Movies-TV

Stiffled Characters

Overall quite an impressive film. There were a few problems which persisted throughout this film that really, well, bluntly, bugged me. The characters were very cold, the dialogue was spoken with indifference. Don't know if that's what they were going for but just didn't work for me.

Another thing: the dialogue itself. Just about every 15 minutes, person #1 would ask person #2 a question, person #2 would repeat the question's last word as a question.

FOR EXAMPLE:

Person #1-"What about the patent?"

Person #2-"Patent?"

That grilled me to no end; this type of speech would occur much too frequently throughout the film, and just about every character did this. In contrast, however, the music was perfectly fitting with the scenes and the settings were gorgeous, really brought out the time period. Great film and all, but I wouldn't buy a copy for myself.

Beautiful journey to a past age...

Beautifully directed, "Age of Innoncence" transports me every time I see it. The opening - from the daisies in Faust to the beautiful photography of the drawing rooms and ballroom - moves me every time: the very first time I saw this movie I knew it was a masterpiece. The music, the editing, the interesting audio choices (as when the backround noise in the theatres fade or disappear completely during the private conversations) are effective. And the sexual tension you can cut with a knife...Joanne Woodward's naration, just like Wharton herself, provides the perfect guide to the underlying workings of her society. It is also impressive how closely the movie follows the novel - even some of the smallest details are included. A beautiful work with outstanding performances by the three leads - they're also very pleasing to look at! Also, catch Martin Scorsese himself in a "cameo" as the photographer of May's wedding portrait.

Beautiful

The Age of Innocence is an incredible film. It's gorgeously made and has a wonderful score. Daniel Day-Lewis is, as always, great, and the rest of the cast does quite well, too. But I think what I like most about the film (maybe because the other reviews got me thinking about it) is the narrator. When I saw it a second time, 5 years after its release, I found it more deeply stirring than I remembered, mainly because the narrator gives the audience such a profound insight into Newland's psychology, which many books-turned-movies can lose. If you don't feel like you're being led by the hand, the narration will make the film a very personal and moving experience for you.

Stifling Society Produces Pain

I disagree with viewers who say that this is a story about a man who is forced to choose between infatuation and stable love; it is in fact about a man who is forced to choose between love and society. Actually, I believe the catchcry was something like: "What if the thing you desire most is the one thing you cannot have? Which would you betray - your whole world, or your heart?" This sums it up perfectly. The film perfectly conveys the emotions and characteristics of each of the main characters - chiefly Newland's angst, May's subtle cunning, and Ellen's innocence and pain. The scenes are beautiful, the camera work amazing, and the narrator slightly irritating, I'm afraid. It was a little too excessive - do we really need THAT much explanation? It was, however, useful in explaining little things we would not be able to understand, like how the men had to change gloves before dancing with different partners at balls (so we're told as Newland deliberates over a table of pristine white gloves). The only other negative thing I can think of is that the ballroom scene (where a ball is held to welcome Countess Olenska) made me feel slightly nauseous (the camera revolves around the room in swooping circles, seemingly for minutes). I found that this negative effect was not replicated on the small screen, however. As for the acting, it's perfect - actually, this was probably Michelle Pfeifer's best performance - I wouldn't have believed her capable of such brilliance. Daniel-Day Llewis is suitably English, reserved, and introspective; Winona Ryder is perfect as "innocent", boring, bitchy May. And the soundtrack is beautiful. See it.

A piece of art

What a masterpiece! What a pleasure for the eyes, ears, mind and soul! From the moment the rose starts to unveil and unveil, I entered an enchanted world and was transported to a new reality. And the reality that Martin Scorsese creates here is so compelling it is difficult to return to your everyday one. I cannot think of a more perfect way to bring forward the exquisite beauty of Edith Wharton's language than through the voice of this narrator. The story and the voice are one, powerful and tempered, an upscale and well behaved account, but with the incredible fine inflections that hint only of deeper meanings, of compromising secrets, of high society gossips. It is a love story with no sexual scenes, but in which the tension builds up unbearably high. I enjoyed most of all the sense of detail, the perfection of the scenes, each and every one a piece of art. Daniel Day-Lewis is a great actor, he created a perfect Newland Archer, a complex and tormented character. I am really grateful to Martin Scorsese for this movie I think about with the deep emotion reserved for beautiful music or a few poems.

Its OK

This film was good to an extent. The acting and the directing was good though. The film was just boring at some parts. I believe they draged it out alot. I wouldn't buy it. I would only rent it.

It grows on you.........

