उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

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.

Although a little boring at some points "Autumn In New York" managed to truly emotionally entertain and interest me. Even after seeing it I am still discovering the hidden meanings it tries to give us. Ironically despite being a romantic drama the romance between the main actors is the biggest downer of this movie. I must have missed the part when Winona Ryder's character's age is revealed, but she just doesn't pass as a 21 year old. I thought she was supposed to be like 26 or something. Not that there's a big difference in age, but she was a bit misscast, despite her child like face. On the other side she was really attractive in this movie and constantly reminded me of this cute girl I know. Gere looks and feels pretty old, but he's a believable 48 year old playboy. The movie is hence held together by good dialogues and nice and memorable scenes. There's also a great line Gere says to Winona after he cheats on her and realizes he screwed up: "Can you let me love you?" I've read some pretty different explanations of this movie, but basically I think it's about Gere's character slowly discovering he's been missing a great deal of life, he's never loved. So after "accidentally" falling in love with Charlotte he can't bear the though of her dying and tries everything in his power to prevent her death(this might have something to do with his previous life where he was always the one with power, whilst the women weren't). But he has to realize that in Charlotte's case he's completely powerless and there's where the point of the movie lies. He chose true love (despite knowing that Charlotte was going to die soon) over the life he thought he was happy with. It might sound ridiculous but I kind o envy the guy. I too would rather truly love a woman, if only for a short period of time, than spend a life with a woman I didn't love. I would be a happier man, even after that true love would, for some reason or another, leave me, because I'd know I loved, even if it didn't last. I was pretty surprised at most of the bad reviews and comments, but on the other side I couldn't help but to agree with most of them. It is a crude love story and it is somewhat predictable and boring, but it was overlooked for the most important reason it tries to tell us. Despite being an unconventional and hardly believable love story "Autumn In New York" is a movie that in the end managed to show me you have to take even the biggest sacrifices to find true love. Sad and Beautiful. 7/10

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.

Slow moving romantic comedy/drama featuring Winona Ryder as Charlotte Fielding, a beautiful young women who falls for an older and richer man played by guess who, Richard Gere. It's actually what you could call a typical Gere movie! But Charlotte is sick and we don't know if she'll live much longer.

About the acting. Richard Gere is Richard Gere in this movie. I don't know about other reviewers, but it seems to me that he always delivers the same kind of performance. Beautiful Winona is good but not excellent in this one. After seeing her superb performance in «Girl, Interrupted», I was a little bit disappointed.

6 out of 10.

"Autumn In New York" has delectable shots of brown and golden leaves fluttering down in the winds from craggy old tree branches, covering wet sidewalks and surrounding two movie stars staring into each other's eyes. But these stars (Richard Gere and Winona Ryder) are distinctly un-New York, and the filmmakers keep everything mushy, flip and coy. Ryder looks lovely, but she giggles too much in between her incredulous comments: "REALLY?!"..."WOW!"..."AM-MAAZING!" Gere, laughing with his mouth closed, gives a bloated performance, scrunching his face while tearing up at his black, beady eyes. Anthony LaPaglia is much better in a smallish role as Gere's best friend, Elaine Strich is amusingly jaded as Ryder's disapproving grandmother (although her line about only being able to afford pistachio nuts is ludicrous when she lives in such beautiful New York digs), but this romance cops a corny plea from "Love Story", and how long ago was that? The fact that some reviewers actually fell for this is, like, AM-MAAZING! *1/2 from ****

Should be called Walking in New York. Scene after scene, Gere walks and walks and walks, probably working in the "Damn, he's sexy" angle.

Even the actors couldn't save this movie (not to say that Gere is a shining example of acting prowess). It was full of one-liners that one would only expect in cheap, tawdry romance novels, but never on-screen in a major motion picture release. "Unless..." Gere says with an expectant look on his face when he explains to Charlotte (Ryder) that his date for a benefit party had canceled on him and he's not going because he doesn't want to go alone. The line is delivered with the same stinted, cookie-cutter way it was written. So perhaps I should be singing kudos to the actors for delivering exactly what the script dictated: empty emotions and lost, plaintively hollow words. The story was lacking and clichéd to the point that I couldn't even have any sympathy for the plight of the characters. Charlotte was a caricature of a fey faerie, not a stretch for Ryder, and Will was a caricature of a rags to riches playboy, not a stretch for Gere.

The *only* thing that kept me sitting in the theatre were the air conditioning and comfortable seats and the occasional bit of lovely cinematography. There weren't many images that were "Wow," but there were a few, and that somehow made the $4.50 I spent on the movie *almost* worthwhile.

