Rating: 
Summary: question
Review: love this movie and I own its vhs. But I can only give it 4 stars instead of 5. The reason is there are two problems that I don't get. why does the arthor Mr. Wharton make this ending? Why is Newland at last not willing to meet Ellen again? Can anyone please answer me? Thanks for reading!
Rating: 
Summary: 3 and a half, actually...
Review: This is a visually opulent movie! Very beautiful costumes and solid performances, but I do have to agree with one of the the other reviewers about the dialogue. (see Stiffled Characters, a viewer from HI) Some of it made the movie feel a bit like a caricature of Victorian era life as opposed to an authentic example of it. BUT, it is worth seeing just for the scene in the carriage between Daniel Day-Lewis and Michelle Pfiffer! I won't spoil it, but it involves her glove and it has to be one of the most erotic moments in modern cinematic history, especially since they are both fully clothed! All in all, a worthy choice.
Rating: 
Summary: Scorsese's ode to individuality!
Review: I have seen "The Age of Innocence" about 15 times since 1994, and find the argument as to whether it is boring or not to be fascinating. Period films are not for everyone, and if you lack an appreciation of subtlety than maybe something like "Joe Dirt" may be better suited for you. But what lies beneath this wonderful movie is a priceless ode to individuality. Michelle Pfeiffer plays Ellen Olenska, a proto-feminist who flees from her failing European marriage to the home of her blood relatives in 1870's New York Society. She's been away for most of her life and the States are foreign to her, but she quickly realizes that she is viewed as threat, a black sheep ---and Society reacts to her as it would to a dirty black spot on a carpet or on one of their tuxedo shirts. "Harmony could be shattered by a whisper", as well narrated by Joanne Woodward. Daniel Day-Lewis plays Newland Archer, an up-and-rising patriarch who sees something in her that no one else in his rich circle could offer him: an independent viewpoint to life. As a lawyer and a powerful member of his family, he bravely tries to protect Ellen from basically everyone, esp. members of their own family. Despite all of her difficulties, Countess Olenska refuses to part from her individuality: she smokes in front of Newland, does not hide from men in social situations, and criticizes her surroundings. Archer doesn't necessarily fall in love with her as a person but with what she represents: Romanticism and escape. There is a lot to love about this film, which is more like a piece of art than a movie. Every scene and every bit of dialogue denotes elegance and brutality simultaneously. All of the leading and supporting characters are so believable and well formed that they trump anything Hollywood has been throwing at us in recent months. And the setting for this film is very unconventional, at least for the 90's. Through excellent filmmaking, I can see why Society felt the need to operate in such a ruthless fashion, in order to protect itself from Ellen and what she represented to Newland, its newly crowned prince. Over the past few months, I have also grown an appreciation for Winona Ryder's performance as May. She is a shrewd politician, who uses her "bright blindness" as a megaphone for Society's rules of conduct, a weapon of manipulation against her destined husband Newland, and as a way to continue plotting without easily being detected. I wonder how many more times I will watch "The Age of Innocence" before I risk being exposed to Hollywood's 21st century conformity, such as "Independence Day" or "Wild, Wild West". All I know is that Ellen Olenska (as one of my favorite cinematic heroines) serves to validate my own sense of individuality, and neither she nor the astonishing beauty of this Scorcese creation, will ever be boring. 10 out of 10 stars.
Rating:
Summary: In my top ten.
Review: This has got to be one of the best films I've ever seen. The detail is amazing. Every time I watch, I find that there are elements that I didn't pick-up in previous viewings. The costumes are fantastic, the camera work outstanding and the acting superb. The story itself grips and turns my heart every time. Not to mention that there is just something about Daniel Day Lewis . . .
Rating: 
Summary: Pure Torture!!
Review: At first, I thought that this was a horror movie. This nerve racking atrocity distrubs me. The director is calculating and cruel.
Rating:
Summary: NOTHING QUITE CAPTURES THE BOOK
Review: Nothing quite compares to the opulence of an Edith Wharton novel. Wharton was the best at capturing all the essential details of society... not society in a sociological sense but SOCIETY, high society. The film does not quite compare, although the time period is well served with the scenery and costuming. Michelle Pfeiffer is excellent as Madame Olenska, who seizes Daniel Day-Lewis's heart. He contemplates leaving his wife, played by a very innocent-seeming Winona Ryder. Ryder, however, manages to be just conniving enough to restrain her husband. She announces she is pregnant just as he announces he plans to travel for an indefinite period of time. The passion between Newland (Day-Lewis) and Olenska is represented well on-screen, and you can feel the sadness and their never seeing one another again after May, Ryder's character, has children. It is a rather romantic story, but nevertheless semi-tragic. Personally I am not a fan of Daniel Day-Lewis or Winona Ryder, and these roles did not change my mind.
