Talk:The Age of Innocence
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
no need for "film" tag, as it already have a separate film page here.
Anon left the following comment:
- if critics consider it one of Scorsese's best works, and Scorsese is just about my favorite director, and I have read and re-read Jane Austen etc. for pleasure again and again my whole life, then why Oh why have I rented this movie twice and been bored almost to death both times? I am turning it off with the counter at 25 minutes. Is it a good movie? or is it a piece of pooh?
Edith Wharton wrote it, not Jane Austen. The movie may be difficult if you have not read the book, otherwise it is one of the more faithful book adaptations I've seen. -- Stbalbach 05:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say Jane Asten wrote it, I said Jane Austen etc. Meaning only that I am literate. The film may be a faithful adaptation, but it is boring. Scorsese is great, and when he fails he usually makes a glorious failure (like Last Temptation). But this is not a glorious failure. Just a failure. Compare it to polanski's Oliver Twist or whoever's the latest Pride and Predjudice.
p.s., Sorry I defaced the article instead of posting to the discussion. I achieved that with the POWER OF ALCOHOL!
The first paragraph of the introduction is two sentences. I think the second one is a little bit dramatically worded for an encyclopedia article, and the syntax is somewhat strange. It summarizes the book well, but I think that for clarity's sake it should be broken up into a few declarative sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, the introduction may be nicely written (though I suspect it might have been taken at least partially from the book itself), but its style has no place in an encyclopaedia. I'm removing it. --DearPrudence (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The section related to characters seems to have been taken from this page: http://www.bookrags.com/notes/aoi/CHR.htm , which contains no reference to Wikipedia, but instead contains a clear copyright note at the bottom ofthe page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)