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.

There is a lot to hate about this film, most of it unjustified. This film has been a lightning rod for venomous criticism, but despite its unpopularity, it is a good film. The reasons it put people off follow. First, it is a tearjerker and those are decidedly out of style. Today's audiences don't seem to have much tolerance for dying characters unless they are being blown up in an action flick, hacked up in a horror flick, dying of some politically correct disease, or a member of an endangered species. Second, both Winona Ryder and Richard Gere gave unaccustomed performances, quite different from any they had given before. Since most audiences liked the way they were before, this change was an unpleasant shock. Finally, the age difference was off-putting, making Gere seem much older and Ryder seem much younger than we are used to.

For all the blistering criticism leveled against this film, it is a well-crafted story about the changes that love can foster in people's lives. Joan Chen's direction provides a sensitive look at the relationship between these star-crossed lovers, with some enchanting looks at New York City as the romantic backdrop. Although her pacing is a bit slow, the portrayal of the relationship, and particularly the effect it was having on Will (Gere) is probing and delicately done.

This film is about transcendence, both for the characters and for the actors that portrayed them. Each of the characters grew and changed during the film, while both of the actors expanded beyond their previous limitations. I was delighted to see Winona Ryder break out of her dour, grave type and give a breezy and effervescent performance. If you put all her previous appearances together you would not have seen as many smiles as you see in the first ten minutes of this film. It seems that Ryder has always played overly serious and mature characters. She went through her teens and twenties without ever having a chance to act like a kid. As it turns out, this part reveals that she has much greater range than anyone originally thought she did. I hope this is a preview of things to come as she makes an attractive romantic figure.

Richard Gere also continues a transformation of his image with this film. He started down this path in `Runaway Bride' with Julia Roberts, playing a more insecure male lead than his normal macho portrayal. In this film, he actually becomes introspective and tortured, which is very unfamiliar territory for him. Despite the fact that his fans are probably retching, this role represents a very courageous attempt on his part to move out of type and expand as an actor. He does a wonderful job, giving a mature and complex performance that I didn't think he had in him.

This is not a great film, but it is a good one. I rated it a 7/10. I believe it is particularly important as a redefining moment in the careers of two excellent actors, which has broadened their reach and deepened their skills. Not every film is about whether the audience likes it, although I did. It is good drama, which goes beyond the schmaltzy romance to reveal the deep inner workings of the human heart during tragedy and adversity. In that regard, it is a success.

THE non-stop laugh-out-loud smash comedy of the summer. MGM really botched the advertising campaign on this one. I didn't realize that a screenwriter with the delightfully demented sense of humor of the creators of "Airplane" was making a spoof of romantic weepers. The lines were truly inspired comic gags. A small sampling: "Food is the only beautiful thing that truly nourishes." "I can smell the rain. When did I learn to do that?" "What About Love?!?" "You are my family!! you are my family (incoherent sobbing)" "What do we do, Will, with this moment that we're in?" Again, I state that this is just a small sampling of the plethora of howlers that exist in this film. Add to this the nonsensical secondary characters, the beautiful cinematography and two romantic leads that have all of the sexual chemistry of a drawer full of office supplies and you have the greatest gift to aficionados of bad movies everywhere. Believe me, a screenwriter has to work very hard to make Winona Ryder look bad. I do believe that she is one of the greatest actresses of her generation, however her abilities are not shown here. Aside from looking great she is given little to do, but deliver unintentionally hilarious lines with as much sincerity as she can muster. Truly a must-see in the pantheons of cinematic mis-steps.

I can't send this film all the way to the bottom.

First of all, it is a love movie. Maybe we can hate love movies, but they always stick that loving feeling in us. It usually happens with romantic comedies like "Love Actually" and "Nothing Hill". Or charming movies like one of my favorites about love, a movie I find underrated and not felt (get it?): "Simply Irresistible". Anyway, it's that feeling, hard to explain; you can't reject love. I felt as I watched "Autumn in New York". Although this is not comedy; this is drama. I'll explain later.

Second of all, Winona Ryder stars in the movie. She's an excellent actress, and has never disappointed me. She tends to excel in every role she plays. I'm sorry if anyone thinks differently, but this film is no exception. She creates the perfect way of talking for a 22-year old character, giving the right expressions, whether dramatic or comedic, during the entire film. She's in the position a pop singer said (I hate to say it, but I found it perfect): "Not a girl, not yet a woman". Beautiful woman, great acting. Talking about acting; supporting roles are perfect for these movies. And in this one, they're a strong point. LaPaglia is relaxed and calmed. He is as charming as ever, and understands that his character it's not so important, respecting his position. Elaine Stritch also understands this, but she steals the show anyway. I guess she couldn't help it. And well, Richard Gere started his career when he was pretty old. That's interesting. I don't want to question his qualities as an actor. He's good. But talking about him takes me to the "Third of all" explanation.

