Platicsco
Good story, Not enough for a whole film
BallWubba
Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.
Siflutter
It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.
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.
supers100
like many of the movies of the time, this one is fairly predictable, but great to watch anyway. Irene Dunne and john boles make a nice pair, and you find yourself hoping for them to end up together. there were many scenes that were great to watch, like the one in the met, because,living in new york, its great to see the Hollywood version of 1870, and the disdain of west 23rd street, now Chelsea. this does not have the best of lines, and the greatest of performances, because it was probably just one of the those movies, (not a casablanca at all) but, all in all, a movie for movie buffs, and people who love a good romance
Ron Oliver
A lawyer attempting to obtain a divorce for a countess finds his growing love resisted by THE AGE OF INNOCENCE in which they lived.Edith Wharton's celebrated novel, illustrating how personal happiness is often crushed by public propriety, is given a fine adaptation in this well-produced film from Radio Pictures. While the movie relentlessly features almost nothing but dialogue, it is always sophisticated and deals with matters still of some importance. In a movie with so much talk the performances are paramount and they are all of a high order. Lovely Irene Dunne is radiant as the American countess restricted by society from following her heart. John Boles is very effective as the lawyer who must also either bow to convention or be crushed by it. Feisty Helen Westley steals nearly every scene she's in as Dunne's wealthy and outspoken Granny. Laura Hope Crews is perfectly cast as Westley's slightly flustered daughter, the mother of Boles' pretty fiancée, Julie Haydon. Herbert Yost is Crews' meek little husband, while splendid Lionel Atwill enjoys himself as a rich rascal operating on society's fringe.Movie mavens will recognize Harry Beresford as a canny museum guard and Inez Palange as a stubborn Italian maid, both uncredited.The jazzy montage which opens the film has virtually no relationship to anything that follows and serves only to wake the audience up.
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.
