Rating: 
Summary: Beautiful
Review: Martin Scorsese has made a masterpiece here. His long shots coupled with the exquisite costumes and glorious scenes are breathtaking. Ryder gives a shockingly incredible performance. Pfieffer follows suit, as I had this inner plea for her to win all that she sought.The supporting cast (including bit players) were also perfectly placed and helped create this piece into "Master". This film is truly a feast for the eyes, creating a visual world that perfectly reveals the society in which it is set. More importantly, the screenplay draws us into a world where emotion and its expression are defined by the rules of class. Subtlety and depth are keywords for the story in this film, and the actors compliment the presentation by giving well rounded, natural, and believable performances. 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Scars of the Heart!!!
Review: A lush, period film....overly well-mannered characters...dialogue often not spoken much above a whisper....and this film was directed by Martin Scorsese, director of Goodfellows, the ultimate wiseguys movie about gangsters???? What's going on here??? What would a famed Mafiosi director know about a period comedy set in 1870's New York high society? Well, quite a bit, actually. Reportedly, Scorsese BEGGED for the chance to direct this epic, saying he grew up in a such a society, and understood it better than almost anyone else. The close-knit families, the strict codes of conduct and honor, a highly structured society lorded over by the most elite families; in short, there are many, many similarities between Edith Wharton's New York and Martin Scorsese's Big Apple. Wharton's society mavens use whispers and rumours instead of bullets to leave their heart scars, but the effect is the same: one must conform to this highly structured society or leave it. Daniel Day-Lewis is Newland Archer, the rising young lawyer and member of New York society whose evenings are spent at fancy-dress balls, the opera, and other social events. He marries beautiful but seemingly simple May Welland, played by Winona Ryder, and settles into a life most of us would envy. However, there is just one thing missing from this well-ordered world: passion. That passion comes from Europe one day in the person of the Countess Olenska, a cousin of May's separated from her loveless marriage to an aristocratic husband. There is an immediate attraction between Archer and Olenska, and as he and May seek to redeem her place in society, the two childhood friends begin an affair that, given the time and place and their stations in life, is doomed to fail. Day-Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer are fabulous as the lovers, seeking to keep their encounters hidden from the rest of society. They are really soul-mates more than lovers, Olenska bringing to Archer's life the joire de vive that the always-prim and proper May can never give him. Winona Ryder is an absolute revelation as May. Everytime she comes on screen, the viewer is left to wonder: how much does she know and when does she find out? This high drama unfolds before one of the most sumptuous settings ever captured on film; the art and set decorators reportedly used period paintings to ensure the right look. Scorsese allows the story to unfold at a natural pace, just like reading a relaxing novel, except few novels contain a passion so tightly restrained that the characters are in eminent danger of making their entire world collapse for want of relief. There are plenty of delicious supporting characters as well; Mary Beth Hurt and Stuart Wilson as the Beauforts, another couple who broke this society's taboos and find themselves covered in shame; Michael Gough and Alexis Smith as the van der Luydens, the most influential family in New York, who do not fail to come to the Countess' aid in her time of need; and, best of all, Miriam Margolyes as society doyenne Mrs. Manson Mingott, providing much needed comic relief with her grand, imperious manner and her passel of pooches. Joanne Woodward makes a wonderful narrator to this intriguing world as the action unfolds at a stately pace through time and space (stately, but never boring!), finally climaxing in a Paris street scene that is incredibly moving in it's heartbreaking simplicity. So, if you want a fast-paced action thriller with plenty of explosions, go elsewhere. However, if carefully-paced, unrequited passion is your game, then get The Age of Innocence today. This movie just might leave a few scars on your heart!