The first time I watched this film I thougt it was a thrilling bore and could barely bring myself to pay attention to the story.But as I wisely decided to give the film another few chances I am captivated by the beauty and flawlessness of this film.The camera work is spectacular bringing alive the perfectly-paled faces of late-19th century New Yorkers,the vivid color of the scenery(Countess Olenska standing at the pier of a lake is a breath-taking scene),and the amazing decor.The narrators voice is compelling and soothing and guides you through the film mentioning a lot of significant detail though there is some excessive description of the houses.The music is equally remarkable particularly Enya's "Marble Halls" which is set against the scene of New Yorkers parading down one of the city's streets(somewhat reminscent of Ezra Pound's "In a Station of the Metro").The costumes are lush and opulently detailed,the era is displayed as a charming and serene time period,and the emotion that is felt between characters is so intense that you can almost feel it pour out from the screen.Scorses is apparently a master at what he does,and this film is proof of it.Perhaps Pfieffer is a bit of a miscast but she somehow manages to deliver the character well enough.This film won't appeal to everybody,and anybody who does watch it won't like it straight away but it is worth a try.It's an intense movie that I found very moving .It's worth watching even if you find the storyline a bore because it is an amazing work of cinematic photography.

Director ruins good film

I actually agree with many of the comments of the previous reviewers. The camera work is excellent, the story is good and the acting as well. The visual storytelling is beautifully done, so why does Scorsese have to ruin it all by letting a voice-over explain everything which the images had already conveyed? Doesn't he believe that the audience is capable of thinking? Apparently not because near the end he had to make a flash back to that pivotal beach scene where Pfeiffers character did not turn around. Only this time she does turn around, thereby indicating with the subtlety of a highway billboard that if only she would turn up in the window (which we all know she won't) things may end happily. Please Mr. Scorsese, do have more respect for your audience in the future.

I absolutely love this film.

This is one of Scorsese's finest films (I think it trumps Wharton's novel), a lovely, heartbreaking exploration of the ravages of social mores at the turn of the century (and, thus, bears much resemblance in theme with one of Scorsese's other masterpieces, Mean Streets). I am moved beyond words by the final image of the film every time I view it. To this day, those who do not understand and therefore disparage The Age of Innocence infuriate me to the point where I'm almost tempted to break off all ties with them. But it's just a film, I know, and a glorious one at that.

Sad and Inspiring

The beauty of this movie is that it isn't the type of romance where the main character ditches their responsibilities to enjoy themeselves. The thing about Newland that I admired was that he stayed with May even before she became pregnant, he could've canceled the wedding but he didn't, because deep down he respected May, he was only infatuated with the Countess because he couldn't have her. The ending is powerful because it proves what I said. After time passed Newland realized himself that he was only infatuated with the Countess and that his infatuation couldn't measure up with the years of memories and bliss and joy he received from his life with May.

Beautiful Craftsmanship

Martin Scorsese has given many different genres a shot, and many viewers thought that he was dreadfully out of place crafting a costume piece. But, Scorsese injected more elegance and greater visual flair into this film than any director has into a fancy-pants effort. On lush visuals alone, the film is worth looking at again.

Vastly underrated masterpiece

Everyone was so surprised when this came out that this Scorsese film was somewhat shunted aside as an inferior attempt to imitate Merchant-Ivory, but with each passing year it stands as one of Scorsese's finest films (and perhaps one of the finest adaptations of a literary classic ever made). Although Pfeiifer and Day-Lewis are a bit miscast, the supporting cast (particularly Miriam Margolyes as the imperious Mrs. manson Mingott, and Winona Ryder in the performance of her career as the surprisingly resourceful May Welland) is superlative. But it's the camera work that really astonishes: the beautiful fades to color, the great roving shots as Newland enters the Beaufort mansion and at the going-away dinner for Ellen, and the great opening scene at "Faust." Worth repeated viewings.

A must see.........

I had to see this movie because of a class I took at NYU and thought it was going to be a drag, but the unspoken details revealed with by the camera was a shock to me. I was moved beyond understanding. New Yorks' life in the early 1870's comes very close to the cruel world of the 90s. I was brought back to an era that seemed familiar and very atractive, yet the psychological stresses inflicted by the high class would not waver me from wanting to be Newland Archer and conquer the heart to the Countess. I was not surpriced by the ending for I would do the same. Why re-live in the precent what can not be erased from the past. The music and the attention to detail by the director will capture your imagination and send you into a time warp to an era that will never come again.

Read The Book Then Watch This.....

Surprisingly faithful to the book. Well-cast. Excellent perfomances by all, though I could almost see Susan Sarandon rather than Michelle Pheiffer in the lead.

