The Age of Innocence

Name: The Age of Innocence
Genre: Drama, Romance
Released: September 17, 1993
Duration: 139 min
Rating: 90
Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer, Winona Ryder

1993

METASCORE

Universal acclaim based on 35 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 81 Ratings

See All

8.0

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8.0	Your Score
8.0	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 81 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

The Age Of Innocence

Now Playing: The Age Of Innocence

Movie Details & Credits

Columbia Pictures | Release Date: September 17, 1993 | PG

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer, Winona Ryder

Summary: Daniel Day-Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer star in a ravishing romance about three wealthy 1870s New Yorkers caught in a tragic love triangle. (Sony)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Genre(s): Drama, Romance

Rating: PG

Runtime: 139 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

Steve Persall

With a loving hand and immeasurable skill, Scorsese has fashioned a classic film for any age, innocent or otherwise. [24 Sept 1993, p.8]

100

Danny King

The Age of Innocence remains a consistent spellbinder, laying bare its inhabitants’ follies and furies with a tender touch and a vigilant quietude that accumulates into a grand force. Read full review

100

Bill Cosford

This is a story that in hindsight we can see was waiting for Scorsese to come along. He did. The result is wonderful. [17 Sept 1993, p.G5]

100

David Sterritt

Thoughtful and reflective, it stands with the most exquisitely crafted films in recent memory, joining eloquently conceived images to an uncommonly literate screenplay. [17 Sept 1993, Arts, p.11]

100

Michael Wilmington

A great, velvety, beautiful anachronism. It's a movie almost drunk on romance, literature and cinema, a splendid period picture that keeps rashly breaking rules and boundaries [17 Sept 1993, Friday, p.A]

Owen Gleiberman

Up through its first half, The Age of Innocence is a masterfully orchestrated tale of romantic yearning. Read full review

Stanley Kauffmann

What helps Pfeiffer most is the fact that though she is exceptionally pretty, she patently doesn't rely on her prettiness: she wants to act. But, with her Ellen, though we know what she means from moment to moment, we simply don't feel it... Winona Ryder is disastrously miscast. [18 Oct 1993, p.30]

SEE ALL 35 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

GiuseppeB

Oct 10, 2006

Michelle Pfeiffer had to win the Oscar.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

HTI.

Feb 1, 2006

This is one of the most heart-wrenching movies I have experienced.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

alejandro970

Jul 16, 2020

Dedicated to his father, the director moves away from his favorite subject (the mafia) to make a story in the 19th century, centered on a love triangle, in a society of narrow morals. The result can be very solemn for some tastes but it is worth that and more for the cast and the vintage setting.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

amheretojudge

Apr 2, 2019

Love That Travels Bad.

The Age Of Innocence Scorsese has that knack of being an outlaw even in a period piece as such. A love story set in the backdrop of a 19th century, the love factor is transpired as a wicked disease that rottens the core of oneself that questions. Yet, there is aLove That Travels Bad.

The Age Of Innocence

Scorsese has that knack of being an outlaw even in a period piece as such. A love story set in the backdrop of a 19th century, the love factor is transpired as a wicked disease that rottens the core of oneself that questions. Yet, there is a certain coziness in their body language, when Daniel Day-Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer first encounter each other awkwardly, Martin Scorsese's- the co writer and director- target lies on a play going on in that room. That very play helps a lot in setting up the scenes, and despite of having a narrator in storytelling, Scorsese uses one of his best asset, Daniel, for introducing his point on the table.

Often when such a long film, that covers a lot of years from jumping one incident to another, tends to lose the grasp over the audience and for a brief period it does so, but Scorsese being himself, pulls out his trump card Winona Ryder that he has been keeping aside for the first half. Presumably, the reason why Winona comes off a lot powerful than any other, is that she is alone for the most part of the film. Daniel and Michelle fights against themselves to not unite together, while Winona takes away all the big chips.

The monologues in the film are crucial to both, the makers and the actors, and this early cinema vibe that it offers, feels like a Sunday morning. You don't often see a vein popping, throat bulging, red turning face on the screen when the actors fight so passionately against each other. The Age Of Innocence is similar to the play, that these characters are moved with in the film, all drama with a pinch of romance, this is old textbook filmmaking at its best.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

FilipeNeto

Jun 24, 2020

Making period films is a challenge for any director, as historical rigour is something truly important and difficult to achieve. So difficult that many films choose to relativize its importance and make films that more easily portray the way we, in the 21st century, see the past, than theMaking period films is a challenge for any director, as historical rigour is something truly important and difficult to achieve. So difficult that many films choose to relativize its importance and make films that more easily portray the way we, in the 21st century, see the past, than the past itself. However, Scorcese was able to give us a film that overcomes this difficulty.

