Es begann im September

"Autumn In New York" neither opened my heart or my tear ducts. Unfortunately the film did not move me in the way I expect the Writer and Director intend it to. The same old plot used many times in the past, "Love Story". It was predictable after the first fifteen minutes. Richard Gere floundered in dialogue which was unbearably boring. Winona Ryder has proven she's better in 'period' pieces, "Little Women". The film lacked energy, even though it was about dying. The actors all seemed bored in their 'fluffy' dialogue. Even the fantastic location of New York didn't lift this piece up. It looked more washed out than the average persons eyes who would be watching this movie. At the risk of being called a 'chauvinist pig', this film is obviously for a female audience, as it was written and directed by females and this shows in the weak male dialogue. If rating by star value 'Autumn In New York' would definitely be a half star.

This film has been savaged by critics and it's easy to see why. The story is oooollllllddddd (young girl dying of an incurable disease) and some of the dialogue is beyond belief. But it is well-acted (Ryder and Gere give two of their best performances) and it looks beautiful. Basically the acting and photography kept me in my seat. Take those things away and it would probably be unwatchable. So, not too bad but not good either.

`Autumn in New York' is strictly for the masochists among us who have been yearning these past 30 years for a tedious May/December update of `Love Story.' The theme of this film seems to be that there is nothing like a romantic fling with a beautiful-but-tragically-doomed young heroine to turn an unprincipled womanizer into a Man of Virtue.

Winona Ryder plays a 22-year old woman, dying of a rare heart condition, who starts up an affair with a 48-year old restaurateur played by Richard Gere (it would appear that the filmmakers have seen fit to shave a few years off both their ages). The film deals with the absurdity of Gere's seemingly ageless, Dorian Gray-like good looks (a fact moviegoers have been noting for years) in rather an ingenious way. Rather than ignoring them, it brings them center stage, to the point where it seems like virtually every man, woman and child at some point or other sees fit to remark on them. This happens so often that the film begins to take on the air of a vanity production designed for the actor's own personal benefit.

Even as a tearjerker this film isn't very effective. Neither Ryder nor Geer are particularly likable in these roles. In their first scenes, especially, both characters seem way too cloying and coy to engage the audience's sympathy. Without that initial foundation so crucial in a romantic film, we watch the drama unfold more as dispassionate observers than fully engaged participants – a death knell for any film of this type. Geer's Will Keane is not only impossibly good looking but his position as a bon vivant of the Manhattan social scene – he even has his picture adorning the cover of New York Magazine – hurtles him into that rarefied atmosphere which makes audience empathy impossible. We don't believe for a minute that he is the cad he is supposed to be in the earlier part of the film – and we find his transformation to doting lover equally incredible. As the dying heroine, Charlotte Fielding is so bland and uninteresting that she finally makes Ali MacGraw look like the Harvard student she was meant to be in the earlier film but could never convince us she was.

Three-handkerchief weepies have never exactly been my cup of tea, but even diehard fans of the genre are likely to find both their tear ducts and their tissues distressingly dry at the end of this film.

This movie has many weaknesses, but there is something really superior about it nonetheless. On the negative side, everything people are saying is true; the dialogue is clunky, the plot is predictable, and the chemistry is weak. On the other hand, the charisma of both the leads is amazing and I really fell in love with Winona Ryder's character. I think the makers of this film were resigned to the the fact that as far as writing was concerned, they weren't breaking any new ground. What they did instead was dress up the standard love story with great actors, nice clothes, and pretty settings. Despite the gloss, there is a story here that everyone can identify with at some level. The result, in my opinion, is something magical that I can't pin down. I think it's a success.

Nor could they have cast anybody better than Elaine Stritch.

Beautiful in every way -- the cinematography, the music, the patience of the direction. You could feel the ease Gere and Ryder felt. They were allowed their best selves. The portrayal was wholly believable. There was exquisite nuance and not an iota of artifice, not even one.

This was an experience in true life portrayal; genuine, and somehow dug down to where we all really live, especially Gere's transformation, Ryder's delicacy in one particular scene, and Stritch's hallmark capacity for authenticity.The actor playing Gere's best friend was just as commendable, the actress playing the daughter, and the feel about the medical rush. I haven't checked yet who did the casting or cinematography or music or direction, but this movie is put together with world-class people.

There is an element of deep reality throughout that rings true.