Amateur American Moviemaking

Martin Scorsese is the master of films with a brutish attitude. The Last Tempatation of Christ felt more like a twist on Ridley Scott's Gladiator with a whacked out plot. To say the least Scorsese's productions are driven by strong robust performances and in this acclaimed Scorsese piece the cast does not dissappoint with morose glamour(but nothing more). Moreover the film itself feels Whartonesque, kind of. Day Lewis is the only one who seems at home with this genre. Scorsese, the producers and the cast as a whole however are way out of their league here. In typical American film fashion actors and actresses are "trained" to perform their roles. However after watching other films that target a similar audience such as the recent Gosford Park, Remains of the Day and even BBC/A&E Pride and Prejudice all of which are perfectly performed by experts, one would label the characters as paper thin. Anybody who has seen these films will scoff at the languid pace and delivered lines of AOI. They say their lines as if read not spoken. All subtlety is lost in the scripting and to my final point, the biggest Scorsese mistake. Whack the narrator. One of the biggest flops in movie history is Dune a narrated piece that disgraces the legacy of the literature. Narrators are for stupid audiences that need to be educated lecture style and "entertained" in the same medium. You learn by observing in films such as P&P and Gosford Park. I mean come on, look at Altman's masterpiece where the scenes are so real with multiple conversations keeping you on your toes. I will have to see it several more times to catch everything. The narrator simply ruins any involvement the viewer may have had with the piece. In my opinion it also ruins the attempts of an adequate score to develop the emotion of the scenes. One thing Scorsese has never had is touch. It's all about whoosh and whiz, welcome to Vaudeville gypsy style hurrah. In the end he has only created a decent portrayal of a written work but has never interjected ANY of his own feelings on the subject. Try the recent rendition of Mansfield Park if you want something with some spicy flavors. It truly adds a spin, though inaccurate, to the work. Inexperienced and unsophisticated moviegoers may get involved with these characters but I've been spoiled by far too many superior performances.

An Extraordinary Film

Martin Scorsese is a genius. Even his worst films are far superior than almost everyone else's and The Age of Innocence is definitely one of his best. He brilliantly captures the spirit of Edith Wharton's novel without ever falling into melodrama and creates a claustrophobic society preordained by an endless set of rules, a world of seething passions beneath a calm and decorous surface where rebellion of any sort is inconceivable, social and familial considerations are paramount and a veneer of respectability must be maintained at all costs. This is a story about human passions clashing with the artificial rules imposed by society and the characters move in an environment so fragile that "it could be shattered by a whisper".

Martin Scorsese's direction recreates the affluent and extremely oppressive atmosphere of 19th century New York society in remarkable detail. A subtle and perceptive script, brilliant performances by Michelle Pfeiffer, Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder and the rest of the cast (Richard E. Grant, Mary Beth Hurt, Alec McCowen and the excellent Miriam Margolyes are especially good), and fabulous costumes and production design contribute to make this extraordinary film one of the best of its genre. Joanne Woodward's narration is excellent (she gets most of the best lines without ever appearing on screen) and Michael Ballhaus's cinematography is simply stunning - innovative, atmospheric and richly textured. Crisp yet seamless editing, amazing camerawork and beautiful music round off this absolutely brilliant, almost perfect film.

Scorsese and Wharton? A match made in heaven!

Martin Scorsese may not have been a director you would think of making a movie based on a book by Edith Wharton, but I doubt anyone else could have done a better job. This is a beautifully directed film, gorgeous to look at, with brilliant acting. Michelle Pfeiffer is very good as the tragic Countess Olenska, whose decision to divorce has caused the scrutiny of New York's social elite and brought her position into question. Daniel Day-Lewis is good, as well, as Newland Archer, engaged to another but falling desperately in love with Countess Olenska. Never has removing a glove provided more sexual tension than the scene in this film! I loved this movie when I first saw it and I still enjoy it as much. With a talented supporting cast (Wynona Ryder as May, and narrated by Joanne Woodward) this film is a classic.

Well made romance drama.

When a man (Oscar-Winner:Daniel Day Lewis) has fall in love with a beautiful strong woman (Michelle Pfeiffer), while he engaged with a luminous young woman (Winona Ryder in a Oscar Nominated role), who is his formidale fiancee.

Directed by Martin Scorsese (The Last Tempation of Christ) seems to be unusual choice for directing this flawed but unique film. This has a great supporting cast including:Geraldine Chaplin, Alec McCowen, Richard E. Grant, Mary Beth Hurt, Staurt Wilson, Micheal Gough, Miriam Margolyes, Alexis Smith, Jonathan Pryce, Robert Sean Leonard and Norman Lloyd. This film is narrated by Joanne Woodward. The Problem with the film is slow moving, at times very weak, very hard to care about these characters in a emotional level but fine performances by Lewis, Pfeiffer and Ryder makes this one watchable. Oscar Nominated for Best Art Direction, Best Music Score and Best Apated Screenplay. Oscar Winner for Best Costumes. Fans of Martin Scorsese might love this and others think this is Scorsese`s Oddest Film. Super 35. Grade:B+.

Is this worth two hours plus of your life? You bet it is!

If it takes a well-made film to remind us of the neglected jewels in our culture's literary showcase, then let it be a work that does honor not only its source, but also its own medium. "The Age of Innocence" is such a film.

