A Época da Inocência

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.

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!)

Don't get put off by those telling you to give a miss to this film. They belong to the school, insufferable to the true cinema lover and to those of any taste in general, who expects "something to happen" in a film and feel cheated at the end if they haven't had to scramble through an intricate plot, haven't seen the mandatory pound of spilled blood and the round of gunshots. Scorsese is at his most brilliant in this film; it is all the more exquisite as it does not rely on an overloaded plot but prefers to be constructed of lights and half lights, shades and nuances. All the more appropriate as this is exactly what Scorsese wants us to see in the world of end of XIX th century New York- a society brimming with peace and innocence in which nothing appears to ever happen but under the surface of which gossip and intrigue work relentlessly and destinies are decided over the small talk of the dinner table. Accompanied by an impecable narrative voice and an unforgettable richness of color and music it will haunt you forever. Those it sends to sleep do not deserve to be awake. Ten out of ten!

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 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.