Sabrina

♡

source: Sabrina

Mediocre is the word that can describe the film. Humphrey Bogart looks truly "exhausted" in the film, and Audrey Hepburn, on the contrary, looks too calm. She behaved just the same before and after her training of how to be a sophisticated lady in Paris. Is there any difference that has been performed by Audrey Hepburn that is supposed to be found between a girl of a humble beginning and a lady that has been influenced by the romance of Paris? There should be, but I could not sense that from the unchanged, undisturbed peaceful look of Audrey Hepburn. Worse is that, this so-called "consistent" look makes Humphrey Bogart quite a stupid old guy who seemed to be waiting for a crush over a young lady... Humphrey Bogart is an actor that is charming when he doesn't mean to. A review of his works might tell us one thing: clever talks and deliberate witty responses didn't give him an Academy Award. But a tough while tender "man" in "The African Queen" gave him that. Why? Because he was tortured by the nature, and no so-called acquired sense of humor that disguises a lonely heart could be found anymore, and till then a real man as well as "actor of the actor" is therefore reborn. I can't agree more with the Academy that they didn't give him the award until he showed what a man really is, definitely not an old rich guy getting on with a romance with a lady whose facial expression doesn't mind a slight change no matter who she's playing! Every one loves Audrey Hepburn. False! Me, at least, feel nothing for her. She was adored by people throughout her life because she had something that a lot of women craved for, especially the so-called elegance and the way she delivered it. Yet, a true movie fan with critical eyes and skeptical thinking will question her position given by the history. Wasn't it a mistake? Katherine Hepburn, Betty Davis, Sophia Loren, and even Vivien Leigh truly truly did a far better job, but they were not so much loved by the audience. Why? Because they were too good to be appreciated... A film critic shall be fair and objective and this is the only thing that I hope for the people who read and is going to read my comment on the movie "Sabrina", an overrated romance full of clichés.

'Sabrina' looks at first glance to be one of those rags to riches tales, as Audrey Hepburn's chauffeur's daughter takes herself to Paris and comes back a sophisticated young lady. However, she isn't the one who undergoes the most striking transformation in this charming romantic comedy. William Holden plays the playboy son of the house (and he could probably have done this kind of role in his sleep) while Humphrey Bogart of all people plays his crusty business-focused older brother. Bogart is surprisingly good in this in a rare foray into comedy. Hepburn of course is just luminous. John Williams, as Hepburn's deadpan snobby chauffeur father is good fun, as is Ellen Corby (grandma from 'The Waltons') as Bogart's secretary. And how nice to see 1910s movie idol Francis X Bushman in one of his later character roles (as the father of Holden's intended). This Billy Wilder movie compares well with his more cited titles such as 'The Seven-Year Itch', 'Some Like It Hot', 'Sunset Blvd.', and 'The Lost Weekend'. It is also much better than the remake with Harrison Ford which limped out in recent years.

I think I finally turned the corner on this thing called "mass entertainment." Any movie that doesn't aim higher than being M.E., just is not going to cut it for me. 'Sabrina' is mass entertainment. If you never find anything questionable while you watch movies, you'll like this. 'Sabrina' is a viewpoint-shifting mess. By the time it's over we've seen her situation from three different angles, to no discernible benefit; it doesn't feel intentional. The trio of leading characters are all wanting. In a fair number of remarks, Linus (Bogart), a stuffed shirt, obviously thinks Sabrina is pretty dumb. His remarks are the kind a snob makes. It doesn't matter that Sabrina doesn't notice. She's got problems too. She's convinced she wants the movies 'idiot' for most of show. In many, many scenes, Hepburn is just an irritating, girly princess. Hepburn was blessed with astonishing looks but that's not enough, and in about half her movies she's downright petulant and annoying. And the way directors play up her little girlishness is pretty creepy. Bogart looks rather good for someone who's going to die in three years. He looks too old for Hepburn, but he doesn't really look old, per se.

All I can say is Audrey Hepburn was the most attractive actress that I've ever seen, and she certainly proves this in this movie.Even in the beginning of Sabrina,Hepburn's voice-over instantly draws your attention to this attractive,well mannered actress.Then when you see Audrey for the first time,it is love at first sight-what a beautiful lady she was!Billy Wilder gets a thumbs up for selecting Hepburn as Sabrina-you could say that Hepburn was Sabrina.She had that unusual charm and magical beauty that very few actresses have(even today).If you get this movie,you'll fall in love with Audrey-just like I have.If you compare this movie to the 1995 remake,this movie wins hands down.Sadly,they don't make movies like this anymore.Am I an Audrey Hepburn fan?Of course I am! I always have been and I always will be.

Sabrina is a movie that was made for Audrey Hepburn. She is simply charming as the title character. The story is Cinderella like in that Sabrina, a chauffeur's daughter with a crush on the playboy son of her father's employer, goes to Paris and returns as a mature sophisticated lady who charms everyone she meets. The picture is enhanced by the direction of Billy Wilder and the casting of Humphrey Bogart and William Holden (Why did they make him blond?)as the Larabee brothers who vie for Miss Hepburn's affections. But the film is clearly Miss Hepburn's and one can see why she was one of the most beloved actresses of her time. Watch Sabrina and you too will fall in love with her. A marvelous film.

