5/5 Martin Scorsese's Most Violent Film
  by Galina (Virginia, USA)
Martin Scorsese's film The Age of Innocence (1993) is an adaptation of a 1920 novel by Edith Wharton, which won the 1921 Pulitzer Prize. Both, the novel and the film are set in upper class New York City in the 1870s.

The Age of Innocence is the movie that proves once again what a versatile talented, unpredictable, incredibly passionate, and artistically outstanding director Martin Scorsese is. Recently I saw for the first time Scorsese's comedy After Hours and was fascinated how masterful he was in creating a darkly funny surreal comedy. Now, after re-watching The Age of Innocence, I am sure that Scorsese has made one of the most beautiful, tragic, passionate, sensual, sexually charged screen romances ever, which is at the same time perfectly suitable for the whole family watching. It is PG rated, and the characters speak in refined, almost forgotten English. The director himself described The Age of Innocence as the "most violent" film he's ever made, clearly referring to the inner turmoil, disappointment and resignation the two main characters of this drama go through.

The material world Scorsese created and paints with his lenses is of incredible beauty. Michael Ballhaus' camera brings out the perfection of craftsmanship of every object it looks at: be it the costumes (Oscar statuette for Gabriella Pescucci who has dressed the heroes of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), Der Name der Rose (1986), and Upon a Time in America (1984) to name a few), china, crystal, silver, flower arrangements, jewelry or furniture. The exquisite meals looked delicious and required a special food consultant who was mentioned in the film's credits. Or take for example these elegant leather ladies gloves with small buttons. Who would think that unbuttoning a glove on the hand of a beautiful woman slowly, tenderly, makes one of the most erotic scene ever filmed? The people who inhabited this world of beauty, comfort, and privilege seem the perfect happy creatures but not all is so perfect in the paradise. Two beautiful passionate people found love that could only happen once in a life time but the strict norms or society they live in and the unbending unwritten rules based on convention and hypocrisy they must obey won't permit them to follow their hearts freely, to fulfill their desire, and to be happy in that Age of Innocence. The cast is superb, and includes Daniel Day-Lewis, the film protagonist Newland Archer, Michelle Pfeiffer, as Countess Olenska, a woman with "a Past" who stole his heart, and very young Winona Ryder, May Welland, the girl whom Archer will marry. 22 years old Ryder very deservingly received the Oscar nomination for her performance. I would like to mention Joanne Woodward's subtle narrating of Edith Wharton's prose which is one of the high points of the film. IMO, the film has only high points and is Martin Scorsese fine (perhaps, the finest) and stunning achievement.



1/5 The Age of Boredom
  by Glenn Gallagher (Sacramento, CA)
Martin Scorsese, usually a brilliant film-maker, has broken the cardinal rule of film-making: Thou Shall Not Bore the Audience.

This film is excruciatingly boring. There's no other way to state it. The pacing is slow, the dialogue without emotion, the story is thin and lifeless. Although beautifully filmed at times (check out the ornate dinner parties), and the actors appear competent, if not comfortable in their roles, there is no disguising that in this film, nothing happens. Nothing.

I have no problem with deliberately paced films with similar story lines, such as The Remains of the Day. However, with The Age of Innocence, the sum of the parts is significantly less than zero. A complete waste of two hours of my life.

5/5 Classic
  by S. D. Horais (Grand Rapids MI USA)
I've always enjoyed this type of film, totally lacking in bang-up, crash 'em and slash 'em trash. It's intelligent, has depth and makes one think. I haven't read the original Edith Wharton novel since college many years ago but the film presents the period and characters well. It's another one to enjoy many times over.

1/5 One of the worst movies I've ever seen
  by Kim C
I bought this movie after reading some of the positive reviews. After seeing it, I am baffled at how anyone could possibly like this movie. I love Edith Wharton and The Age of Innocence is one of my favorite books, but this movie is awful. It is a hokey, boring attempt at bringing Wharton's beautifully written, Pulitzer Prize winning novel to film. From the laughable love scenes between the Countess and Newland Archer to the annonymous narrator that cuts in with background information to the strange lighting effects that make you think there is something wrong with your TV, this movie butchers a classic and puts good actors to shame. Don't waste your time and money on this!

1/5 Surprisingly terrible
  by M. Miller (MD, United States)
I absolutely ADORE period films, especially films from the Edwardian or Victorian period. So I was excited to rent this, thinking it would be up there with my favorite Jane Austen adaptations...

UGH! I kept waiting for something to actually happen. Well, let me rephrase that. Things did happen, but I DIDN'T CARE. I didn't care about the characters; I didn't really like them! The film was tedious, the characters were irritating, the plot was dreary (and not in a good, redeemable way). I was glad at the end because 1) it was over, thank goodness! and 2) none of the characters ended up happy. This is, of course, a terrible thing to say, but I didn't think any of them deserved happiness, and they certainly didn't deserve each other - they were all horribly mismatched. My point is, don't even RENT this film, let alone buy it. The costumes and sets are pretty, but not worth watching for the 2 hours and however many minutes this film drags on for.

Despite being a former English teacher, I haven't read this Wharton novel. Not sure I want to.