Avaliações de usuários

The world that Edith Wharton grew up within the 19th century and the one Martin Scorsese did in the 20th century are so vastly different. About all they have in common is it's New York City. But each has a strict code of behavior and violation can bring ruin and disgrace or worse.

In the tight little world of the New York upper crust gossip flows freely, but you dare not let your life in that new thing called the tabloid press of Mr. Hearst and Mr. Pulitzer Discretion is the key.

Daniel Day Lewis is your typical society blade of the time who is about to make a good match in Winona Ryder. But he meets up with a cousin of her's Michelle Pheiffer over from Europe. She's married but separated from a profligate scion of old European nobility. Then as now old names marry new money to keep up a lifestyle. It's the bargain you made and by the rules you stick with it.

But Pheiffer is an exciting and liberated woman for the time and she fascinates Lewis. The big question is will he ive in to temptation. In Edith Wharton's world you don't.

The Age Of Innocence is one opulent film as befits the time and place it's set in. Winona Ryder got a Best Supporting Actress nomination and it got a flock of other nominations in technical categories bringing home the statue for Costume Design. It's an eyeful to look at, but Edith Wharton's story and characters never get lost in the splendor.

And it proves a good story is always the bedrock of a good movie.

I really liked this movie because it was so rich in every aspect: from the acting, to the setting and the costumes, the cinematography and the score, everything was beautifully crafted. The movie seems to start slowly and the story is only relatively important. More than anything it is an occasion for Scorsese to talk about the NY upper society of the late 1800, and it's rigid way, sometimes desperate (see Ryder's character), often cruel to maintain an identity (paradoxically built on the European upper class mold) despite the changes that were happening. I was very impressed by the use of the objects, the clothes of the time to describe the feeling of the scene or of the characters involved.

The actors are all very good, but Michelle Pfeiffer really delivers and excellent performance. Also Winona Ryder's character is well portrayed and towards the end of the movie, the actress is able to convincingly show how her character is much more layered than what it seems to be in the beginning of the story.

In my opinion this movie deserves 8

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!)

Knowing nothing about this film, except that it was clearly a costume drama and directed by the esteemed Martin Scorsese, I placed a lot of faith in its stellar cast. After all Daniel Day-Lewis is a legendary actor while Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder are usually worth the price of admission.

I won't say that I was mislead but really the whole is not greater than the sum of the parts. OK the story is all about repressed longing in the upper class echelons of New York society but you can go to far squeezing out the emotional juice. Do that and you're left with naught but ashes.

That's the fate of "The Age of Innocence" with each scene being a study in appearing artful and clever. The sets look fantastic, the attention to detail mesmerising and the lighting subtle but it's all rather antiseptic. Are these people really human you wonder?

For a far more involving viewing experience I'd stick to "The Remains of the Day" or "Brief Encounter". Both of these wonderful films shutter their emotions but my you really feel for the characters and their heartache. In short you care about them.

Sadly while "The Age of Innocence" paints an impressive picture of its time and place I just didn't care about the people and their choices. Maybe they should have cared more about themselves?

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.

It's worth mentioning at the outset that I am a complete Martin Scorcese fan; however I do not agree with an apparent consensus here that this is among his best films.

For me, the biggest hurdle is the (mis)casting of the endlessly effete Daniel Day-Lewis in the lead role. So: if you like Daniel Day-Lewis, you may well love the film--he's in nearly every scene. For my part, I find him almost unbearable to watch, never more so than here. It's hard to imagine him as an object of desire, even in this period piece. And saddling his character with feminist political philosophy, while it may enhance his appeal to some viewers, is a stretch from the novel's characterization and quite anachronistic besides.

However, the other leads are notably fine (especially Michelle Pfeiffer and even the endlessly variable Winona Ryder) and there are knockout performances in the supporting roles, particularly Siân Phillips, Jonathan Pryce and Miriam Margolyes.

