Breakfast at Tiffany's vs. Roman Holiday



I know people adore Breakfast at Tiffany's. It's shot beautifully in color. But Roman Holiday works better as a film. It's tight and heart-wrenching. And there's no Mickey Rooney.

Being a huge Audrey Hepburn fan these are two of my favourite films. Although Roman Holiday is a better film I prefer Breakfast at Tiffany's because it has such as signature charm that makes it magic.

Roman Holiday worked much better for me. Mickey Rooney is ridiculous in Breakfast at Tiffany's.

Roman holiday is less racially offensive towards Asians. Although I love both. I've recently become an enormous Audrey Hepburn fan. Roman Holiday gets a slight edge for not having a racist character.

Eh, I thought Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's was funny enough, but he did seem rather out of place in the film. Overall, it's a pretty forgettable movie. Roman Holiday features the better Audrey Hepburn performance, so I'll give it the edge in this matchup.

I'm changing my answer to Breakfast at Tiffany's.

Hepburn is wonderful in both of these movies, of course -- so fresh and natural in Holiday, so stylish and complex in Tiffany's (although I did think there were one or two places in the latter when she went a bit OTT). But God, couldn't they have paired her with actors as lively and charming as herself? George Peppard has some really great moments in Tiffany's (especially his last speech), and he does convince as a kind of generic leading man, but NOT as a gigilo. If he had been able to bring across all the different facets of the character as written, Paul might have been as interesting onscreen as Holly. As for Gregory Peck, I love him to death in other things, but he just doesn't cut it as a romantic comedy lead. Wyler's direction is certainly a lot more assured than Blake's, and more consistent in tone, but ever since I spotted the parallels between Roman Holiday and It Happened One Night I've just thought that Holiday is lacking in comparison--and honestly, for all of its charm, it does get a bit boring at times. Breakfast at Tiffany's has many more flaws, starting with the horrific Mickey Rooney performance, but having just seen it for the first time I kind of feel like its flaws make it more interesting than Roman Holiday--and I would certainly argue that its high points are higher than Hepburn's debut film's. For now, RH as the safe choice and the more "perfect" film -- but in time I can definitely see my answer changing to BaT.

Roman Holiday. I despise Hepburn's character in Tiffany's...

Breakfast is cool and sophisticated, but Hepburn's freshness and naivete make Roman Holiday the more attractive film.

Breakfast at Tiffany's is pretty good, but the story doesn't feel as fresh or as intriguing as Roman Holiday. I even like all of the Blake Edwards other films with Peter Sellers like the Pink Panther series much more over BaT, so this is pretty easy. I wasn't offended by Mickey Rooney's character, but I found him pretty much pointless.

There are a lot of things I dig about Breakfast at Tiffany's--the style, that party, shoplifting, Moon River, Cat, and the few moments when Audrey gets to crack and drop her party girl facade. But to watch Roman Holiday is to fall in love all over again. It's a magical delight from start to finish, and my highest ranked of her filmography.