brilliant actors, brilliant editing

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

I just watched The Age of Innocence and although it is a good movie, I wish it were made in color. The Ladies costumes were great and Irene Dunn looks amazing. I have one question, did men in the 1870s wear clothing that were styled much later? John Boles' fedora and suits stepped right out of the 1930s.

I finally saw this version for the first time this morning on TCM. While I missed the first 15 minutes of it, I have to say the film is in pristine condition. Irene Dunne and the supporting cast is great. The costumes are beautiful. I felt bad about the way Newland and Countess Oleska were not truly honest about how they felt and with themselves. When May (Julie Haydon) asks Newland( John Boles) if he was in love with someone else, this could have been his opportunity to leave and go back to the woman he truly loved. But to lead her on like that was heart-breaking. I also believe that John Boles was miscast. Yes, he was very handsome, but I think that someone like Melvyn Douglas, Paul Muni, Herbert Marshall, or Robert Montgomery would have been better suited for the part. While Julie Haydon did a good job as May, I think Loretta Young, Dorothy Wilson, Jean Parker, or Mary Carlisle would have been better cast. All in all, it was a decent film which lacked passion.

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

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.