She was 25 then and pure sex. She was absolutely gorgeous in this film (and everything else she did). I just finished watching "Sabrina" and fell in love with her. Wow!
shareAudrey hepburn is one of the women that makes me question my heterosexuality....jk.....sort of
"I am not a pollack, people from poland are poles!!!!"
She was very sexy in this film and differently then the other actresses of the 50's, (ex. Marilyn). She was sexy in a "classy" way.
shareInteresting...as much as I have, since I was probably 10 years old, thought that Audrey was the most beautiful woman I had ever seen, I never actually thought of her as "sexy." I guess something about her ethereal beauty must have trumped the sexy card...not to say that a person cannot be sexy and beautiful, like the above-mentioned Marilyn Monroe.
share
That is a very interesting observation (about Audrey being more beautiful than sexy). I never really thought about it until you mentioned it and I agree completely. She is a very beautiful woman, no question, but she isn't sexy. She doesn't exude sexuality like Monroe or other actresses of the time. She reminds me of Katherine Hepburn that way. Very astute and reserved.
A
"...She doesn't exude sexuality like..."
The hell if she don't! -- wtf? Good! Youuuuu keep thinkin' that, buddy, 'bout those sweet - N - quiet ones.
BOING!
Boink, Boink, Boink, Boink!
Beautiful AND sexy, from a guy's opinion.
Trust me, I can tell - this was a sexy woman, maybe not so much in these movies, but certainly in her private life. If you look at some of her pictures, she knew what the guys liked. Those pictures of her wearing nothing but a man's dress shirt are as sexy as it gets, and she knew it.
HAHA !
ar87, you had me laughing like hell for a minute there !
I actually think you're right. There was something about her. While she seemed so very innocent there was something hidden there ;) I think she knew what she was doing.
~Jo
I love Jesus !
Audrey Hepburn <3 You are missed.
Actually, she thought she had zero appeal (she was very wrong) of any kind, physically. Besides, I know she was sexy physically but maybe guize can take their busy little hands out of their pants for a sec to realize that it was how she acted that was actually sexy?
http://www.formspring.me/LaGamine
The dress she wore in the opening scenes (before going to paris and getting the haircut) was amazing. I dont know if it was her that made it look better then it was or if the dress was a good mix. Something about the Black underneath the spotted dress combined with the dark tones of the black and white of her hair, eyes and face that worked fantastically. Am I the only one who thought this?
shareshe is absolutely stunning no doubt. i'm jealous :P
shareGoddess. I fell in love with her. She's so beautiful it practically makes me cry... sort of like young girls cried over the Beatles... that same feeling.
shareIKR?
She was as underrated for being sexy as Marilyn Monroe was overrated for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BtLWZ2PvyE
Audrey is charmingly beautiful, but in a woman-child kind of way that the thought of sex almost doesn't occur to you. She has such an aura of beauty radiating from her - its pure and not exactly erotic. There's something about Audrey Hepburn you can't exactly put your finger on, she's beyond meer words, her looks radiate feelings, (like beautiful art does) but not of the carnal nature (for me anyway).
shareI agree. Its very odd for me to apply the word 'sexy' to her. She is gorgeous though, and carrys herself well.
shareWhile working on Two For the Road, Albert Finney noted that it was hard to concentrate on his work when his costar was someone as sexy as Audrey. Famed designer Cynthia Rowley agrees, noting that "Audrey was the first to make something that's not sexy, sexy, simply by maximizing on her ballerina style." She wasn't the norm of the time. She was a skinny little brunette in a sea of curvy blondes. But there was something absolutely extraordinary about her. Without sex appeal, she certainly wouldn't have been able to pull off the role of Holly Golightly with such panache.
shareI too agree that she was sexy in addition to being beautiful, graceful, stylish and so on. It was just a different type of sex appeal than her contemporaries had. Like Grace Kelly who is smoldering in "Rear Window".
Sexy nowadays seems to mean trashy stripper style (it's almost an insult now sadly enough), but with the women of Golden Era Hollywood a man didn't have to be embarrassed to be seen in public with them.
And yes, I'm sure she knew exactly what powers she had.
Jessica Rabbit
"I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."
Not all of the blondes were curvy. But all of the curvy ones were skinny. Skinny is a size; curvy is a shape. In some of her photes, Audrey's hips look a bit curvy and her legs dfinitely were. Bit I agree 100%.
shareAudrey @ Age 25 was a knockout. Pure Beauty.
None like her.
-- 'you're a good man, sister.' Humphrey Bogart
I think she is absolutely incredible also, nobody could or can compare.
The only thing is I don't think she was in the best movies. This is the best one I've seen that she's is, somewhat disappointed by others.
"The only thing is I don't think she was in the best movies."
I wouldn't say that. Roman Holiday is wonderful, I also love Unforgiven, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Charade and of course My Fair Lady. I've also always liked War and Peace though there is a lot that can be said against the film.
Of course there were a few clunkers like Green Mansions and Paris When It Sizzles, but we'll just forgive her for it.
Jessica Rabbit
"I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."
Although Audrey is not one of my favorite Hollywood beauties, there was definitely something so striking about her looks.
In this film, I couldn't stop looking at the amazing pair of legs she had.
Listen man. Don't worry about my green funk.
Great legs but surprisingly big feet for her size. They are not large in comparison to other people but I expected smaller feet on her for some reason.
"Kiss my Converse!" -Sho'nuff: The Shogun of Harlem.
Limbs are proportionate to each other, therefore long legs = long feet, short feet = short legs.
shareYeah -- that's really not true. My father was 6'4", with long legs. He wore a size 10 1/2 shoe. So, no. I dispute your assertion.
###
I have a cousin who is 6'4" with a size 10 feet, just because you're tall, doesn't mean you have long limbs.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel
I will never be tired of Audrey Hepburn... The true goddess.
share