MovieChat Forums > Autumn in New York (2000) Discussion > Winona Ryder was great in this film

Winona Ryder was great in this film

posted 16 years ago by Reality-Bites
10 replies | jump to latest

I actually avoided watching this movie for many years, because i somehow thought a pairing-up of Winona Ryder and Richard Gere would suck scissors. But finally, I got around to seeing it on AMC channel a few weeks ago, and i must say, I was actually quite impressed with Winona's performance throughout the entire movie. It was a touching story, and Winona seemed quite genuine in it. I loved the part where she took his watch, and how that watch came back into play late in the film.

[–] yejide001 16 years ago

I really enjoyed her performance too.

I cry at the end of this film.

[–] Reality-Bites 16 years ago

Right on. I love Charlotte/Winona.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fourseasons1004 16 years ago

I thought she was terrible in this film, and I have nothing against her as an actress. I was so relieved when she finally died at the end; this movie was such a waste of film.

[–] NeoA4 16 years ago

fourseasons your a jerk off.

[–] pactfo 15 years ago

No panicdivision, you are a jerk off and FourSeasons is totally right, this movie was a big stinker and Winona acted like a dumb little schoolgirl b1mb0. I'm glad to hear she died at the end of the movie, I couldn't even bare to watch until the end it was so crappy. 2 stars max.

[–] owleye1 15 years ago

pactfo...

From your saying that you "couldn't even bare [sic] to watch" the ending, most folks would think this would be evidence of the film being a good one. Since you saw it otherwise I can only conclude you can't handle movies that have a tragic element to them. Well, that's really too bad for you. You're missing one of the two cinematic masks (pathos) of this form of art -- which are comedy and tragedy. Secondly, Charlotte is supposed to be somewhat of a "dumb little schoolgirl" insofar as she falls for this gadabout -- i.e., love is often a very foolish endeavor. However, this doesn't last long as we learn about her condition and how she transforms him (with a mishap or two along the way). My own thinking here is that the romance between a young woman and a "much older" man would not be easy to pull off (if one didn't want to stray into Lolitaland) and that this movie did a remarkable job of making this idea work. I'm no fan of Gere and don't think he is much of an actor, but since he is somewhat of a fixture in the kind of roles he plays, he doesn't really muck it up.

And then there is your alignment with FourSeasons which, I'm afraid, doesn't really help your case.

James

[–] nati12 15 years ago

I agree she was great. I really can't understand the hatred towards the movie. The dialogues were shallow sometimes but still the acting (mostly Winona's) was very good, the movie got through to me and that's enough for me.

[–] td12 14 years ago

I thought she was the worst part of this movie... Richard Gere was the only saving grace.

Her direction wasn't clear.. was she a blushing, naive, "wow"-girl or an older-than-I-look woman who can teach a grown man about love? in fact, she couldn't carry either off if you ask me.
the best part of this movie is NYC.

[–] RealHorrorshowDroog 13 years ago

What's it going to be then, eh?

The film may not have been brilliant, but Winona delivered a good performance. Her character was both strong and vulnerable, something that only she can pull off. She also managed to hold her own against Richard Gere, who I've heard (Through rumours) can be very egotistical and difficult to work with. I myself really cared about Charlotte, and I cried buckets when she died. Although that might just have been because it was Winona!

With thanks from Your Humble Narrator.