This is drama, I said. Well, I mean that it isn't enough to make pretty expressions and to have pretty faces. I'm talking about Gere, in first place, and about his chemistry with Ryder too. Gere has the charm and the smile, but lacks the serious and deep facial expression a dramatic performance requires. His deception, or sad face, looks more like a disappointing face he would do in a comedy (of course, romantic also). This also ruins his chemistry with Ryder, who makes an effort to play a dramatic role. There's a lot of power (Ryder) against little power (Gere) in the few powerful scenes. But the difference should be established. This is drama, and although it's not good, it is well done. It's encouraging that the film tries to be real, and it should be; because that would make a difference from the usual deal. The characters are real because they stick to their personalities. Will (Gere) is a womanizer and he can't help it. But when he starts seeing Charlotte (Ryder), reality wins; because he's not going to give her the precious spot. He won't resist at the time of having sex with another woman, to generate anger in Charlotte, and opening the route of true love. This concept is missed in the movie. We wanted to happen, but not that fast. Velocity reduces belief; and we can't believe the love they're feeling. Still we stick to it.

She loves poetry. He loves food, not poetry. They are not the same; they just try too. In one scene, Charlotte is lying ill on a hospital; she hardly sees. Will sits next to her and whispers a poem. She's delighted and tells him: "Look how I have changed you".

Will Keane (Richard Gere) is a womanizing restaurateur on the cover of a magazine. Charlotte Fielding (Winona Ryder) has her 22th birthday party at his restaurant. She makes weird little hats. Her grandmother (Elaine Stritch) knows him as an old friend of her mom. He starts flirting with her and maneuvers her to a date. After their first night together, he tells her that he can offer her nothing, and she tells him that she has a terminal heart tumor. Meanwhile there is a mystery woman Lisa Tyler (Vera Farmiga) around.

There is a high ick factor especially since the movie hints at him and her mother having a thing in the past. She's playing a giggly little girl. She's literally giggling about him dancing with her mother. He's the weaselly Don Juan type. She's so young that she can't see that he was just trying to seduce her that first time around. She's so clueless that she's shocked by her mother's past with him. It's not romantic. It's just sleazy. Next to Gere, Winona Ryder is like a fawning teenager. And why do they have to keep talking about her mother? I understand that there is a May to December romance that gets turned upside down. It's not as poetic as the movie supposes. The chemistry is all wrong. If she doesn't start off as terminal, then it might make the movie more poetic. The dialog is fairly weak and there is limited tension in the story. I don't know what drives the movie if we rule out happily ever after right off the bat.

An unlikely romance lies at the heart of `Autumn In New York,' a visually poetic film directed by Joan Chen and starring Richard Gere and Winona Ryder as the couple who defy the odds of a difference in age and the knowledge that time is not on their side to pursue that most elusive butterfly, love. Gere is Will, a successful restaurant owner who, at 48, falls for the much younger Charlotte (Ryder). Whether or not it can or will work is the question; Will has a history with Charlotte's late mother, the fact of which her grandmother, Dolly (Elaine Stritch), fails to inform her, not that it would have had a direct influence on the romance in any case. For who among us can define love or explain it? And who can really explain how and why these two come together in the first place? Will is a notorious womanizer, while Charlotte has a singular issue of her own with which to deal. When it comes right down to it, and with everything considered, all bets should be off. but it's autumn, not only in New York, but in the lives of Will and Charlotte as well. Cinematically, New York City has rarely looked more beautiful; this is not the city of `West Side Story,' but a lyrical land of myriad colors and picturesque vistas. Beyond the chill of the season there is an alluring warmth to the surroundings that contrast splendidly with the more dire, unsettling events unfolding within the story. The performances of Gere and Ryder are outstanding, but just how successfully these characters will connect with an audience is open to question. Whether or not you will be able to sympathize or identify with them will depend heavily on your own personal state of mind and frame of reference. To like Will, one must be willing and able to forgive much; it's a tough character not to pass judgment on. Unlike `Scrooge' you get the feeling that Christmas may not last throughout the year with Will, despite the life-altering circumstances he ultimately encounters. Charlotte on the other hand, is an endearing character; she makes no pretense of her situation, which she deals with in an open and honest manner. And the winsome Ryder, who can say so much with her eyes alone, will capture even the most astute cynic with a single, penetrating glance. It may be difficult to understand some of the choices she makes, but in the end it becomes a matter of walking a mile in the other person's shoes. You can speculate as to how you would handle a given situation, but the truth of the matter is, no one knows until it actually happens to them. The supporting cast includes Anthony LaPaglia (John), Sherry Stringfield (Sarah) and Vera Farmiga (Lisa). With `Autumn In New York,' Chen has delivered a thoughtful, visually stunning film, a romance that is somewhat different than the usual fare. There is an unexpected lack of emotional impact, which can only be attributed to Gere's character (not to be confused with his performance), but this is an exceptionally well made movie; how it will be received, however, is in the final analysis going to be quite simply a matter of personal taste. I rate this one 7/10.