Otherwise, the film's pacing is the problem. The film is simply overlong; boring and tedious at times (and I'm a person who loves Bergman), although never less than stunning visually. That last fact alone carried me through several scenes. It's a treat to look at, no doubt about that. And if you like period films, decoration, and fashion, so much the better for you.

Scorcese has done better, though. Much better.

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.

One of the few Winona Ryder films i avoided buying back in the day on VHS as i knew as a teenager i would hate it.

Fast forward nearly 30 years and having watched many period dramas in-between times, i can comfortably say i made the right choice all those years ago! The film is quite a hard watch unless accustomed to period dramas, its very static and blinkered to one story with no little branches of fun or stories on the side leaving you wishing for a break from the 2 and half hours of intense drama.

That's not to say i hated it, it was worth a watch and the acting especially from Daniel Day-Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer was superb. It's just not a film that has a rewatch factor.

Exquisite and yet dark, pungent, unforgiving. The best, the most cinematic kind of period drama since Visconti's "Senso'. Martin Scorsese is, without question, the master of his generation. After his dark paintings of New York, the New York of "Taxi Driver" or "The King Of Comedy" this look back at a time when not just New York, but America was defining its identity. Daniel Day Lewis is sublime and Michelle Pfeiffer gives the performance of her life. I was also profoundly moved for that glimpse of Alexis Smith in her last film appearance and the wonderful voice of Joanne Woodward narrating Edith Wharton's words. Thank you!

For those who wonder what is Mr. Scorsese looking for in a film like "The Age of Innocence", (probably more suitable to a director such as James Ivory), the man himself gives the answer: "This film deals with the same matters that can be found in my work in the last 25 years. There is guilt, desire, obsessed passion and the weakness to satisfy that passion".

The story takes place in New York, around 1880. Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis) must choose between his current fiancee May Welland (Winona Ryder) and her cousin who has just arrived from Poland and is recently divorced, Helen Ollenska (Michelle Pfeiffer). May is the symbol of a world he's familiar with, and Helen represents the world he's dreaming of.

Living in a conservative world full of compromises, Newland is as much trapped by his social circle as the Italian-American heroes of Mean Streets and GoodFellas. However, the Mafia here is called New York aristocracy and kills with words, with a gesture or with a look of contempt and rejection, instead of using guns. Scorsese fans who expect to see psychotic characters, violence or De Niro-style performances, will be disappointed. Everything in this movie is based on the observation and recording of the social behaviour codes, the unexpressed feelings and of things which are not not said but implied. Scorsese portrayed with absolute preciseness, almost paragraph to paragraph, Edith Wharton's classic novel. However, he managed to give the film his own unique personal view, proving his gigantic talent and that he's capable of creating masterpieces, whatever the heroes, the story or the genre of the film. Winona Ryder should definitely have won the Oscar for her wonderful performance, but Lewis and Pfeiffer are marvellous as well. What's left to say? The Age of Innocence is an un-excusably underrated all time classic.

The Pulitzer Prize was awarded to this novel. This film is magnificently brought to the screen giving it full color and a great cast. Granted, the Author is long gone, and the prize was long ago, but the script adaptation is solid giving life to America prior to 1920. Filming for this was done in Philadelphia, Pa, Troy, NY, the Bronx, and Paris, France among other locations. The locations are all treated well.

Daniel Day-Lewis heads a major cast and has the dilemma of Michelle Pfeiffer versus Winona Ryder who in real life is 13 years her junior. In all these period costumes, they both look magnificent. The period of refinement and elegance fits all of them well.

This is a drama and as such could tend to bore many viewers, but those who appreciate drama and acting will enjoy this one. Geraldine Chaplin is particularly effective in this movie too. It is mostly the story of Newland Archer becoming engaged and married to a beautiful young woman while falling in love with a Countess who has recently been widowed but will not allow herself to consummate a love she has for him too.

