Zeit der Unschuld

In the 70's, the decade's greatest director Stanley Kubrick broke from his series of groundbreaking films to make a long period piece. That movie, "Barry Lyndon", was met with much critical acclaim, but also a litany of derision from fans and critics alike who called it too slow, too ponderous and too boring. Nearly 20 years later, the world's leading director of that time, Martin Scorcese took the same steps and met with much of the same criticism.

These two movies are not for everyone. If you want to see action and fast-paced filmmaking, you will find them boring. However, if you want to see the pinnacles of the careers of the two greatest directors of the second half of the 20th century, you will find them here.

Enough has been said about the plot and the acting in "The Age of Innocence". The bottom line is that for pure cinematic luster and beauty, the 90's offers only a single movie that can match "Barry Lyndon". Don't watch the clock, watch the film, and enjoy a departure and a triumph that proves the depth and confidence of Scorcese's skills.

Lastly, don't let anyone spoil the ending for you, and don't jump to conclusions. Think about it after you've seen the movie, savour it for a while and the understanding will come to you. This movie quite simply has the finest ending of any movie I have ever seen.

"The Age of Innocence" is the 10 that rises just above Scorcese's string of 9 1/2s. See it.

I saw "The Aviator" a couple of days ago and while I still have Howard Hughes flying through my brain I felt the need to see again another Scorsese. I have all of his films in my collection. I closed my eyes and picked one, just like that, at random. "The Age Of Innocence" This is what happens with great artists, you can always re visit them and you'll come out of the experience with something new, something valuable. Transported by the sublime voice of Joanne Woodward I took the trip again to discover that everything in this extraordinary universe that Martin Scorsese, based on Edith Wharton work, is not what it appears. Conventions out of the window, breaking every imaginable rule. Just as the characters get off their trucks, swimming against the tide of the times. Scorsese breaks cinematic rules with such artistry that we're allow to inspect, re live and enjoy a story as old as the world from a completely new perspective. Is as if Luchino Visconti had suddenly woken up with a new contemporary sight to look back with. Daniel Day Lewis is so marvelous that the pain of his predicament becomes more than visual, becomes visceral. For Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder this was the zenith of their careers. They are sensational. The casting, as usual in a Scorsese film, is superb even in the smallest roles. Glimpses of Sian Phillips, Alexis Smith and Geraldine Chaplin add to the pleasures, making this overwhelming banquet of a film one of the most rewarding film experiences I've ever had.

Martin Scorsese's beautifully done "The Age of Innocence" almost reaches excellence on a grand scale by having stunning performances and creating real intrigue with a story that could have been slow and dull. It is late 19th Century New York and attorney Daniel Day-Lewis is about to wed socialite Winona Ryder (Oscar-nominated). Naturally their lives of privilege and the finer things in life make them a quietly happy couple. However their lives are changed when Day-Lewis is asked to defend Ryder's cousin (Michelle Pfeiffer), a woman trying to divorce herself from an abusive marriage to a man that never loved her. The socialites within Ryder's circle frown upon Pfeiffer, treating her no better than a common stranger (that is putting it mildly at best). Day-Lewis takes a liking to Pfeiffer and he develops admiration and sympathy for the emotionally tortured woman. A mutual love and romance may blossom, but what complications will this create for the duo? "The Age of Innocence" is a strong film that dominates because of Scorsese's outstanding direction. Much like "The Last Temptation of Christ", Scorsese tackles something totally different from what he had previously worked on. The film is a fine accomplishment that is a successful venture overall. It nearly reaches total excellence, but a few minor problems with pacing hurt the production admittedly. Still one of Scorsese's best works. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Lavishly shot and achingly sad. Watching Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder in a love triangle is a treat, the costumes are sumptuous, the sets spectacular, and the ending is a heartbreaker. Forgive them if they're sometimes too subdued; suffice to say, there's a lot of suppressed emotion churning around inside all three. It's all very muted, very subtle, and a master class in acting. Kudos as well to the steady hand of director Martin Scorsese; he establishes a stately tone early on, and never abandons it. If you've read the Edith Wharton novel but have never seen it brought to life onscreen, see it now. If you have seen it, see it again. (You might want to check out the 1924 silent version and the 1934 remake, too. Enjoy them all!)

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.