oOoBarracuda I didn't know a film could be this bad and also star Fred Astaire, I truly didn't think it was possible. As I've written about before, I am not a fan of Audrey Hepburn's. I'm more than not a fan of Audrey Hepburn's, actually, I don't like her at all. But I recently found out that I am in love with Fred Astaire, so I really thought this venture would work out--it didn't. Similarly, my love for Gregory Peck wasn't enough to yield an enjoyable experience from Roman Holiday. I've settled after this viewing that no matter how much I like her co-stars, I will never enjoy a film with Audrey Hepburn. Stanley Donen, who I will forever love for directing the wonderful Gene Wilder in The Little Prince, was behind Funny Face released in 1957. The film centers around a gorgeous Fred Astaire who works as a photographer for a fashion magazine who discovers a bookworm and is sanctioned to turn her into the next "it girl". I don't know how Audrey Hepburn films landed co-stars, as the camera is constantly on her throughout nearly the entire running time. They wouldn't even show me Fred Astaire long enough for him to salvage this viewing for me. What a disappointment.Dick Avery (Fred Astaire) a fashion photographer needing a change of scenery for a shoot he's working on, takes his models to a bookstore in hopes of passing them off as intellectuals. Filing into the bookstore without permission, they are interrupted by the mousy clerk, Jo Stockton (Audrey Hepburn) who would much rather they all leave. After a bit of back and forth with Avery, she "allows" them to stay while she waits outside for the photo shoot to finish. When she re-enters the bookstore she finds it in complete shambles, broken hearted that the most important things in the world-books- could be treated with such disrespect by a shallow group of models. While offering to help her clean, Avery sneaks in a picture of her and a kiss before he is curtly brushed out of the store by Jo. Upon developing the shots from the day, Dick realizes that Jo has a unique look and wants to photograph her again. Once he shows his photos to Maggie Prescott (Kay Thompson) she is eager to offer Jo a modeling contract. Jo is an intellectual, however, and is reluctant to be just another pretty face. The more time spent with her dashing photographer, however, brings a softness to Jo towards the job and her life.I really wanted to have an "Audrey who?" attitude toward this film; I thought my focus would be so strong on Astaire that I wouldn't notice her, little did I know that wouldn't be possible. The brief moments Astaire was on screen had me wondering through the first half of the film if he was going to even dance at all. Then, I was horrified to finally see him dance, but with Audrey Hepburn. Of course, I knew their characters were going to dance together at some point through the course of the film, but I didn't expect it to look like that. There was no chemistry between them, and I'm not sure there could ever be chemistry between her and anyone Audrey Hepburn would be paired with. She had no talent for movement whatsoever, and I only wish more work would have been put into her dancing so that when Fred was dancing I could have enjoyed it more. Luckily he had some (too brief) solo dance performances I could use to get my fix. This movie is just a whole lot of not for me, even though Fred looks incredible even saturated in red light. Again I ask the question, who is going to turn down a kiss from Fred Astaire?!?

grantss I am a fan of Audrey Hepburn, but generally hate musicals (though there are a few exceptions - The Sound of Music, Across the Universe, amongst others), so this was always going to be interesting. Turns out even Audrey Hepburn can't overcome a lame plot, dull music, unimaginative direction and a unconvincing and wooden leading actor. More than boring, this film is irritating. The campy pretentiousness of the setting, the irritating fashion people, the songs which hardly have a tune. It all just seems so contrived and lame.Worst of all, Audrey Hepburn gets made to look bad thanks to the movie. Her character is overly nerdy, and the songs just don't suit her.A very bitter disappointment.

Valentin Alexiss This is a dreadful mix of a few good things at the start... and lot of bad things, mostly unprofessional dancing and music... It's starts with a serious critical eye, kind of inside look on a girl magazine military like management... and forgets this interesting subject for a young girl that has to love pink and an old man (Fred Aster) who looks like a hobby photographer... and clearly, that's where the project looses its credibility... From time to time, u can admire some good cinema skills (the Paris arrival) but, then the thing goes mad.It's unbelievable serious people put money in this project. But, as u think it was even selected at 1958 Cannes festival, u get that these irresponsible people were certainly important too, as important and respectful as a wealthy American film producer can be(at that time).This is a bad, disloyal film that completely misses it's goal. I could not go without zapping this thing through all its second part and more. Too bad for Audrey Hepburn...

dglink Splashy colors, Paris locations, Fred Astaire's dancing, Audrey Hepburn's pixie-ish charm, Stanley Donen's direction, and George Gershwin's music should have melded into an enduring musical classic in 1957's "Funny Face." However, the talented individuals involved produced a dated, clumsy film with but a few bright moments. Poor tweedy philosophizing shop girl is transformed into an elegant stylish fashion model, a "My Fair Lady" wannabe. While Audrey Hepburn is never convincing as a mousy clerk garbed in shades of drab, she comes alive in designer clothes, and, quicker than you can say "Givenchy," the character swaps her principles for a haircut and makeover, a walk down the runway, and a trip to Paris. Hepburn was often paired with older men in her films; however, Cary Grant, William Holden, and Gary Cooper had enough masculine sex appeal to be convincing love interest for a young woman. Fred Astaire, however, was never romantic material, even for those of his own age. In "Funny Face," Astaire in his late 50's is about 20 years older than Hepburn and looks it; oddly, neither the age difference nor Astaire's reason for advanced bachelorhood is ever remarked upon or mentioned in the script.Leonard Gershe's screenplay for "Funny Face" is planted firmly in the Eisenhower 1950's. Astaire's chauvinistic attitude, "the man asks the woman to dance," is archaic and would have been poison to a free-thinking young woman like Hepburn's Jo Stockton. Kay Thompson's magazine editor is a post-World War II stereotype of the working woman: unmarried, hard, bossy, mannish, and abrasive. Only in mid-20th-century America would a harem of lemming-like "yes-women" blindly follow Thompson and mindlessly praise her every mundane uttering. Further undermining the film's credibility, the supposed pictorial output of Dick Avery, a successful fashion photographer, and Maggie Prescott, editor of "Quality" magazine, is limp at best; Avery's photos are mediocre, and Prescott's earth-shattering idea is "think pink." As always, Fred Astaire's dancing is worth watching, and, although her singing is more flat than melodic and her dancing mixed, Hepburn is always a winning charmer. However, under Donen's direction, the film does not soar, but rather lumbers from clumsy number to embarrassing parody; bearded beatniks, soul-searching laments, Parisian dives, empathetic philosophers, and even fashion magazines seem so last century. "Funny Face" may be worth a view as a mid-20th-century curiosity piece, but otherwise the film is most suitable as source material to excerpt scenes for documentaries on Astaire and Hepburn. Most viewers will have to think pink to plod through "Funny Face."