ÉVALUATION IMDb
5,6/10
1,3 k
MA NOTE
Histoire épisodique d'un couple qui fait faillite et ne peut pas décider s'ils veulent rester ensemble - mais couche ouvertement et expérimente différents modes de vie.Histoire épisodique d'un couple qui fait faillite et ne peut pas décider s'ils veulent rester ensemble - mais couche ouvertement et expérimente différents modes de vie.Histoire épisodique d'un couple qui fait faillite et ne peut pas décider s'ils veulent rester ensemble - mais couche ouvertement et expérimente différents modes de vie.
- Prix
- 1 victoire au total
Avis en vedette
"The New Age" is half fascinating and half dull. It's very much a comedy, albeit a very dark and satirical one. But it's emotionally distant, and has the distinct sense of being a film about rich people made for and by other rich people. It's about a world with a built-in sense of the ridiculous in the everyday, so much so that it's hard to know what's meant to make us laugh and what's designed to reflect real life. The leads are good. Peter Weller and Judy Davis disappear into their characters, Davis to the point I really didn't recognize her. The best and most entertaining part of the film is Samuel L. Jackson's cameo, and the scenes directly relating to it.
Michael Tolkin's script has a lot of depth, but his direction doesn't. He films what happens, but without any real understanding of how to stage it. "The New Age" is a visually flat film, and looks like just about every average film from 1994. Which is to say, pretty dull. But, in the end, the script lifts the film up enough to be interesting in passing. I don't regret having seen this.
Michael Tolkin's script has a lot of depth, but his direction doesn't. He films what happens, but without any real understanding of how to stage it. "The New Age" is a visually flat film, and looks like just about every average film from 1994. Which is to say, pretty dull. But, in the end, the script lifts the film up enough to be interesting in passing. I don't regret having seen this.
Critics seem to have split widely on this film, and it's easy to see why. It's a rather painful, plodding thing to sit through--yet one can't get it out of the mind afterward. Writer/director Tolkin has a lot of disturbing things to say about post-industrial affluence in America in the 1990s, and in trying to say everything in one movie he has piled it on so thick that the brain requires a postmortem to reflect. Judy Davis, as she was in "Husbands and Wives," is dynamite, and the film is worth seeing just for her. The film has an uncanny eye and feel for the bleak interiors of the contemporary American service economy: the boutiques, the high-rise telemarketing boiler rooms, the house-poor interiors of career people who are hardly ever at home, etc. The film's title refers to the spiritual quest of the couple to find a meaning to their existence, or at least some alternative approach to life to their destructive materialism. How they go about it is all wrong, of course. In true hedonist fashion, they try everything. At the same time they seek a simpler, spiritual, non-materialistic life via a bunch of wacky gurus and cultists, they are indulging in carnal and other pleasures as diversions. When they open a small business, ostensibly to gain more control over their lives and income, the forces of the world are worse than any bosses. In all of this, they seem to be outside of everything they do, as in dreams when you watch yourself and are powerless to control the changing scenery. Despite their doldrums and hostility, this is a couple who have too much in common to split. During the course of all this, Tolkin gets plenty of jabs in about an American economy that seems to be teetering on wisps of hope rather than on any true productivity. By the end, the "new age" looks uncomfortably like a very old one, in which the law of the jungle reigned.
Wealthy LA couple Peter and Katherine live comfortably, spending on credit and having affairs. When Peter quits his job as a recession looms the couple find that money is tighter and the values they hold dear mean nothing. Can they get in touch with themselves to navigate through their journey of life.
This film seems to be an attack on the yuppie culture in LA, with their materialism, their spiritualism and their aimless, work-shy lives. It seems this way for the most part but towards the end seems to say that we can all be happy if we accept who we are and confront it. It doesn't quite ride with me but the film up till this point is good - it's interesting and a bit moving to see the couple's relationship rise and fall with the difficult times. However once it falls back on spiritualism and the like it loses a lot of credibility.
