Yar, you be here: The Age of Innocence > Customer Reviews

The Age of Innocence Customer Reviews (16 - 18 of 33 Reviews)

An excellent adaptation
I was a big Wharton fan, and read all her work several years ago. THE AGE OF INNOCENCE I've read at least three times completely. And I have a feeling that Wharton would have been a fan of this adaptation. Scorsese found the book's atmosphere, characters, and the sheer narrative grace of Wharton's sad tale of destiny in old New York. As the last scene unfolded, I almost had a sense of deja vu, that the setting in the Parisian courtyard was exactly capturing the final moment of Archer's recognition of his fate. It was so touching.
What a production! The soundtrack, the cinematography, the costumes, the editing and narrative flow--masterful and amazing. I've seen the movie a few times now, and find more to admire with each viewing. I did notice that the painting, the Bouguereau "The Return of Spring" that hung in the Beaufort's home in the 1870's, is actually supposed to be from 1886, but I think Wharton got that wrong in her novel...And why couldn't Daniel Day-Lewis manage an actual kiss at some point...he nibbled like a rabbit.
Scorsese's a genius, the best we have.


really boring
This movie was based on a book by Edith Warton. I liked Enya's song in the one part of the movie, but the story I thought was very shallow because everyone was so obsessed with being proper and rich. Some of the food looked good, but I got sick of seeing all of the cups and saucers and plates and watching men clipping and smoking their cigars. Everybody was always feeling sorry for themselves, and they all had too much to be feeling sorry for themselves. It drove me crazy. I liked Winona Ryder in Little Women.

Innocence Lost
As a huge fan of Martin Scorsese, I was always anxious to see this. Many people I know have criticized the film for being too long and too boring, and after seeing it, I can agree. I have not read the novel that this film was based off of, which apparently after reading some reviews here, I should have. Nevertheless, I shall review the film as is, without knowledge of the book, the way this medium should be reviewed.

Newland (Daniel Day-Lewis) is engaged to May (Winona Ryder), but has this increasing yearning to be with Ellen (Michelle Pfieffer), a recently divorced siren in the late 1800s. They constantly long for each other behind everyone's back, especially May's. In the midst of this basic story, the film sporatically comments on the societal complexities of this age in early New York, as well as morals and morality. The main problem I had with the film is the pacing of it. Tension needs to be built, and long periods of dialogue with no evident threat of being caught doesn't help. The film may be faithful to the book, but in the cinema world, this is not always a good idea.

Ryder as May is also sorely underused in the story. She seemingly randomly appears whenever it's convenient for the film to remind us that Newland is engaged to her. On the bright side, Day-Lewis, Pfieffer, Ryder, and the rest of the cast turn in pitch-perfect performances in their roles, and the costumes and settings look great, but all this can't help the fact that the film drags on too long.

Previous Page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Next Page