The luxury of a novel is that it can be experienced in stages -- picked up and put down as time permits. A motion picture must capture us, enrapture us and return us to earth in time for the next meal. Thus, many of the subtleties of character that the novel has time to explore must, in the film, be inferred. Scenes that are free to languish interminably within the novel must often be omitted within the motion picture for the sake of economy. Their lessons elided must be ignored or transmitted in another fashion. The limitation that time places on the film has led some to perceive it as innately inferior to the novel. With this kind of defective logic we might conclude that the sonnet is an inferior literary form. It cannot be of worth without physical length and breadth. Hogwash! The length and breadth of any artform are measured in the breadth and depth of thought the work provokes. Or, as Raymond Chandler once wrote: "There are no viable and significant forms of art. There is only art, and precious little of that."

The challenge of the motion picture, when trying to translate the novel into a cinematic experience, is to stay true to the souls of the characters in the book. By doing so, whatever is lost in in the process of distillation, truth remains. Martin Scorsese proves himself full worthy of Edith Wharton's vision and in so doing, proves her worthy of his vision as well.

Exquisite! -- and at last on DVD! Get the DVD! Perfect casting, with Daniel Day-Lewis as Newland Archer, a New York socialite in the late 1800s torn between the social demands to marry for position and the inner burning for the love of a kindred spirit. Michelle Pfeiffer is the Countess Olenska, a refugee from a scandalous marriage whose imperviousness to and freedom from the demands and disdains of the social class kindles Newland's passion.

Winona Ryder is absolutely radiant as Newland's fiance, May Welland. She is the winning image of everything that is style and grace but has no ability to perceive the dimensions of Archer's inner world -- his artistic world. It is to Miss Ryder's credit that she plays her character as totally oblivious to her own intellectual vacuity. She is in every other aspect of her character and personality, a person to die for. A thousand other actors and directors would have allowed her single flaw to have negatively colored their entire rendering. Yet it is her otherwise flawless character that sustains the tension as Newland Archer must decide between these two beautiful women, with each plausible choice bearing its own compromise with imperfection.

Thank you, Mister Scorsese! You have honored yourself and us. From the lush production design by Dante Ferretti to the cinematography by Michael Ballhaus to the bridge narration of Joanne Woodward, there is not a false note here. For those who feel that two hours and eighteen minutes is "too long" to sit still, let me refer you to the movie "Amadeus," where the king is convinced that Mozart's work is too complex -- full of "too many notes." Mozart smugly acquiesces to the king, agreeing to take out the offending notes if only told which must go. "The Age of Innocence" is the perfect length -- just enough notes to tell the story and still remain true to the art of the film. If someone wishes less, I would refer them to the Cliff's Notes.

A flawed but stunning masterwork

Martin Scorsese's adaptation of Edith Wharton's greatest novel remains, despite its flaws, one of the most spectacular American literary adaptations ever filmed. Scorsese's fascination with the manners and mores of small inward-looking societies lent itself perfectly to this study, Wharton's most thorough study into the anthropology of Old New York: her fetishistic desctiptions of the porcelain table settings, home furnishings, and dress of the most elite members of the Manhattan aristocracy of the 1870s are fully realized in Scorsese's loving adaptation. There are sequences--in particular, the Beauforts' annual opera (stunningly orchestrated to Strauss's "Radetszky march" and "Kaiserwalz"), the two great dinner parties at the van der Luydens' and the Archers', and, most of all, the breathtaking archery contest at Newport--that are as classic as anything Scorsese ever filmed.

Where Scorses seems to stumble, however, is with the acting of the film's central characters. Daniel Day-Lewis does a fine job of conveying newland Archer's neuroses and hesitations, but can't seem to bring off the dash the role requires: the awkward hats of the time don't suit him at all, and make him look as if he were once again playing Forster's Cecil Vyse. Michelle Pfeiffer, whom one might think was ideally suited to play the Countess Olenska, is often quite suitably enchanting in her beautiful Second Empire gowns, but also begins to exhibit the range of tics and mannerisms that marred so many of her performances after this time. (You can really see this in her "actressy" reading in a sledge of the telegram she sends Newland from Rhinebeck.) Fortunately, they're both offset by the stellar performance of Winona Ryder as May Welland: Scorsese gets her for once to underplay, and emphasizes her awkwardness in such a way as to make her character seem believably undesirable to her husband, despite Ryder's great beauty. (There's a breathtaking scene while she reads a telegraph to Newland from St. Augustine that conveys this superbly: as Ryder intones, against a hyperlush bank of flowers, her delighted expectations of her upcoming marriage to her fiancé, Scorsese zooms in on her cavernous mouth as if to show her as an omnivorous monster.) This is Ryder's finest hour as an actress.