Autumn in New York (2000) User Reviews

A nice surprise

[bsinc · 7/10 · 31 January 2003]

Although a little boring at some points "Autumn In New York" managed to truly emotionally entertain and interest me. Even after seeing it I am still discovering the hidden meanings it tries to give us. Ironically despite being a romantic drama the romance between the main actors is the biggest downer of this movie. I must have missed the part when Winona Ryder's character's age is revealed, but she just doesn't pass as a 21 year old. I thought she was supposed to be like 26 or something. Not that there's a big difference in age, but she was a bit misscast, despite her child like face. On the other side she was really attractive in this movie and constantly reminded me of this cute girl I know. Gere looks and feels pretty old, but he's a believable 48 year old playboy. The movie is hence held together by good dialogues and nice and memorable scenes. There's also a great line Gere says to Winona after he cheats on her and realizes he screwed up: "Can you let me love you?" I've read some pretty different explanations of this movie, but basically I think it's about Gere's character slowly discovering he's been missing a great deal of life, he's never loved. So after "accidentally" falling in love with Charlotte he can't bear the though of her dying and tries everything in his power to prevent her death(this might have something to do with his previous life where he was always the one with power, whilst the women weren't). But he has to realize that in Charlotte's case he's completely powerless and there's where the point of the movie lies. He chose true love (despite knowing that Charlotte was going to die soon) over the life he thought he was happy with. It might sound ridiculous but I kind o envy the guy. I too would rather truly love a woman, if only for a short period of time, than spend a life with a woman I didn't love. I would be a happier man, even after that true love would, for some reason or another, leave me, because I'd know I loved, even if it didn't last. I was pretty surprised at most of the bad reviews and comments, but on the other side I couldn't help but to agree with most of them. It is a crude love story and it is somewhat predictable and boring, but it was overlooked for the most important reason it tries to tell us. Despite being an unconventional and hardly believable love story "Autumn In New York" is a movie that in the end managed to show me you have to take even the biggest sacrifices to find true love. Sad and Beautiful. 7/10

For those who like adore tear-generating love stories, this one is perfect for an Autumn evening in front of the fire

[inkblot11 · 7/10 · 29 May 2007]

Will (Richard Gere) is a New York City restaurateur and ladies man, in his middle forties. His life's motto is definitely love 'em and leave 'em and have fun in between. So, when he meets Charlotte (Winona Ryder), a beautiful young lady half his age, he is surprised at how smitten he is with her. Wanting to make a connection, he hires her to make a hat for his date to a charity function. When she shows up at his apartment on the evening of the affair, he informs her that his date is sick. Would she, Charlotte, take her place? She agrees and they have a lovely evening together, one that lasts all night. Love is in the air, all right. But, Charlotte confides in Will that she has a dire medical condition, one that is threatening her life. What will their future hold? This is really a nice film for those who like to sigh and cry over a set of star-crossed lovers. Gere is great as the aging lothario and Ryder positively enchanting as the spunky and lovely young lady in his life. The rest of the cast members, including Anthony LaPaglia, Sherry Stringfield, and Elaine Stritch, are great. Then, too, the film is replete with lovely costumes, sets and scenery, making for a very beautiful watch. If you have a hankering for romances, even and especially ones that elicit tears, you should get this film without delay. On an autumn evening, with a fire blazing and mugs of hot chocolate on hand, you will feel very satisfied when the story is spent.

Not as bad as I heard, but not good

[preppy-3 · 5/10 · 30 August 2000]

This film has been savaged by critics and it's easy to see why. The story is oooollllllddddd (young girl dying of an incurable disease) and some of the dialogue is beyond belief. But it is well-acted (Ryder and Gere give two of their best performances) and it looks beautiful. Basically the acting and photography kept me in my seat. Take those things away and it would probably be unwatchable. So, not too bad but not good either.

Something to redress the balance !!

[nicholas.rhodes · 30 March 2001]

