orcdictator
Wow. Before we begin, I want to take a moment to appreciate just how baffled I am by the amount of people writing reviews while using any 4-syllable word just to sound ''refined'', high class and/or intellectuals. Well, I guess that by today's standards, anyone who uses more than three syllables in a single word is considered to be a professor. I'm really laughing my ass off as I write this. Wow.*AHEM* LET'S GET STARTED, LADIES AND GENTS!First of all, I've got to make it clear that this movie is devoid of any type of gunfight, blood or whatever. Do NOT expect action out of this film. What Mr. Scorsese shows us here is... you guessed it, a love story. Man, do I hate love stories. But not this one. This movie is, to me at least, art. I don't think I can explain enough without spoiling things here and there, so let's just talk about the basic stuff.
*1.ACTING-* Superb. Daniel Day Lewis really delivers, as expected. Oh and did I mention that I love Michelle Pfeiffer's acting as well? No? Well I do.
*2. CINEMATOGRAPHY-* Excellent! The way the camera just ''strolls'' slowly through each scene, emphasizing on the characters and the story, just great. Mr. Scorsese, have another cookie.
*3. PLOT-* Although it isn't my kind of story, which is a romance story, I think it is a well-made piece of work. It progresses at a pace that it doesn't drag on for too long, nor does it go ''A-OOH OOH GO FAST'' like most speedo apes writing scripts nowadays, which dare I say, end their movies abruptly and leave you cringing in your seat. One more thing I liked is that the mob family in this movie doesn't use violence, as a fellow reviewer (a professor!) mentioned somewhere in this review thread. That's something we don't see in movies often! They instead use little more than smiles, politeness and stuff like that. And that is just impressive.*Overall, I liked it, I recommend it, my actual review is 8.7 stars but whatever, here's a 9.*
hawaiixd
The film is incredibly loyal to the book which does not happen too often. After reading the book I was astonished how accurately the story was portrayed. There is a great amount of dialogue which resembles the novel word by word and it is done for the most important parts.The cast is perfect; the leading actresses are just how they are described in the novel and how I imagined them to be. There is a great deal of feeling and subjectivity portrayed by the actors and the characters they play convey so much emotion. Truly touching.There film uses a lot of colour, sometimes in a brave way which is unusual for a 1993 production. Straight away you can see how much passion and effort was put into the making of the movie with the long shots, choreography and complex scenes.Made me cry, just like the book!
Lee Eisenberg
New York doyen Martin Scorsese directs another movie set in the city that never sleeps. However, "The Age of Innocence" is not about streets that are mean, bulls who rage, or fellas who are good. It focuses on the hypocrisy of 1870s high society. Daniel Day-Lewis's respected lawyer is engaged to Winona Ryder's heiress, but then falls for her cousin (Michelle Pfeiffer).The idea behind the story is that the main character is as trapped by his surroundings as is Travis Bickle in "Taxi Driver". There's not an iota of bloodshed in this adaptation of Edith Wharton's novel, but the emotional violence that the characters here perpetrate on each other is analogous to the physical violence in Scorsese's most famous movies. The innocence of the title is as much of a facade as is the lifestyle in "The Graduate".Nonetheless, I couldn't watch the movie without throwing out a few "MST3K"-style comments. For one thing, I kept thinking to myself "This is directed by the man who gave us 'The Wolf of Wall Street'." Also, any look at high society tempts me to launch some barbs. I just find it hard to take such a focus seriously. To crown everything, Daniel Day-Lewis's other 1993 movie was "In the Name of the Father", which couldn't have been more different from "The Age of Innocence".In the end, I recommend the movie. To my knowledge, Martin Scorsese has never made a bad movie. The rest of the cast includes Geraldine Chaplin, Michael Gough, Mary Beth Hurt, Norman Lloyd, Miriam Margolyes, Jonathan Pryce and Joanne Woodward.
khnumber8
Best actor in this film?? Joanne Woodward (she was the narrator !!) I honestly mean this... her narration was just great, she had the perfect inflection in her voice at all times. Daniel Day Lewis did a fine acting job as usual, but NOT GREAT. There was virtually no variation in his performance... he was the same stick-up-the-arse character all the time. As for Michelle Phiffer, she was her usual self, nothing spectacular. I actually thought Winona Rider gave the best performance of the three "leads". She was totally believable and had just the right nuances at the right time.As for the movie... it certainly is interesting as a period piece and repressed/suppressed love story, but Martin Scorsese makes his usual mistake as a director of this film.... he hits one note, emotionally, and keeps hitting and hitting and hitting and hitting this note for the entire picture. It's tiresome, redundant, and frustrating for the viewer. The "note" of this film is unactualized love and socially "necessitated" repressed behavior. I wanted to say: OK, OK !!! I get it, let's move on to some other things... subplots, variations in behavior among the main characters, SOMETHING, ANYTHING.Some people have remarked that this film is a departure for Scorsese. I think not.... his thing is beating a dead horse.
AD