As a fan of Billy Wilder, old movies and this trio of stars, I was looking forward to this. But I feel it's a bit of a letdown. Audrey Hepburn, as usual, is luminous (and she is, as usual, paired off with a suitor far too old for her). But part of the problem is what the story does with her character. She pines away for Holden, and then goes away to cooking school in Paris. Why does she go? Did she want to go? Unknown. While away, she writes her father a letter saying she is over Holden. But then, when she returns, she (in a rather absurd coincidence) runs into him at the train station. The two connect. So she wasn't over him after all? Or was she over him, but then fell back in love when she saw him? What was her plan if she hadn't coincidentally run into him? Who knows? Later, Bogart and Holden sort out which of them gets to "have" her, which is rather sexist and also robs her of her agency. (Surely a charming girl like that must have other options besides a buffoon and an old man.) Holden hasn't been given much of a character to play. He's all charm and nothing else. The script never rounds him out with grace notes that might have helped us to understand why he lives such a vacuous life. As an actor, Holden has consistently shown an ability to locate the darkness buried inside his characters, but he never seems to tap into that quality here. (It might have been interesting if Hepburn, during the course of dating Holden finally realized what a shallow loser he is and dumped him. And then maybe Holden, in turn is forced to reexamine his life. But the story never explores that darker, more interesting possibility. Instead, Hepburn is a pawn in the men's games.) As for Bogart, he was, of course, one of our great stars and did amazing work in dramas and crime stories. But in a light romantic comedy like this, he's very much out of his element, like Holden is. (Bogart took the role after Cary Grant turned it down.) Bogart manages to capture the cold sourness of his character just fine, but he never locates the man's gradual transformation into a guy in love. He never seems interested in Hepburn at all, which is oddly something of an accomplishment, given how beautiful Hepburn is. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that Bogart is too old, unattractive and emotionally cold for Hepburn to ever give him the time of day. When these two would-be lovers are reunited at the very end of the film, they hug rather than kiss. It's as if the filmmakers are acknowledging the absurdity of that these two might actually be right for each other. Or perhaps they know that there's something rather gross about the fifty-ish Bogart kissing the twenty-ish Hepburn.

It seems to be not just stating but over stating the obvious to say yet again that Billy Wilder was a writing-directing genius, that Audrey Hepburn was not only drop-dead gorgeous but also a gifted actress, that Bogie and Bill Holden were consummate professionals who were virtually strangers to bad performances but I'm being constantly reminded that there are people reading these Boards whose parents may not have been born in the era when Sabrina was made and I guess you could argue that those of us a tad longer in the tooth have some kind of moral obligation to discuss artistes whose work is now becoming available on DVD in an effort to help them distinguish the wheat from the chaff. Virtually all the books about Wilder - and possibly Hepburn and Bogie as well - mention the tension on the set between lone wolf Bogie and cosy threesome Wilder, Holden and Hepburn and the amazing thing is that this doesn't show on screen. Wilder makes a big thing out of the fact that the 'Baron' - an outstanding cameo by Marcel Dalio - is making souffles at Hepburns Cooking School in Paris as if to reinforce what he (Wilder) himself is doing from beginning to end in this delightful confection. Everyone was on top of their game and boy, does it show. This is one of those films that no one should even DREAM of remaking because that's like trying to reconstitute as an adult a snowflake that enchanted you as a child. Untouchable, unmissable. As another poster said, this is why we go to the movies, for moments like this. Magic.

Sabrina would probably have gotten several stars higher on the list had Billy Wilder gotten Cary Grant who he originally wanted to play the part of Linus Larrabee. Grant was originally supposed to play the role, but according to a recent biography of Wilder, dropped out at the last minute. Wilder went scrambling for a replacement and got Humphrey Bogart instead. He also would have preferred to work with Joseph Cotten who played the part on Broadway, but Paramount said he wasn't a big enough movie name for equal billing with Bill Holden and Audrey Hepburn. In fact Cary Grant was asked and didn't do three Wilder films, this one, Five Graves to Cairo and Love in the Afternoon. Eventually though he did wind up working with Audrey in Charade. Bogey was miscast and he knew it. He also knew that this was Hepburn's film and it was Holden's studio. For whatever reason he was reportedly surly and obnoxious on the set. He's got no spark whatsoever in his performance as Linus. But Hepburn has the spark as does Holden. They were having an affair on set so Sabrina's crush on Holden rings true. Very simply Audrey is the daughter of John Williams, the chauffeur on the Larrabee estate in Long Island. Walter Hampden's the head of the clan and he's got two sons. Sober and industrious Humphrey Bogart and playboy William Holden. Gawky teenager Audrey is crushing out on Holden. Williams decides to send her to Paris and cooking school where she matures. So much so, she catches the eye of both Larrabee boys. Who will she end up with? Fortunately for Bogart he got an Oscar nomination for The Caine Mutiny in the same year so Sabrina didn't do him any harm. Audrey's fans will adore her in this part. Bogey's fans should skip this one.