It seems these days that most critics will do anything to a movie just for the sake of appearing all-knowing, echelonistic and fastidious. Indeed, if it was not for my growing dislike for the absolute quixotic nature of critics (most of my friends don't even bother reading taglines anymore. They go by word of mouth), I would not feel compelled to defend this movie. In my honest opinion this movie is not half bad. I would not buy it or even recommend it but I most certainly would not lambast it. Let us take a tiny dissection of some of the criticisms leveled towards this movie.

The chemistry is terrible: Well NO not really. What is being mistaken for lack of chemistry is a detachment which is perfect for the tone of the movie. Both main characters have mental asides. Winona's character is hiding something and Gere's character feels this. Add this to his emotional dilemma (he has never really given a rat's ass about anyone before and you could see why the characters are not doing cartwheels in bed.

The movie is cheesy: What do you call titanic? City of Angels? Do you think these bodies of work are original. This may come as a shock to you but there is no such thing as an absolutely original idea. Every idea or concept borrows ingredients from another avenue. Look at the matrix.

The script is redundant: The dialogue is horrible but then again, so was the dialogue in Mission Impossible.

I don't expect this mediocre movie to change the world or even make a serious impact on culture or what have you. I just don't appreciate a regular old run of the mill cheesy Hollywood flick such as this one being crucified when others are left to fly and are called "the best movie of the year". Something is wrong. I do not like this. It does not make any sense.

"Autumn in New York" is a melodramatic, highly romanticized, and somewhat predictable old guy, young babe love story. However, Chen does a masterful job of choreographing the technical and artistic with the story making it easy to buy into this film which keeps the Kodak moments to a minimum, fast forwards past the fluff, and sticks to it's purpose of developing characters and story.

Many seem to have forgotten that romantic melodrama is a genre, not a liability. When times were tough (eg:WWII), this genre was Hollywood's most popular and offered blessed escapism for a needy public. Critics and naysayers be damned. Within its genre, "Autumn..." is one of the year's best.

Some reviewers pegged this as a three-hanky film. I agree - but only for the crying that comes after you realize you've wasted your time and money. I was incredibly disappointed that there was no chemistry between Richard Gere and Winona Ryder. Further, the plot was exceptionally insipid. I get the sense the movie was made just to fill contractual obligations. I hope never to see these two otherwise fine actors in such a piece of schlock again. Avoid this movie at all costs and rent Little Women and Pretty Women instead.

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.

I take each film on its own merits, and yes, it has clichés and corny moments, but what romantic film doesn't?

This film isn't overly mushy, in fact it's quite the opposite, with the relationship being what it is, flaws and all known by both sides. It doesn't hide from this fact, or make excuses on the male perspective, it is what it is, as they say.

As for the story. Can a leopard change his spots? Sure people can change for the better, its not too far fetched to think the story was possible.

The ending without giving too much away, was very sad of course and didn't have the Hollywood ending some may have wished for, but true to life it was the better and more realistic for it.

I enjoyed the film, wasn't bored, shed a tear, not a-lot more to say, maybe not a classic but well worth a watch.

Having 2 small children, my wife and I get to see 1-2 movies per year, and to think I wasted one of them on this trash! Love story...my butt. If you are the type of woman that believes that you can change a man with 49 years of womanizing, this is for you. If you can forgive a man, for cheating on you AND your mother, in the span of a 3 minute conversation, go see it. If you enjoy a story about this incredibly rare disease that lets you live a normal life, except for a few predictably placed fainting spells, then let me hold the door for you. If you want suspense, they even crammed in a useless character, with a predictable tie to the main character, to appease you.

However, if you want to actually like the characters in the film, and feel sorry for them when bad things happen, stay away. After the first 40 minutes, I was hoping someone would die, to make it interesting.

I can't say enough bad things about this movie. Richard and Winona must have needed the cash, because this was just plain awful.