Un automne à New York

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.

My wife and I are 70 plus, and we enjoyed the movie very much. It is disappointing to read the poor reviews this movie is receiving. The photography was magnificent and New York is shown as it can be, beautiful. One thought we had while viewing it was "Paris, eat your heart out". The story line was not bad either. We recommend it to older folks like us who are tired of movies sprinkled with the F word.

"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.

Will (Richard Gere) is a New York City restaurateur and ladies man, in his middle forties. His life's motto is definitely love 'em and leave 'em and have fun in between. So, when he meets Charlotte (Winona Ryder), a beautiful young lady half his age, he is surprised at how smitten he is with her. Wanting to make a connection, he hires her to make a hat for his date to a charity function. When she shows up at his apartment on the evening of the affair, he informs her that his date is sick. Would she, Charlotte, take her place? She agrees and they have a lovely evening together, one that lasts all night. Love is in the air, all right. But, Charlotte confides in Will that she has a dire medical condition, one that is threatening her life. What will their future hold? This is really a nice film for those who like to sigh and cry over a set of star-crossed lovers. Gere is great as the aging lothario and Ryder positively enchanting as the spunky and lovely young lady in his life. The rest of the cast members, including Anthony LaPaglia, Sherry Stringfield, and Elaine Stritch, are great. Then, too, the film is replete with lovely costumes, sets and scenery, making for a very beautiful watch. If you have a hankering for romances, even and especially ones that elicit tears, you should get this film without delay. On an autumn evening, with a fire blazing and mugs of hot chocolate on hand, you will feel very satisfied when the story is spent.

`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.