James Hitchcock 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

Dark_liquid I can't say that i'm the greatest Hepburn fan there is, and i'm sure i don't know as many facts about her life as the majority of review authors here, but i sincerely respect and admire her work, charisma and cultural figure. Audrey Hepburn is love at first sight. And as it happens, i saw 'The Audrey Hepburn story' for the first time today. Found it accidentally, while i was searching for something to kill my Saturday morning boredom. At first sight, i was SHOCKED. My brain was processing the name 'Audrey Hepburn' with pleasant feeling, while my eyes were trapped in the greatest of pains by the sight of J.L. Hewitt under that title. ...how could you?!? I usually don't mind seeing J.L.Hewitt on the screen, because her typical roles are shallow and meaningless, and she is just another blurry-whatever-TV face with suspicious amount of talent for me, but she gets some kind of audience anyway, so it's OK. But this was outrageous. She was purely IRRITANT. Even with a good plot, she would have blew it up. The girl simply doesn't fit! Of course, many ingredients are needed in order to make a good movie of any kind, but i believe that even if many of those ingredients are missing, a good lead role can balance the efforts. Audrey Hepburn is magic, aura, energy, charm, beauty, vibration, sunrays, elegance, courage, uniqueness, a feeling of warmth and joy when you see her unforgettable appearance. A reason for pride in all the women in the world. She deserves much, much more. It is as simple as that.

Jae Jennifer Love Hewitt is so God awful in this film that it made me physically ill! People keep telling her that she looks a bit like Audrey Hepburn, but...THAT'S AS FAR AS THE SIMILARITIES GO! This triangle headed actress is a gawky buffoon at best and just watching her perform as Hepburn makes me want to throw things at the screen. She happened to know the right people who needed a tax break by making a bad bad tele 'version' of an extraordinary woman's life. They should be ashamed! The ONLY thing worth watching this film for would be to catch glimpses of the other actors who play the famous people intertwined in Ms. Hepburn's life. The sets were lovely and most of the time you catch yourself paying more attention to the background scenery than to Jennifer Love Hewitt and her toss of a performance! There are scores of other actresses who could have done this film a greater justice, let's hope someone else does!

turboshark I heard of how horrible this made for TV movie was - but of course I was curious. I borrowed it from my local library... and I did not expect it to be THIS bad! I'm a die hard Audrey fan, and even I became bored during most of this film. Audrey Hepburn's life boring? Not at all - but they managed to make it seem so. I was becoming agitated with the way this was edited as well. The story kept switching from during the production of Breakfast At Tiffany's to her early life.Jennifer Love Hewitt was miscast, as her performance as Audrey was insufficient. Audrey's persona is impossible to portray in the first place - but JLH? They could have chosen someone more appropriate for the role. I felt embarrassed for her, seeing her attempting an English accent and failing to capture even an ounce Audrey's spirit or charm. Her rendition of Moon River is okay, but calls for a dub - due to the style of her singing - it lost all fragility. As the movie progressed, I became more annoyed with her and irritable - exactly the opposite of how Audrey makes me feel. And I am clueless on why they chose Eric McCormack to be Mel Ferrer. Frances Fisher actually does resemble Ella Hepburn (Audrey's mother) a bit, and Jennifer Love Hewitt's profile looks similar to Audrey's, but that's all.They make too big of a deal with her relationship with Truman Capote. Yes, it is true that he had Marilyn Monroe in mind for the role of Holly Golightly, but he sent Audrey a letter upon hearing about her being cast - and expressed how pleased he was.Avoid this if you're wanting to know more about Audrey. You're better off reading her biographies (Barry Paris's is a fan favorite) and watching her films. This 'tribute' is appalling, for it makes Audrey seem like a tease and a ditz. It especially angered me how they focused so intently on how Audrey wanted to have children, manipulating it a bit to make it seem like she was heartless about the feelings of the others. The ending is also very unsatisfactory.