The ending of this is very symbolic of the whole story of the real love that is but yet never realized. It is one of quiet rejection.

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.

On the one hand, I see the artistic quality of this film. After all, we are talking about a film by the great Martin Scorsese.

On the other hand, I also see a work that felt trivial and tedious to me. From the beginning, the narrator throws names and relationships at us in such a way that confusion reigns at first.

Then a story develops in which hardly anything advances in terms of content.

I did not like this. Only the breadth of themes about the individual, conformity, society and life choices was relevant to me. Even if these were not covered in depth.

Maybe next time I will be able to appreciate it more.

New York doyen Martin Scorsese directs another movie set in the city that never sleeps. However, "The Age of Innocence" is not about streets that are mean, bulls who rage, or fellas who are good. It focuses on the hypocrisy of 1870s high society. Daniel Day-Lewis's respected lawyer is engaged to Winona Ryder's heiress, but then falls for her cousin (Michelle Pfeiffer).

The idea behind the story is that the main character is as trapped by his surroundings as is Travis Bickle in "Taxi Driver". There's not an iota of bloodshed in this adaptation of Edith Wharton's novel, but the emotional violence that the characters here perpetrate on each other is analogous to the physical violence in Scorsese's most famous movies. The innocence of the title is as much of a facade as is the lifestyle in "The Graduate".

Nonetheless, I couldn't watch the movie without throwing out a few "MST3K"-style comments. For one thing, I kept thinking to myself "This is directed by the man who gave us 'The Wolf of Wall Street'." Also, any look at high society tempts me to launch some barbs. I just find it hard to take such a focus seriously. To crown everything, Daniel Day-Lewis's other 1993 movie was "In the Name of the Father", which couldn't have been more different from "The Age of Innocence".

In the end, I recommend the movie. To my knowledge, Martin Scorsese has never made a bad movie. The rest of the cast includes Geraldine Chaplin, Michael Gough, Mary Beth Hurt, Norman Lloyd, Miriam Margolyes, Jonathan Pryce and Joanne Woodward.

In a way I am disappointed after reading the comments because I thought I was alone in adoring this ravishing and masterful film, and I thought I would get to be the sole voice in the wind proudly proclaiming its brilliance.

Years ago, I ho-hummed my way through viewing it, and I was so unimpressed, I can't tell you today whether I saw it in a theater or rented it at home. It has been in rather heavy rotation on the movie channels for some reason of late, and I watched it again a few weeks ago.

It simply left me breathless. I must have watched it twelve times over the last few weeks, and am dying to buy the DVD if it ever comes out. Scorcese calls this his "most violent film", and after seeing it again, alone, watching intently, it struck me how completely right he was.

The comments before mine are mostly right on target...I am in awe of the filmmaking and can't say enough about the dramatic subtleties, the opulent production values and the overall magnificent way the entire project was handled. Even the normally atrocious Winona Ryder excelled in a role that was simply a tour-de-force for her...the vapid but yet not so vapid after all May Welland. A masterpiece. Please see it if you haven't already.

"The Age of Innocence" is a Drama - Romance movie in which we watch a young man being engaged to a woman while he is falling in love with her cousin during nineteenth-century in New York.

I liked this movie because it had a simple but interesting plot and contained plenty of unexpected events. It also had many intense moments and the direction which was made by Martin Scorsese was simply amazing and his touch was obvious through its whole duration. The interpretations of Daniel Day-Lewis who played as Newland Archer, Winona Ryder who played as May Welland and Michelle Pfeiffer who played as Ellen Olenska were very good and their combination worked very well while their character differences made this movie even better. In conclusion, I have to say that "The Age of Innocence" is a nice drama movie that was combined very well with romance, and I recommend you to watch it because I am sure you will enjoy it.

I have seen "The Age of Innocence" about 15 times since 1994, and find the argument as to whether it is boring or not to be fascinating. Period films are not for everyone, and if you lack an appreciation for subtlety then maybe something like "Joe Dirt" may be better suited for you. But what lies beneath this wonderful movie is a priceless ode to individuality.