Rating:
Summary: Scorcese's Ignored Masterpiece
Review: I actually saw this movie when it was released in 1993, and honestly it was pretty dull then. Of course I was 22, and the workings of that late-1800's New York society really didn't make much sense or have much relevance. I think the film may have been ignored at its release because of the slew of other "period pieces" which were so popular (an eventually common) in the late 80's/early 90's... But watching it again 10 years later, this film is anything but common. The true intensity is Scorcese's detached presentation of a hypocritical & hateful society which holds its members as prisoners. Not to mention impeccable art direction & beautiful cinematography by the legendary Michael Ballhaus. The film looks as impressionistic as the paintings that line the walls of the characters' homes. Scorsese is always acute in his casting decisions, and this is one of the films many virtues: Lewis is perfect as a man who's struggle between his passion & his duty are constantly on the verge of devouring him (yet somehow he thrives on his torture). Ryder is the seemingly innocent & naive girl who is completely manipulative & cunning underneath her exterior (gee, who would have thought?!) -- notice the arching scene. In a sense, this was one of Pfeiffer's defining roles. Pfeiffer herself (in a sense) is an "outcast" who has never truly been accepted as a "serious" actress by her peers in the acting community. Watching this film again, it amazes me how this role somehow reflects her personal position in the current social structure of Hollywood, similar to her character existing in 1800's New York society. Wow... What an amazing pic. I completely "missed it" the first time around. Great observance of "high society." Many of those codes are strangely applicable today. Not recommended for those who like fast paced movies, or those who are looking for the "usual Scorcese." I would couple this with "Last Temptation of Christ" as Scorsese's most brave, artistic, demanding & abstract films to date.
Rating:
Summary: The Age of Innocence DVD
Review: Take yourself to a time in New York City of the past, and understand how much society has changed from that time when encouraging and strengthening people to do the right thing--- even though tempted to do otherwise---was the norm. Experience the pain of belonging to someone else when the "right one" comes along. Appreciate Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Winona Ryder in their excellent performances, and the exquisite recreation of the time period. It's a chick flick, but a good one!
Rating:
Summary: THE AGE OF HYPOCRACY CAPTURED ON DVD
Review: Based on the novel by Edith Warton, "The Age of Innocence" is the story of a corrupt lover's triangle. Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a young barrister who is engaged to Meg Welland (Wynonna Ryder) but ends up lusting after her cousin, Countess Olenska (Michelle Pfieffer) instead. Director, Martin Scorsese paces the film like Warton's book, slowly, methodically but with an attention to details that is as captivating as it is compelling to watch. No one wants to see the countess divorced though everyone is hoping that she will break apart Newland's marriage so that the scandal of it all will make for interesting dinner conversations and parlour speculation. This is grand entertainment, told with a masterful hand and celebrated with great depth of emotion and character.
Columbia's transfer of the film is an adequate attempt, though there is excessive loss of fine detail in many of the scenes due to overuse of noise reduction video equipment. Some minor edge enhancement and pixelization appear sporadically throughout but nothing that will distract. Colors are warm, well balanced and rich throughout. The sound is amply presented and spacially natural sounding. We don't get any extras with this disc, a real shame!
Rating:
Summary: Stunning and Evocative
Review: This adaptation of Ms. Wharton's classic is pretty darn close to the book, and it certainly translates the time period as well as the customs and culture (something a number of reviewers just didn't get). The performances are excellent, costumes and sets beautiful, and the narration (by Joanne Woodward) helps flesh out and explain a few scenes. The most amazing thing to me, at the time and since, was the performance by W. Ryder, who, up until this film, left me annoyed or bored. In this movie, she displays a shredness and depth that left me stunned. At first she seems just another upper class dolt, following the social dictates of the time and participating in a partly arranged marriage. Then, towards the final third of the movie she lets it be known that she isn't a fool, yet keeps with the decorum she feels is required. Excellent.
Rating:
Summary: The Age of Innocence
Review: I thought this movie was good. Reminded me of Martin new movie Gangs of NEw York with Leo. But that was in my opinion since he used the same backdrop which is almost for all his movies. I wonder how he would for something else not in NEw York. THe respention of social pressure or society was right on. The society was reflect though visuals that were stunning. THe riches and grandiose style. it was a good movie better if Ellen and Newland gave into their passion but the sexual tension is what drove the film.
