AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

mcannady1 Movie Girl - I just wanted to add something I think is important - the real heart of the story. First I have to say I was still in high school when this film was made and never saw it until a friend sent me a copy recently.I do think they went a bit far with the nude scenes, but the girl very nicely played by Helen Mirren was genuinely naive and was suddenly realizing that she had a nice figure. At the same time Cora as the young girl picked up on the fact that she was becoming attracted to this erudite artist with the great voice, of course. - James Mason was the "elderly" artist. She had genuinely fallen for him and was very hurt that he had made their association a "paying" affair. He bought her fish and did not seem personally interested in her. He also painted her in nude scenes.Cora's aunt? is always wrongly suspecting her of a sexual rendezvous and trails her around. When she falls over a cliff, the girl has little remorse. During the story we see Cora reject the man in the boat making sexual advances and also the guy who shows up in the cottage who is curious about the artist's paintings. (So we see that Cora is not a person who is promiscuous, nor is the artist, usually.). The painter explains to his overly curious visitor that it is not a personal affair.All along in an invisible fashion was the title of the film, Age of Consent which meant just that. Cora was supposed to be 17 and for this very reason the painter does not make advances to her. At the same time she does not think of this and takes it all as a rejection. The ending is quite delightful -- no spoiler intended as she accuses him of not caring about her at all and is in the water - splashing at him and he says that is not true. After the splashing scenes we can well imagine the scenes that ensue.So as a person who usually likes older films for romance I do admire James Mason and for this reason watched the film. I think he and Helen Mirren made this story into something more than a risqué adventure. The key element at the end was love for both, though the painter was too old for his model. It was all in the perception of both.And what of the girl he had sex with in the beginning? Well, I guess he was carried away. James Mason later married this girl, Clarissa Kaye in the 70's. I was glad to read that James escaped from his disastrous first marriage; sadly did not marry again until years later.One thing more - Some people ventured the opinion that the term Age of Consent was outdated but I do not believe this is so. It made a nice undercurrent for the film and its ultimate denouement.

tomsview I remember there was a lot of media hype in Australia about this movie when it was first released. I thought it was a bit of an oddity then, and it definitely is today.Bradley Morahan (James Mason), a successful Australian artist based in New York is dissatisfied with his art and his life. He heads for North Queensland and a remote island on the Great Barrier Reef. Here he meets some of the locals including a young girl, Cora (Helen Mirren), whose grandmother is an eccentric old beachcomber.Despite constant reminders from her grandmother that she is underage, Cora becomes Bradley's model and muse, restoring his belief in his art and himself. "You've given me back my eyes; you've taught me to love things again ", he exclaims at the end of the movie as their relationship blossoms, despite the 30-year age gap.Based on a novel by Norman Lindsay, the film was made about the time he died. Decades earlier, Norman Lindsay had outraged prudish Australian society with his art, which often featured well-rounded, naked nymphs cavorting with leering satyrs.But as this movie showed, society had caught up with his ideas and even surpassed them in what was termed permissible - he seemed a bit out of touch by this time, and had outlived his particular crusade against Puritanism.Unfortunately, the art on show in "Age of Consent" doesn't show much of Lindsay's influence - he was a brilliant artist. Bradley's paintings and sketches in the movie are a combination of the work of two Australian artists: John Coburn produced the strongly patterned New York paintings, and Paul Delprat did the scenes on the island in what could only be called a naïve style.The biggest connection to Lindsay's art is actually Helen Mirren, who had 'the equipment', as Michael Parkinson once described her voluptuous figure, that would have had kept Norman Lindsay happily working away at his easel for hours.The restored version of the film also features Australian composer Peter Sculthorpe's lyrical score, which was replaced with one by the more experienced British film composer, Stanley Myers. Interestingly, Myers' score seemed a more revved up version of Sculthorpe's work.It was pretty much Helen Mirren's first film, but it was a considerable way into James Mason's career. What a presence he had. The mellifluous, honey-toned voice was as hypnotic as ever, despite a half-hearted attempt at an Australian accent. The rest of the cast were mainly Australian, playing characters of varying levels of eccentricity and annoyance. Irish actor Jack MacGowran as Nat Kelly is particularly strident. The comedy in the film is definitely of the broad variety and was no funnier back in 1969 than it is now.With a particularly messy script, the film is more of a novelty than anything else, but does feature two magnetic actors at opposite ends of their careers - it's worth a look for that alone.

clevelander Put together the worlds best actors with an Oscar winning director and what do you get? Probably worst film any of them have ever been in. Struggling for an explanation, I hone in on the awful wooden screenplay. But that's too generous. The director must get the blame for totally failing to bring out the talents of the normally skillful cast. Mason makes a go of it, apart from the unconvincing accent, but Helen Mirren appears woefully miscast as a downtrodden local girl with natural beauty and personality that is supposed to inspire the artist. She does not demonstrate enough rough edges to be believable. Helen Mirren has just stepped out of the Royal Shakespeare Company (as the cast credits insists on reminding us) and the director should have realised that, and demanded more of the actors. Mind you, I don't recall her ever playing this type of role again.

bobsgrock Michael Powell, the famed British director best known as half of the famous Powell and Pressburger filmmaking team, was certainly in a rut in the late 1960s. After the vicious press response to his 1960 progressive serial killer thriller Peeping Tom, it was near impossible for him to make a film in England again. Nine years later, he found hope in a small production with James Mason, one of the most respected of British actors, to be shot in Australia. The story could not have been more fitting.Age of Consent tells the story of an artist disconnected from himself and his art. Having been a success, he feels aimless and almost without passion. His solution is to move to a small shack on the coast of the Great Barrier Reef and attempt to renew his interest in painting and eventually life itself. Aside from the collection of unique characters surrounding him, he finds a catalyst for retribution in Cora, a young, sweet but determined young girl who longs to escape from her non-idyllic paradise in which she is controlled by a gin-swilling, ungrateful grandmother who sees her only as the second coming of her mother, the former town prostitute.What is really great about this film, aside from the gorgeous color cinematography that captures impeccably the grandiose beauty of Australia, is the story of the reawakening of the artist. Certainly this had to inspire Powell, who was himself in need of an awakening and perhaps felt a connection with Bradley Morahan. To his credit, he directs very fine, perhaps not to the degree of perfection as earlier films like The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, 49th Parallel or The Red Shoes, but for such a film as it is he holds it at a fine pace while also keeping our interest as we watch a man push aside all distractions in search of the return of his passion for art and life. Some feel since this is not in the pantheon of great Powell and Pressburger films that it is mostly dismissive. I disagree. Powell shows us here the need and desire artists have to create and the pains necessary to fulfill that urge. While not of historical or national importance as his earlier films, this is certainly a memorable late career achievement for Michael Powell. If you like his more famous films, this is one to check out if only to understand how an artist becomes rejuvenated.