This movie has considerable merit, but it also contains some errors that are hard to overlook. I’d heard a great deal about this film before I finally decided to watch it. Many consider it one of the greatest musicals ever made, and I can agree that it's genuinely very good and deserving of recognition. Still, it didn't completely win me over, which I'll explain further. Drawing heavily from the classic story of Pygmalion, the screenplay transports us to the early 20th century to meet a boastful linguist named Prof. Henry Higgins. He’s an expert in languages and pronunciation, firmly believing that most British people don’t speak their language correctly (I wonder if any country has so many people who truly value their native tongue). To demonstrate the importance of his field, he decides to take a simple flower seller, Eliza, into his home and train her as though she were an animal. By the end of this process, he effectively transforms her, not only in terms of speech and behavior but also in her mindset and expectations for life. This leads me to what bothered me most: the way that irritating and presumptuous character uses another person for his own purposes without consideration. Higgins is selfish and self-centered, as well as clearly displaying misogynistic tendencies and believing he can mold people to fit his desires. Furthermore, the script blurs the lines between speaking eloquently and behaving appropriately in society. I might be able to speak my language perfectly while still being ignorant of proper etiquette at a formal event; they are distinct things. This point is touched on during the Ascott scenes, but we’re left wondering how Eliza learned social graces afterward. Technically, the film is remarkable. It aims to adapt a Broadway musical, yet also draws inspiration from an older movie from the 1930s. Consequently, it features excellent melodies and songs, just like the original musical. Unfortunately, the actors barely sing; professionals recorded their vocals off-screen, a questionable decision that reportedly upset Audrey Hepburn herself. Another issue is the inconsistent sense of time period: while the film takes place in 1911 or 1912, there are props from later years and a moment where the reigning English monarch isn’t actually who should be on the throne. The film largely compensates for these flaws with superb cinematography—beautifully framed and bright, full of vivid colors (I saw the restored version)—and incredible costumes, especially those made for Hepburn, some of which are now in private collections and museums; I recall one of her outfits being auctioned off for a substantial sum a few years ago. The cast includes several well-known actors. Audrey Hepburn brilliantly portrays Eliza, a role previously played by Julie Andrews on Broadway, using this opportunity to clearly showcase her talent. However, I feel the film doesn’t fully utilize her potential and doesn't give her enough room to truly shine. Despite these limitations, Hepburn does what she can, though fans will likely see her at her best in other films. Rex Harrison dominates the screen; the actor exudes talent and seems ideally suited for the character he had previously played on Broadway for a few years. We also shouldn’t forget the contributions of Stanley Holloway and Jeremy Brett, who do good work with characters that aren't as developed.

Source on TMDB