Michelle Pfeiffer plays Ellen Olenska, a proto-feminist who flees from her failing European marriage to the home of her blood relatives in 1870's New York Society. She's been away for most of her life and the States are foreign to her, but she quickly realizes that she is viewed as threat, a black sheep ---and Society reacts to her as it would to a dirty black spot on a carpet or on one of their tuxedo shirts. "Harmony could be shattered by a whisper", as well narrated by Joanne Woodward.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays Newland Archer, an up-and-rising patriarch who sees something in her that no one else in his rich circle could offer him: an independent viewpoint to life. As a lawyer and a powerful member of his family, he bravely tries to protect Ellen from basically everyone, esp. members of their own family. Despite all of her difficulties, Countess Olenska refuses to part from her individuality: she smokes in front of Newland, does not hide from men in social situations, and criticizes her surroundings. Archer doesn't necessarily fall in love with her as a person but with what she represents: Romanticism and escape.

There is a lot to love about this film, which is more like a piece of art than a movie. Every scene and every bit of dialogue denotes elegance and brutality simultaneously. All of the leading and supporting characters are so believable and well formed that they trump anything Hollywood has been throwing at us in recent months. And the setting for this film is very unconventional, at least for the 90's. Through excellent film-making, I can see why Society felt the need to operate in such a ruthless fashion, in order to protect itself from Ellen and what she represented to Newland, its newly crowned prince.

Over the past few months, I have also grown an appreciation for Winona Ryder's performance as May. She is a shrewd politician, who uses her "bright blindness" as a megaphone for Society's rules of conduct, a weapon of manipulation against her destined husband Newland, and as a way to continue plotting without easily being detected.

I wonder how many more times I will watch "The Age of Innocence" before I risk being exposed to Hollywood's 21st century conformity, such as "Independence Day" or "Wild, Wild West". All I know is that Ellen Olenska (as one of my favorite cinematic heroines) serves to validate my own sense of individuality, and neither she nor the astonishing beauty of this Scorcese creation, will ever be boring. 10 out of 10 stars.

My reaction to Martin Scorsese's The Age of Innocence reminds me a lot of my reaction to David Lean's Hobson's Choice. Both are great works by master filmmakers that have been overshadowed by more well-known films, but they both prove to me, definitively, of the greatness of the filmmakers in question. There are filmmakers who aren't that great who end up making a single film that fires on every cylinder, but then there's Scorsese having made his name with a particular type of modern and masculine filmmaking making an expert and restrained adaptation of an Edith Wharton novel. He filmed it like he films all of his movies, with active, roving cameras and energetic editing, but he also manages to capture the restrained spirit of the main character, Newland Archer, and his emotional journey perfectly.

That being said, the movie still carries many of the hallmarks of Scorsese's career and interests. It's set in New York in the 1870s. It is about a closed society with a strict set of rules of behavior that must be followed. It's about a man who wants something but can't have it because of those rules. All of this is reflected in his previous work. I was reminded mostly of a small moment from Mean Streets when Harvey Keitel's Charlie wants to date the black dancer at Tony's club, but he stands her up because his friends would look down on him for the choice. It's a similar situation that Newland Archer finds himself in when he meets the unfortunate cousin, Ellen, to his fiancée, May.

Newland and May are from two of the most prominent families in New York at the time. Ensconced firmly in the ritual of high society, they are products of a system, looked at to fulfil roles rather than lead lives. Newland is outwardly obedient to this system, but he inwardly questions it, never able to share his challenge with anyone, especially not the innocent naïf, May. Ellen, though, was married to a Polish count who ended up treating her terribly and preferring the company of prostitutes to his own wife. Separated from her husband and buried in scandal, she returns to New York to try and figure out her next steps. Newland uses the opportunity of the public announcement of his engagement to May to help provide support to Ellen at the same time, putting two New York families behind the scandal plagued countess instead of just one.