Peter Weller and Judy Davis are both good in the leads, managing to display the correct amount of arrogance and emotion during the story. Adam West has a small role and is not great - is it just me or does everyone else still see Batman when they look at him. Samuel L. Jackson has a small cameo as a motivational salesman (like Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glenross) and he shows off his trademark powerful performance - but he's not as good as Baldwin was (the material's fault).
Overall a good attack on materialism but the spiritual stuff doesn't work.
This film seems to be an attack on the yuppie culture in LA, with their materialism, their spiritualism and their aimless, work-shy lives. It seems this way for the most part but towards the end seems to say that we can all be happy if we accept who we are and confront it. It doesn't quite ride with me but the film up till this point is good - it's interesting and a bit moving to see the couple's relationship rise and fall with the difficult times. However once it falls back on spiritualism and the like it loses a lot of credibility.
Peter Weller and Judy Davis are both good in the leads, managing to display the correct amount of arrogance and emotion during the story. Adam West has a small role and is not great - is it just me or does everyone else still see Batman when they look at him. Samuel L. Jackson has a small cameo as a motivational salesman (like Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glenross) and he shows off his trademark powerful performance - but he's not as good as Baldwin was (the material's fault).
Overall a good attack on materialism but the spiritual stuff doesn't work.
I liked this film because it does a good job of making the viewer consider what is important in life, and why. On the other hand, it is not the most exciting movie ever made. I recommend this if you want a story to ponder that exposes modern values to criticism. I give it a 7/10.
Peter and Katherine are a typical couple of California yuppies. They want to be cool, the want to indulge themselves, they live lavishly on their credit cards, and they hold "spiritual values" above wealth and work. Unfortunately, when their careers go down the toilet during the recession in the early 1990s, they fall upon hard times. They try to start an independent business, but their easy and hedonistic lifestyle prevents them from putting in the blood, sweat, and tears that are required for success in retail. Their spiritual values are of no help when things get rough, because their "New Age" values are really just a justification for selfishness and egocentricity.
The movie is the story of their loss of innocence. To get their lives back on track, they have to work hard at jobs that simply are not cool. Their elitist attitudes must give way to sacrifice and common sense. It is not clear whether this is a triumph or a tragedy for Peter and Katherine. That is left up to the viewer in this one.
Peter and Katherine are a typical couple of California yuppies. They want to be cool, the want to indulge themselves, they live lavishly on their credit cards, and they hold "spiritual values" above wealth and work. Unfortunately, when their careers go down the toilet during the recession in the early 1990s, they fall upon hard times. They try to start an independent business, but their easy and hedonistic lifestyle prevents them from putting in the blood, sweat, and tears that are required for success in retail. Their spiritual values are of no help when things get rough, because their "New Age" values are really just a justification for selfishness and egocentricity.
The movie is the story of their loss of innocence. To get their lives back on track, they have to work hard at jobs that simply are not cool. Their elitist attitudes must give way to sacrifice and common sense. It is not clear whether this is a triumph or a tragedy for Peter and Katherine. That is left up to the viewer in this one.
Yes, The New Age is beguiling art film and not for everyone, but I enjoyed its take on the L.A. nouveau riche set. Peter Weller and the luscious Judy Davis are back again as a whacked out couple that are not unlike the pair they played in Cronenberg's Naked Lunch. I liked the look of the film, the off the wallness of it all, and its sly sense of humor. We need another reteaming of Weller and Davis for the new millenium, daddy-o. But if you like art movies about the rich bitch L.A. scene go see The New Age. Solid.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesWas #9 on Roger Ebert's list of the Best Films of 1994.
- Citations
Peter Witner: Did you know that in Chinese the word for "crisis" is the same as the word for "opportunity"?
- ConnexionsFeatured in Siskel & Ebert & the Movies: Why Gump? Why Now? (1994)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The New Age?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- La nouvelle vague
- Lieux de tournage
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Brut – États-Unis et Canada
- 245 217 $ US
- Fin de semaine d'ouverture – États-Unis et Canada
- 35 797 $ US
- 18 sept. 1994
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 245 217 $ US
- Durée1 heure 52 minutes
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was The New Age (1994) officially released in India in English?
Répondre