The story of this film is so trivial that it can be disappointing: at the end of the 19th century, the New York elite lives closed in its own world, stuck to its social conventions, copied from the Old World, and when it happens something that goes against rules, ostracism is guaranteed. Its in this environment that lives Newland Archer, who is engaged to the young and pure May Welland. All seems to be perfect but the arrival of Countess Ellen Olenska, who returns from Europe in order to escape a bad marriage, promises to endanger this plans, as she was the Newland's youth love and seems to give little importance to social conventions.

I think I understand why this film is now forgotten. Its a warm film, as the script simply tells a banal story of a period love triangle, full of comings and goings, exchanges of letters and repressed emotions. And its presumptuous because it gives itself a lot of importance and an air of dramatic super-production without having a script that justifies it. The problem is not the emotional restraint of the characters. This is something to be expected in a film set in the 19th century elite, for whom emotions were things that should not exist in public. The problem is that, besides making a good portrait of the behavior and mentality of that period, it has nothing else to give to the public. There is no story, there is no plot and the film is not able to compensate for that.

The cast has some strong names, starting with Daniel Day-Lewis, a real chameleon. He perfectly embodied his character, a well-born and educated man who knows his place and what is expected of him. The actor was excellent in the task of showing the mental confusion of his character when his feelings tried to counter the well-directed course he wanted to take in his life. Winona Ryder is perfect in the role of a young naive woman, raised inside a crystal dome but with a generous heart and a noble soul, in sharp contrast to the almost disruptive character of Michelle Pfeiffer. She is the elegant seductive woman, with a dubious and controversial past, who breaks through the city and behaves freely, shocking the conservative and who ends up discovering that America is no longer free or open-minded that the European countries from which she had decided to leave.

Technically, the film is extraordinary. Scorcese's style is there but discreet, as subtle as the emotions shown by the characters. Slowly and leisurely, the film drags on, as it moves from the theater to the ballroom and the elegant garden. Joanne Woodward's slightly monochordic deep voice doesn't help and makes it even heavier. Visually, its an opulent, grandiose film, with meticulously made sets and detailed props, in addition to having the best 19th century costumes I have ever seen in a feature film. Everything breathes ostentation, and earned this film an well-deserved Oscar for Best Costume Design.

But it is undoubtedly a numbing film, able to put to sleep the audience that are less sensitive to historical rigour. Our current mentality didn't like to restraining emotions, but it was the 19th century way of thinking and the film does nothing more than show it and be good at it. It is a pity that the plot is not so good, by giving us a truly engaging or moving story. Without this, the film resembles a gift box, brilliantly wrapped and with a large, showy bow on top, but with only a cheap present inside.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

JoshC.

Nov 19, 2006

A bore from begining to end. This is white elephant art at its worst.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

Broyax

Jan 14, 2017

Moué... rien à faire, Scorsese son truc, c'est les gangsters, la mafia, les truands et les mauvais garçons : dès qu'il quitte ce genre, il est perdu et entraîne le spectateur avec lui dans l'ennui. Il devient un automate qui soigne ses plans cucul-la-praline, il fait des manières et desMoué... rien à faire, Scorsese son truc, c'est les gangsters, la mafia, les truands et les mauvais garçons : dès qu'il quitte ce genre, il est perdu et entraîne le spectateur avec lui dans l'ennui. Il devient un automate qui soigne ses plans cucul-la-praline, il fait des manières et des ronds-de-jambe tout comme l'ensemble de la distribution ici, dans ce New York de peigne-culs du 19ème siècle.

Une distribution soignée, brillante, tirée à quatre épingles, engoncée et constipée... et qui débite des âneries sentimentales à l'eau de rose périmée. Quant à l'histoire, cette espèce d'histoire superfétatoire, oiseuse et désuète, elle n'inspire que l'ennui (encore) et une vague commisération dédaigneuse. Un film futile et inutile.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 8 REVIEWS