To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I adore Audrey Hepburn and Maurice Chevalier and even Gary Cooper in the right role. Cooper was such a dud in this. I kept imagining how good it could have been with William Holden as the love interest. And I felt sick every time (again and again) Billy Wilder thought it would be funny to have a scene where a dumb twit hits a little dog.The father/daughter relationship was adorable. Hepburn was wonderful, as always. I was quite disappointed by the love story.

The cinema language is indeed a product of its times. And, just like some things weather out thousands of years barely changing and some flex and bend every now and then, so do the aspects of how movies tell their stories. The stories that remain clear and true through the decades we call classic, while some once-actual films look as if the only place they belong to today is some dusty shelf in a museum. And Love in the Afternoon seems like the latter type, no matter how I had wished it to be otherwise.I'll be honest, I quit watching this film halfway through - because of its total ugliness. No, not because it was black-and-white and with a "mere" stereo - the technical aspects hardly bothered me. It's the language the film used that was absolutely unbearable. The language of telling the love stories.Can't say it's totally this film's fault. I've seen other films from that era, for instance, My Fair Lady also featuring Audrey Hepburn. And all the films of that time are ugly when it comes to the portrayal of the interaction of two sexes. Women are always dumb as a door knob, easily falling for the most ridiculously rude men, while men are either ridiculously rude and abusive (and proud of it of course) or ridiculously weak and thoughtless. Either way, a man is always the boss while a woman is always to follow and to adapt.Yet at least My Fair Lady had a certain competition between the gender archetypes, with the woman not brilliant but at least streetwise and boisterous, and with the man conceited but also ridiculed for that. That allowed for a much more realistic composition, resulting in the story that stands relevant till the days of now. On the other hand, Love in the Afternoon looks like a classic 50's flick where women still have no right to have brains or dream of anything but some guy. What makes it even worse is that here Hepburn is just 28 and her heroine seemingly even younger, but the film postulates as her love idol a totally narcissist jackass pushing 60, and that jackass being Gary Cooper doesn't help a bit. The man is, by the film's own decree, utterly no good, yet he seems to skim all the cream off the life and what it can offer, women included.I have no idea if that abhorrent premise is to be reversed in the second act of the film. If it is, well, maybe my rating should go one or two points up. However, from what I've seen, it seemed that the only direction this film could go is to legitimize that no-good person yet again. Which might even have some outer gloss, Audrey Hepburn being cute and all, but an absolute absence of any balance between the gender roles and a total predictability of the characters turn Love in the Afternoon from a romantic flick it once was into a travesty and a caricature of the topic. Maybe this is how the guys and girls were supposed to act back then, but nowadays the only way one can view this film is as an educational material on who NOT to be and how NOT to behave. Both in the afternoon and in any other time of day.

This film by Billy Wilder features beautiful B&W photography. Gary Cooper stars as a supposedly smooth womanizer (Frank Flannagan) who cares little for the women he beds. Audrey Hepburn plays a younger woman (Ariane Chavasse) who is intrigued by his intrigues and becomes personally involved.Shot in France, the film conveys a cosmopolitan air that almost sells the idea that these two might connect emotionally. But Cooper is not smooth enough to pull if off (no surprise) and the relationship between the two does not convince. It's not an issue of age; it's about chemistry and personality. Bogart in "Sabrina" offered the same problem, though less so. As an example of another pairing that worked well despite a sizable age difference, consider Stewart and Kelly in "Rear Window".Frankly, I'm surprised that such obviously poor pairings plague numerous films, but apparently some believe that box office draws can overcome such issues.

I agree with most of the IMDb reviewers in their appreciation for "Love in the Afternoon." It is a charming love story, made especially touching by the beautiful performance of Audrey Hepburn. A fine actress throughout her career, Hepburn's golden age was clearly the 1950s when her youthful innocence and eager, expectant face made the vulnerability of her characters seem entirely believable and very sympathetic. Having the aging Maurice Chevalier as her father in "Love in the Afternoon" was an inspired bit of casting, and the two of them seemed to fit perfectly as father and daughter.But, of the major actors of the late fifties, Gary Cooper was probably the worst possible choice to play the young Hepburn's first great love, Mr. Flannagan. It is not so much that Cooper was too old a man to be the love interest of Hepburn's character, Ariane, although Cooper certainly looked very old and tired in the movie. Because Ariane is shown to be both innocent and impressionable, one could imagine her falling in love with an older and more sophisticated gentleman. In the movie "Funny Face," Hepburn plays a character like Ariane who falls in love with the equally aged Fred Astaire, and that relationship seems quite believable.The problem with casting Cooper in "Love in the Afternoon" is that Mr. Flannagan is supposed to be a rather heartless, love-'em-and-leave-'em kind of guy, while Cooper's entire career in later life was devoted to playing honest, honorable, loyal men of strong and unshakable convictions. Perhaps the definitive Cooper role in the 1950s was the sheriff in "High Noon." To have him play an aging, indifferent roué was an almost absurd bit of miscasting which, for me, did not seem believable for a minute."Love in the Afternoon" is a beautiful love story – often touching and, thanks to the gypsies, sometimes very funny. What a shame that Cary Grant, Tyrone Power, and Fred Astaire himself were not available to play the movie's leading man.