Rating:
Summary: Beautifully Subtle
Review: It seems that all of these reviews are focusing on the fact that this movie is so different from what we expect from Martin Scorsese, which it is. Outside of some signature tricks, there is nothing that one could identify as Scorsesian in this movie. But that is entirely irrelevant; what matters is the quality of the film, not the people who make it, and this is a brilliant movie. This is a rich subtlety to the whole movie, a silent beauty which is felt rather than seen. Besides a great directing turn by Scorsese (who was nominated by the Directors' Guild for best director on this movie; an award which is often the truest representation of a great director), there is also a wonderful performance from the acting ensemble. Much like Scorsese, Daniel Day-Lewis gives a far more subtle performance than we are used to, which probably explains why people tend to disregard this performance when it is put alongside his work in "My Left Foot" and "In the Name of the Father." It may have even been worthy of an Oscar nomination, except that the Academy refuses to nominate an actor twice in the same category (in the same year "The Age of Innocence was released, he was already nominated for Best Actor in "In the Name of the Father," which is a more stunning and Oscar-friendly role). Winona Ryder did receive a well earned nomination for Best Supporting Actress, playing the role of an (apparently) naive wife. Even Michelle Pfeiffer (of whom I am not a particular fan) more than pulls off the role of Countess Ellen Olenska. This is a film which in many years would have earned a fair number of Oscar nominations (including Best Picture and Best Director), but was the odd-film-out in a strong year of cinema (1993 featured "Schindler's List," "The Piano," "In the Name of the Father," and "Philadelphia," to name a few). It is unfortunate that movies are given recognition on a year-to-year basis, so that in a strong year there will be a few unfortunate snubs (and likewise in a weak year an undeserving movie will come up big). "The Age of Innocence" is a beautifully done film, one that strikes at the soul with its subtle grace and beauty; a truly poignant film. I was quite sceptical when I bought it; in all honesty, my tastes tend more towards "The Godfather" and "Five Easy Pieces," but my gamble was well rewarded. Don't overlook this underrated Scorsese masterpiece.
Rating: 
Summary: Soporific but beautiful.
Review: I read the book The Age of Innocence and enjoyed it, though I felt the romance around which the action revolved was difficult to comprehend. The over all development of the theme in the book, however, was far more complete than that in the film. The action of the movie seemed almost stream of consciousness, although from whose perspective was somewhat difficult to say. It was if Scorcese expected the viewer to be familiar enough with the book to fill in the blanks. The characters' speech and mannerisms were studied and slow, as though they lived in so rarefied an atmosphere, that they were too delicate to withstand a normal everyday pace to life. (Maybe that's my own generation speaking however; we certainly live in a sped up world today. It's as though we are living at 78 rpms and they were at 45, to use old turn table terms). The splendor and pageantry of the upper class of the age was enjoyable, and the cinematography that highlighted the lifestyle was incredible. The dinner sequences with the multitudes of courses, each carefully and artfully arranged for the guests was very impressive. The period gowns were exquisite. I was speechless over the tableau of famous artists displayed on the walls of the homes of the characters, paintings or replicas of works in the style of Renoir, Van Gogh, Monet, Singer Seargent, and classical types by earlier painters. I was especially impressed to see the incredible "Dual after the Ball" by Jean Gerome hanging over a settee in one of the homes. It's one of my favorite paintings. Again, as in the book, the romance seemed tepid. The illicit lovers were hardly alone together enough to have gotten past social pleasantries when they are expressing enduring passion. This is true of the book too, but in the book there is a certain sense of the ridiculous, a sense of two self centered people enjoying tormenting themselves over a relationship they couldn't have. From the book one comes away with a sense that a young man with everything to lose was kept on the straight and narrow by conniving relatives who have his best interests at heart, like an Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw manner play. The Scorsese film has more of the feel of Ibsen, parted lovers doomed to plodding through life without one another, mere spectators to the drama of other people's lives. Maybe that's how we all feel as we give up youthful dreams for the responsiblities of adulthood.
Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly, better than the book
Review: I am one who usually thinks that the book is much better than the movie was very surprised to find it quite opposite in this instance. The book which although beautifully written, drags in parts. The movie took all the good parts and left out the parts that drag. The casting was exceptional, visually it was beautiful and the acting was very good. As period pieces go, this is top notch....
|
