Btexxamar I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

Majorthebys Charming and brutal

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

blanche-2 This "Age of Innocence" from 1934, of course, cannot even approach the sumptuous beauty.amazing acting, and rich story-telling of the Martin Scorsese "Age of Innocence" from 1993 starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder, and Michelle Pfeiffer.The 1934 movie stars Irene Dunne as Ellen, John Boles as Newland, and Julie Haydon as May.The story is told in flashback by the elderly Newland. As a young attorney in the late 1800s, he was engaged to May when her cousin Ellen came to visit from Europe. She plans to divorce her husband and is a social outcast, as these things were never done. Newland and Ellen fall in love. Do they defy convention and marry? Or does Newland marry May as promised?Irene Dunne is lovely as Ellen. She was an actress who could do comedy and drama. John Boles was a huge star and not a tremendous actor. That kind of look was considered attractive way back when; today it has gone out of style. There are good performances, but there is no way to watch this film after seeing the Scorsese film. It is studio-made, looks dull, and is dull. This is a story with a great deal of depth that seems untouched here -- lots going on underneath all the gentility, the trap of conventions -- here told as an ordinary story.Helen Westley is wonderful as the cousins' grandmother, as is Laura Hope Crews as Dunne's aunt and May's mother. Lionel Atwill is also on hand as a married man who is a friend of Dunne's, an unacceptable situation.The novel was also adapted into a play, on Broadway starring Katherine Cornell as Ellen and Franchot Tone as Newland.If you haven't seen the stunning Scorsese film, see it.

MartinHafer Technically speaking, this is a generally well made film. The acting (apart from some serious over-melodramatic acting from John Boles) was good and the entire production looked marvelous. So why, then, only a score of 5? Well, the story seems to try hard to make an excellent point--only to have it undone by plot holes that just don't make a lot of sense. Perhaps in the original Edith Wharton novel this is not the case, but here the film seems to be missing something.The film begins with Boles ("Newland Archer") becoming engaged with his long time sweetheart, May. They seem like a happy couple and they are going into the upcoming marriage with not a care in the world other than wanting to marry sooner than later. At about the same time, May's cousin (Countess Ellen Olenska--played by Irene Dunne) is arriving from Europe and there is a great scandal because Mrs. Olenska is planning on divorcing her husband--something that polite society at the time would NEVER condone. It is interesting that we never see her husband nor do we really know much about their marriage other than the fact that she is unhappy and wants out--even though her family is strongly in favor of her remaining married. The family's wishes, oddly, are NOT because of a love for Olenska but because they were more concerned about how the scandal would ruin their good name! Many, in fact, were totally unconcerned about her soon to be ex-husband nor about adultery--just what others would think. This hypocrisy made for an excellent theme and I wish the film had really worked more on this angle.Unfortunately, out of the blue, Archer suddenly announces to the Countess that he loves her!! Where this comes from makes no sense at all--especially since his bride to be is a sweet lady who has done no one wrong. Yet despite this profession, Archer still marries May and they go on their honeymoon. During this time, Archer is distant and quite frankly a major jerk--pining for the Countess and ignoring his poor wife. Frankly, any sympathy you had for the Countess and her divorce is quickly lost because she, too, is conspiring with Archer to run away together. So instead of an excellent story of hypocrisy, the story becomes a story of lust and selfishness--making the viewer really hate Boles and Dunne (especially Boles). All the great buildup of the last hour of the film is practically thrown away when this affair appears out of nowhere.So what, at this point, is the point of the film? This ambiguity was a serious deficiency with the film. Had Archer never married May and then run off with the Countess, then you might have had a lot of sympathy for the couple. As is, they just seemed nasty and selfish. And the overall message seemed muddled. Were they trying to excuse away adultery or somehow trying to be pro-marriage? I really don't know. Had Archer acted rationally and consistently and less like a weasel, then this message would have been much more clear. As a result, it seriously deadens the impact of this film. It COULD have been much, much better.

Figtree The acting in this film was of the old school: corny and stiff. Irene Dunne is luminous, and comes off the best even though she has some very unnatural lines to say. Still, her ability to convey emotion comes through.Old movie buffs will find at least some redeeming qualities in this film through observation of cinematic technique of the 1930s. Otherwise, it is not really that worthwhile.

mike rice Edith Wharton chronicled the romantic tragedies of the 19th century 400, those anointed people who would fit in Lady Astor's Lavish New York Society ballroom. This 1934 film is the story of a young lawyer named Newland Archer who is pledged to a New York girl named May Welland. The marriage is in the offing for most of the film.What stirs things up is the arrival of a mysterious woman, a Polish Countess named Ellen Olenska, who lives at an unfashionable Manhattan address, west 23rd street. Newland is charmed by the Countess and she, likewise. The Countess is in town to get a divorce. Society is as put off by Mrs. Olenska's frankness as they are with her address.Teacups rattle at every social turn. Irene Dunne is younger in this film as Countess Olenska than in any other I've seen her in. She upstages every other actor in the film including John Boles who is inept as Newland. The movie seems a star vehicle for Dunne. At least the 1993 remake of Age of Innocence from Director Martin Scorcese gives some weight to the other characters, while failing finally to tell the story adequately. Julie Haydon, who would eventually play Laura in Tennessee Williams' play The Glass Menagerie, is suitably church-mousey as Newland's fiancee, May.Newland's interest in and defense of the Countess eventually gets him in trouble with the upper-class set who are his peers. When push comes to shove, the question is, what will Archer do, dump the one he promised or run off with the Countess. What actually does happen is a fairly delicate bit of story-telling.The 1934 Age of Innocence tells the story better than the 1993 version. But the older story isn't really that good either. Mrs. Wharton's novel was a sophisticated piece of work. It deserved a better telling on-screen. If you'd like a well-done thirties social drama, have a look at Dodsworth with Walter Huston, Ruth Chatterton and Mary (yes!) Astor. Age of Innocence is strictly for Irene Dunne aficianados.