MovieChat Forums > The Age of Innocence (1993) Discussion > Did Anyone Else Not Like It?

Did Anyone Else Not Like It?

posted 15 years ago by packers56789
34 replies | jump to latest

Visually brilliant, I know, but the movie was possibly the most boring I've ever seen. There is almost no entertainment value in this film. The film is as phony as the society it portrays. Even if that was intentional, the film is talky (with boring dialogue) and no female eye candy. It is as human as a tree, and as interesting as the silverware and garments that are so heavily emphasized throughout the picture. I am a big Scorcese fan, but this was a real disappointment and therefore my least favorite Scorcese movie.

[–] johnyb4 15 years ago

Pal, I cannot agree more. This film is the worst and most boring I have ever seen. Despite that, I didn't rate it with 1, only due to the fact that it is not ridiculous and has some storyline.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Carmela_Medallion 15 years ago

This is one of the most painful movies I can think of. It could be used in place of waterboarding to torture prisoners.

The title could just have easily been The Age of Copious Flatware.

Oh my god, it's so excruciating - my husband sometimes tries to watch it and it makes me scream.

[–] hawks-bill 15 years ago

"The Age of Copious Flatware."

Ha! I like that.;)

One of my biggest pet peeves in the romance genre concern films that don't make it clear why two characters fall in love. This is another case in point. The novel explains the fervid love of Ellen for Newland, the film doesn't.

[–] linda303 15 years ago

I would say far more strongly the fervent love of Archer for Ellen Olenska.

[–] hawks-bill 15 years ago

To explain further: in the novel Ellen grows to love Newland because of his uncommon rectitude and sincerity. Newland comes to love *her* for forcing him to think, for subtly insisting that he examine his life and for inspiring him to venture a look behind the social veil. This emerges during the scene in which he raises the subject of her divorce. I can't for the life of me understand why Scorsese didn't consider this scene critical. Instead its there as a device to get the two of them alone in a room together. What they actually discuss seems secondary. And by removing Newland's ambivalence, by making him utter stock phrases that merely embarrass him, Scorsese pulls the rug out from the romance as Wharton conceived of it. Instead of Wharton, we get nothing more than a facile Hollywood model of true love.

Scorsese forgot that The Age of Innocence is not merely an ironic title; it is also a profoundly nostalgic one.

[–] scorsese-1 15 years ago

I totally disagree , probably his best film and the best film of the 90's.Honorable mention to Goodfellas , Kundun and The Thin Red Line.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

Really? I`ve been holding off on TAOI, but if you're a big Scorsese fan. You think I would like it? Mean Streets was one of my favourites, better than Goodfellas.. Can I also get your opinion on The Color Of Money?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hawks-bill 15 years ago

I feel the same way. It never really breaks away from Wharton's text into its own self-reliant text and it never moves beyond a polite synopsis of Whatron's story. It depends in large part on the tired device of culling and truncating lines from the novel -- lives which, instead of being incorporated into the script, are delivered via Woodward's voiceovers. That diminishes the film's dramatic potency. Essentially Wharton's writing ends up doing too much of the work and the mute actors are reduced to a pantomimesque performance. What are they except visual inserts into Woodward's narration? Everytime she spoke I felt pulled away from the movie and back to the book. I didn't need reminding of how good Wharton's writing was, however. I wanted to feel Scorsese's power as a top director. I didn't feel that here. He's too restrained, too timid.

[–] deniseactress 15 years ago

I actually think these period movie (this one particularly) is just as dramatic as one of Scorcese other film GoodFella, or the Gangs of New York...it's really about an era and the strict rule of code of honor everyone is tied to.
Ok, in this film they are not using guns to rid the enemy but words or the right party or words can kill off another in this social setting. it is also a film about two cunning women. Do not be deceived by the fancy dress and air, behind the words or Ellen and May, they are like two mafioso family battling for turf.

Just as Scorcese used Ray Liotta as a narrator in Good Fellas he used Joanne Woodward in this film.
They both serve the purpose of giving the viewer a play by play of who is winning and losing. A bit like a greek chorus, in a greek tragedy but a singular voice.

Zachary Quinto is ridiculously sexy! Robert Downey Jr....is pure sex!

[–] mezdazzma 14 years ago

Apologies, this comment was meant in context of the OP. I agree with the voiceover, I thought it was unusual. The OP apparently likes a LOT of dialogue to be a feature of a good film.

-------moved to reply to OP-------

[–] linda303 14 years ago

I think Scorsese disagrees with you . This is his own personal favorite.

No dialog? I guess you do not appreciate Woody Allen films.

[–] mezdazzma 14 years ago

Obviously you misread my post - this film has quiet nuance which I adore. This film is one of my all time favourites because of it. You've not seen the half of what's beautifully unsaid if you've only heard the dialogues. That's (in part) what separates The Age of Innocence from a trite hag of a drama that Titanic was, for instance.

I don't dislike dialogue - never said a film should be completely silent. I just find their omnipresent overuse in American films to be of little artistic value - particularly when so much can be said without being said. There is no other medium that allows this kind of quiet expression.

Your Woody Allen analogy, although very smart, is inapplicable here. Please read carefully.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KenanP 15 years ago

I agree. I haven't seen Bringing Out the Dead yet, but other than that, it's the Scorsese film I like the least.

The stakes were so low from my point of view, especially compared to some of Scorsese's other movies. I have bigger issues going on my life than the protagonist of this movie (as most people do), so the drama fell totally flat.

--------------------------------
Oh you mad cuz I'm stylin on you

[–] mezdazzma 14 years ago

I was completely shocked to read your comment on boring dialogue - I thought movies are exactly that, a story to be told with pictures , not with barking dialogue. Typically I'd recommend my friends to go see a play if they wanted dialogue so much, not a motion picture. I always find Hollywood to be obsessed with punchlines and ruin subtle delivery of emotion through the actors' eyes and their gestures - I only need prove my point with a reference to Marlon Brando speaking with a broken jaw. Some rare examples of Oscar-worthiness have been known to put the generic, quiet French films to shame.

Then again, this is an American subject and an American film. That it should deserve the exact restraint that ironical title confers and the hypocrisy that 1900s' New York unfolds on us - that should be the least of our delights, shouldn't it?

[–] joes119-1 14 years ago

These pretzels are making me thirsty!