Rating:
Summary: A GREAT MOVIE, A LESSON OF CINEMA
Review: This Scorsese's movie is top-level level in every way: I would like remember: - the acting, above all of the two primedonne, an excellent Michelle Pfeiffer, but also the amazing Winona Ryder, in a very delicate lead, in the middle of innocence and demoniac astuteness; - the fidelity for the Edith Wharton's novel, the respect of the deep soul of the book; - the setting and the representation of the 1870 New York high society; - the editing, the produces we cannot perceive the time of the movie; - the music, always appropriate. In particular, this movie is a very important demonstration of what a great director can make with the camera: in the first sequence, for example, the movement of camera takes the spectators inside the theatre, and the effect is wonderful.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Films of 1993!
Review: Martin Scorcesse's beautifully superb adaption of Edith Wharton's classic American novel, set in 1870's New York, about how the power of society thwarted the love affair between New York aristocrat Newland Archer(Daniel Day-Lewis) and the scandalous Countess Ellen Olenska(Michelle Pfeiffer). This was the most visually spectacular and lumonous film of 1993, enhanced by the absolutely phenomenal acting of Day-Lewis and Pfeiffer as the thwarted lovers. This ranks right up there with Franco Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet"(1968), as being one of the most heartbreaking love stories ever filmed.
Rating:
Summary: Rich in details and emotion; the very best of Scorsese
Review: THE AGE OF INNOCENCE is perhaps the highest achievement of its director, Martin Scrosese. Those who thought the subject matter (New York high society in the 1870's) does not fit the director's universe doesn't really know neither what Scorsese's films are all about, nor what he is really good at. This must have been a great challenge for Scorsese; not only that the book (by Edith Wharton) is a truly great one by its own right, but also because everything that really happen in this story does not appear on the surface, but underneath it. Keeping his sharp observing eye on every each detail that constitutes this society, Scorsese re-creates beautifully this universe of beauty and hipocricy, and brings out the emotions that are hidden behind the brilliant gorgeous surface of the society. There are no visual violence in this film, but in deep, this is probably the most violent and the most painful of all Scorsese film. The emotional pain, the violent intention hidden beneath the code of manners is certainly expressed, for those who are careful and intelligent enough to really see what's going on. Production designer Dante Feretti (from Fellini and Pasollini movies) joins costumes designer Gabriella Pescucci to do a wonderful job in re-creating the gorgeous atmosphere of New York high society in the 19th century. Scorsese and his cinematographer Michael Ballhaus uses these sets and costumes so that the characters are entrapped surrounded by all those beautiful objects. Within this gold gilded cage of beauty, Daniel Day Lewis, Michelle Pfiefer and Winona Ryder give the best performance of their career; subtle, yet a lot of emotion going on beneath. In most cases I hate pan-and-scanned VHS editions, don't even bother to buy one. But in the case of this film, which was shot in Super 35mm format, the anamorphic aspect ratio of the theatrical release version was created by masking the top and bottom of the full screen image. Scorsese says he tried so that both framing would work, and it does. The full screen VHS tape will allow you to see more details in sets, costumes and props, and offers you a different enjoyment than the theatrical release version. I am also looking forward to see a DVD edition of this beautiful film, with a lot of special features which would allow the audience to have deeper understanding of this obssessively detailed film. Waiting for the DVD edition to be released, I strongly reccomend the book "The Age of Innocence, a portrait of the film based on the novel by Edith Wharton" which incorporates the shooting script with photos of paintings and pictures that served as research materials . For the DVD, Scorsese's and Jay Cocks' commentary is a must. It would be great if some expert scholar of Warton's works would do an additional track as well, pointing out the meanings of the details that modern audience are rather ignorant about. This film is so rich it would be ideal to own it on tape or even better on DVD, because the you can see it over and over again, each time finding new striking details.
Rating:
Summary: GREAT NOVEL,SO SO MOVIE
Review: EDITH WHARTON's wonderful novel is certainly good looking on the screen ,but it is a misfire most of the time,because we simply can't feel anything for those characters.One must salute SCORSESE for trying something different ,but this is simply not his cup of tea.Actors in general are not to blame,especially MICHELE PFEIFFER who tries to inject some vitality to her character.DAY-LEWIS is incredibly stiff and so is RYDER as gorgeous as she is.If you read most of WHARTON's novels, you know most of her men are boring characters except in THE HOUSE OF MIRTH.Fortunally for us, an adaptation of this novel is due soon.
| 
