Love in the Afternoon

Maurice Chevalier as the father has some good moments, but Gary Cooper is terribly miscast (and far too old). Who decided this story was romantic? Elderly lechers at the movie studio?! Yeesh. One of those films that made me root for the main characters to stay far, far away from each other.

A film existing in fantasyland. Gary Cooper, looking every year (and even more) of being in his late-50s, is somehow the object of desire for the young Hepburn. Even if you can get past that, the film just plods along. Perhaps it should be called "Nap in the Afternoon".

"Fascinating"... A relaxing and lovely movie. And Audrey just great as she usually was...

For WIlder this is only "good". I especially didn't like the ending, but loved the Gypsy band.

interestingly enough for a wilder/diamond collaboration this is about a flat as it gets. i liked hepburn and cooper, but there was no magic, which is something i've come to expect from wilder.

Poignant story can't overcome the great age gap between Cooper and Hepburn.

She sure got the scoop on Coop!

Lesser Billy Wilder is still good

As the music student with daddy (more like granddaddy) issues, Audrey Hepburn's charm is misused--even wasted. Gary Cooper, as Pauline Kael wrote, looks "as if he knows how unappealing he is in the role." Kael, again: "It's all meant to be airy and bubbly, but it's obvious, overextended (2 hours plus), and overproduced." And that's about the kindest way to put it....there's practically a groan a minute. It was likely quite daringly frank for its time, but now its mostly just painful.

Couldn't make it past half-way, after checking synopses to make sure something wouldn't get redeemed. Cooper's character is a playboy slime-ball and the film doesn't hide the broken lives he's left behind. Apparently, Hepburn wants some of that, and love blooms. Garbage. Besides, this isn't one of the roles that elderly Cooper can pull off and there's no chemistry. At least Audrey is cute.

A tale told with charming humour, but by ye gods! Do I hate the "doe-eyed coming of age-lass falling head-over-heels into a manic ( dare I say perverted?) obsession with an arthritic lecher and setting the world in motion to manipulate her surroundings into, magically, transforming him into her knight in shining armor"-schtick. Does this girl have neither decency nor self-respect?

79.500

Mostly drops its best character after the opening 10 minutes. The rest of the film revolves around a romance that doesn't work at all. She only "loves" him because he's the first worldly man she comes in contact her. He "loves" her by being crazy jealous. Cooper sleepwalks through the role and is nowhere near as charming as he needs to be. At least Chevalier is great.

Playful, whimsical, romantic, all that jazz. It's a romantic comedy by Billy Wilder, what else would you expect? The script is a lot of fun, Hepburn and Cooper are completely charming, the photography is graceful and wonderfully captures the romantic atmosphere of the film. If I had a major complaint to make, though, this movie is too damn long.

The innuendo here is hardly innuendo at all, and even more surprising than a willingness to directly engage sexual politics in 1957 is the guts to subvert them. The butt of the joke is the womanizing Cooper character, his infantile male gaze, and the discrepancy between acceptable masculine and feminine sexual expression. Wilder seemed in touch or ahead of changing attitudes, further affirmed by a few of his subsequent films: Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, Irma la Douce, and Kiss Me, Stupid.

I'd give the movie a few more points if they hadn't kept smacking the little dog as a gag.

The morals of this film are highly questionable by modern standards and trying to build a movie on the romantic tension between Audrey Hepburn and an elderly Gary Cooper was utterly misguided, but thanks to the strengths of the individual performers and Wilder as a director this movie is still entertaining to watch.

Come for Audrey, stay for the gypsies, ignore geriatric Gary Cooper if you can...

Good but flawed film that would be among the best for many directors but is only a minor Wilder. The 2 main issues are the length (middle should have been tightened) and that the relationship with Hepburn and a poorly cast Cooper (both doing the best they can to make it work) just isn't credible. Hepburn was no stranger to age differences, but Cooper's 55 and could pass for 75. That, and the fact he's a prolific womanizer, made her love a mystery. Could have been great with a different male lead

Over sentimental and weak.

The ending is a bit underwhelming.

The craftsmanship and Audrey Hepburn are solid gold but everything else is questionable at best. Who thought it was a good idea to pair a naive young girl with a hedonistic cradle robber with one foot already in the grave and call it a romance?

Rohmer examines the emotional complexity of the situation with great care, never letting the film descend into any sort of exploitation. Nor does it go off in typical, expected directions. He's occasionally playful in the structure of his storytelling, such as a sequence in which the main character slips into unfussy fantasy to approach a multitude of women on the street. Even when playing with the boundaries of his fiction, Rohmer always adheres to sound emotional truths.

Raunchy, yet innocent little film about a young girl who corners a play boy and sleeps with him every afternoon! Like I said, raunchy little film for 1957! Audrey was extremely beautiful in this film.

Wilder's Belle de Jour. Bad copy of The Divorce of Lady X. Even Audrey can be a slut. When Wilder gone bad, he really sux.