the lack of resemblance, in fact, Hewitt's performance is not altogether a bad one, as she does succeed in conveying something of Audrey's personality, aided by the one physical feature the two do have in common, a pair of large and lustrous eyes. Film star biopics tend to gloss over the more lurid or sensational aspects of their subjects' lives, but in Audrey's case there seems to have been very little that needed glossing over, as she had (by Hollywood standards) remarkably few skeletons in her cupboard. Indeed, she always came across as a thoroughly lovable person both on screen and off; few people had anything but praise for her. (One exception seems to have been that old grouch Truman Capote, who didn't like her performance in "Breakfast at Tiffany's", but according to this film even he was eventually won over by her charm). Her charitable work appears to have been the result of sincere convictions and not, as with some celebrities, a mere PR stunt. Her Wikipedia entry describes her as "actress and humanitarian" rather than simply "actress". So how does one manage to make a film about her without it simply becoming an exercise in hagiography? Well, truth to tell, this film does not avoid that particular trap altogether. It is, certainly, better than the Cheryl Ladd "Grace Kelly" which resembles nothing so much as a dramatised encyclopedia entry, but then Audrey's life was always more eventful than Grace Kelly's, and certainly more eventful than the bowdlerised version of Grace Kelly's life presented to us in the film. Filmed biographies, however, need dramatic tension if they are to work, just as much as films about wholly fictitious subjects, and that is something in which this film often seems lacking, except perhaps during the wartime scenes. It manages to be informative, but is never very exciting. 5/10

No offense or anything but I'm probably such a big star of the legendary AUdrey Hepburn, I think Jennifer kinda spoiled it. I thought from sideways Jennifer looked a bit like Audrey, but personally, she doesn't have that elegance or grace or beauty Audrey Does. Enough talk to bad acting. The whole movie was OK. The although I think it missed too much, I understood the whole story line. Basically if you watch it, I suggest you do because we all have different view of things and you may like it or maybe not. I would have liked it more if Emma played AUdrey the whole way through because she looked a bit more elegant. I think they rushed at choosing actresses and actors but the effort was quite good. I thought if I made it I would get Sean Hepburn Ferrer to speak in it at the beginning. But over all it was OK.

I was really hoping that my apprehensions of Jennifer Love Hewitt playing this legend would be allayed. But to no avail! As one other IMDb reviewer noted, she seemed to spend more time perfecting Audrey Hepburn's accent than actually getting into her character. I think JLH's interpretation of AH's irrisistibleness is shallow; she simply makes her sweet, and saccharinely so. Everyone adored Audrey in this movie, even before she was a legend. It's as though she is a legend just unto herself, and I doubt the world treated her that way at the start. I think that AH would graciously say that JLH did a fine job, but frankly, I had a hard time watching the entire movie because of its contrived approach. I don't think that Audrey's sons would have put their blessing on this film, but perhaps they did. You can glean some facts from this movie about AH, but I'd trust her son Sean Ferrer's biography more than this from-a-distance point-of-view.