Ellen is different from the rest of the society that surrounds Newland. Wizened by the hurts she suffered at the hands of her husband. She wants a divorce to separate her completely from the count, but while the legislature may treat divorce kindly society does not. She will be outcast as a defiled woman. The family wants Newland, an attorney and soon to be member of the family, to convince Ellen of the error of such a course, an action that Newland dutifully follows through on despite his obvious affection for the woman. He's not yet married to May, and she could be free of her husband. He even, at one point early before he falls for Ellen, accepts the idea of eloping with May, burning all convention just to be with the woman he loves. Then, when presented with the opportunity to burn convention to be with this new woman who ignites real passion within him, he wilts at the idea and does not follow through despite what his heart wants.

The movie's story is about a year of Newland's life as he tries to balance his heart with his obligations to the stifling system into which he was bred. If he were to cast aside everything for Ellen, not only would he be cast out from society, but his mother and sister would suffer as well. He's also trapped by his promise to wed May, his insistence on a quick engagement, and, soon enough, the wedding itself. He still wants to be close to her, and his passion for the woman he can't have blinds him to the conventions he's breaking, giving the game away to those around him.

The movie is narrated by Joanne Woodward in a cool and refined tone, providing detail, mostly about the world around the characters but occasionally offering inside details to Newland, words largely taken from the Edith Wharton source. It's in the farewell dinner for Ellen scene, after Ellen had considered her options and decided to return to the count, even if it meant a less than happy life for herself, where the narration is used most effectively. Explaining the signs that we, an outside audience, might have missed, she demonstrates that the lack of signs mean that everyone knows something that is untrue, that Newland and Ellen are having an affair, everyone, that is, including May. The innocent look on Winona Ryder's face when the narrator explains this ends up betraying a hidden woundedness, and we can immediately sense the hurt that Newland has for having caused pain to May.

It was a different time where obligation to promises and systems meant more than individual passions. Ellen goes off back to the count, and Newland remains faithful to May, raising a family of healthy young men and women as their children. Is there sadness in the lost connection that was never fully consummated between Newland and Ellen? Yes, for sure. Is there nothing but sadness? No, not at all. Newland raised a good son with May, a son who would not have existed had he run off with Ellen. When given a final chance to see Ellen again, years later and after May's death, he walks away, leaving Ellen to be a memory.

There's a quiet strength to Newland, and Daniel Day Lewis plays him rather perfectly. Caught between his two desires and worlds, he is in complete control of his emotions, carefully expressing his sentiments except in his most unguarded moments with Ellen. Winona Ryder is the innocent as May, wide-eyed and earnest in his loves and fears while looking almost like a doll. Michelle Pfieffer is beautiful and mature as Ellen, a woman caught in a world she doesn't quite understand and between two men, one of whom wants her and can't have her and the other of whom wants her only as a decoration.

Scorsese walked into this production with all of his cinematic tools at their best. The production is gorgeous with ornate sets and wonderful costumes. The performances he helped craft are intricate and dedicated. The editing from Thelma Schoonmaker knows when to hold a shot to help establish a setting or an emotion and when to cut quickly or use slow motion to imply a specific point of view. I don't think that it's Scorsese's greatest movie, but this is definitely one of his greatest. It's also evidence that he is one of the greatest of filmmakers, making his unique approach fit well with material that seems unnatural to his previous body of work.

Every great director has to do a period piece. This film is Scorsese's.

The filming , the colors, the costumes, the acting, the way the characters can speak volumes with just a glance. All these are done perfectly.

But just in case you don't get it there's a voice over to explain every thing to you. And in case you still don't get it, she's going to explain it a couple more times.

Why can't Scorsese tell a story visually? This isn't a book, it's a movie! A good movie, but it can't be great if it can't tell the story by itself.