Whilst everyone is naturally entitled to their own opinion, I was rather shocked to read the large number of negative comments about this film on the site. A redress is therefore more than necessary ! Compared to a lot of the violent rubbish we get in the cinema today, here is a film without violence, beautifully made, and concentrating on "L O V E ! " Naturally the story is all the more intense as we know that one of the protagonists's days are numbered, and why not indeed ? A parallel may be drawn with the film LOVE STORY but in AUTUMN IN NY, the dialogues are much less crude and closer to reality. The film is technically, plastically, very beautiful ( I m very sensitive to Autumn leaves ) and this film ranks with the best in the autumn ' genre ', ie, "All that Heaven allows", featuring Rock Hudson & Jane Wyman, and "The Trouble with Harry" by Alfred Hitchcock. Rarely is autumn sunlight put to such good use as in this film. The subtle autumn light of New York accompanies the autumn of Charlotte's own short life towards the winter's snow and her voyage into eternity. Too much emphasis is placed on the difference in age between the two protagonists as well as supposed flaws in their characters. Who cares ? Love is Love ! Why should't a play-boy discover true love ? I think it is wonderful. Let's face it, true love is the only thing in the whole wide world that all peoples can agree on ! This film is reminiscent of the great American weepies of the 40's such as Waterloo Bridge or Random Harvest, but with present-day film quality as an extra a bonus. Unfortunately, these kind of romantic melodramas seem to have lost favour with the public today, which is a great great shame, as romance and love are eternal themes which will never die. I think the film will stand the test of time and hopefully at a future time when violence and evil sentiment on the cinema screen will be less sought after than today will come onto its own. Indeed a second viewing of the film allowed me to appreciate even more the plastic beauty of the film which I missed the first time round as I was worried how it was going to end. In addition to that I was even more impresses the second time round by the performance to the two actors. So long live beauty and romance as portrayed in this film and let's hope there'll be more to come in the cinema of the future.

Drink a pot of coffee first....

[jennifer-99 · 4/10 · 29 January 2001]

...and you MAY be able to stay awake during this one. While not exactly an original concept, this movie had the potential to at least elicit some heartfelt tears from the female portion of the audience. Unfortunately the only thing sad about this movie was the terribly written script, the paper-thin characters and the unbelievably SLOW pace at which the story moved along. (Possible spoilers)

I am personally a fan of both the "tear-jerker" genre of movies and of the handsome Richard Gere. Not only could Mr. Gere's presence not save this one for me, but he was one of the reasons that I strongly disliked the film. His character was completely dispicable, he had absolutely no chemistry with his leading lady and his performance was so wooden that one wondered if he was being held on the set against his will.

I can't possibly be the only one who just didn't buy into their whole romance. One second, Will was telling Charlotte that their relationship had absolutely no future. The next second she was telling him she was terminally ill....then, magically, he decides he can't live without her. How's that for brilliant screen writing? Let's not forget the fact the he sleeps with someone else while the love of his life is down stairs in the very same house. My heart just leaps at the thought of their true love. Yeah, right. I found myself hoping that whatever Charlotte had was contageous so she could take Will with her when she died and put him out of his misery.

The movie had 2 chances to redeem itself, by exploring the possibility that Will's feelings for Charlotte were a product of deep feelings he had for her dead mother, and by delving into Will's desire to forge a relationship with his long absent daughter. These elements were either ignored or poorly explored and added absolutely nothing to the final product.

With the exception of the cinematographers, every one involved in this snoozer should be ashamed...especially Mr. Gere and Ms. Ryder, both talented performers. What were they thinking when they picked this script?

Keep "Autumn in New York" in mind for those sleepless nights...this one will send you to dreamland in minutes.

Complex Movie about Control, Commitment and Accountability

[Bob-45 · 7/10 · 13 February 2001]

Will (Richard Gere), a handsome, successful New York restauranter, has managed to evade martial commitment for his 48 years. Despite (or, perhaps, because) of his womanizing, he has managed to remain friends with his former paramours, including the mother of one, Dolly (Elaine Stritch). Dolly's daughter and son-in-law have died, leaving Dolly to raise her granddaughter, Charlotte (Winona Ryder). Encountering an article on Will and his restaurant, Charlotte has Dolly take her and her friends to Will's restaurant for her 22nd birthday party. Charlotte also arranges for Dolly to introduce her to the handsome, available and (much older) Will.

Will, predictably sets Charlotte up for seduction. What the always self-assured, always in control, Will cannot know is that Charlotte will never do what he expects her to do. And Charlotte has a secret, a secret that allows her to draw Will into her web. Charlotte is about to teach Will a tremendous lesson in life about control, commitment and responsibility.

AUTUMN IN NEW YORK is somewhat overplotted and slow at times. But, director Joan Chen has elicited effective performances from her cast, particularly Ryder (eccentric), Gere (introspective) and newcomer Vera Farmiga (nurturing). The luminous Farmiga, with heart-shaped face and blue-blue eyes, dominates every scene in which she appears. AUTUMN's glorious cinematography present New York in a manner so flattering I wouldn't have thought it possible. The film's ending pulls no punches, and seems wholly in a manner with its themes.

SPOILERS AHEAD, PRIMARILY FOR THOSE WHOM DISAGREE OR JUST DIDN'T `GET IT.'

When Charlotte tells Will she is dying, she says, `That's the only way we'd work.' Charlotte NEVER does what Will expects. She's always one step ahead of him, even when he cheats on her with Lynn (Jill Hennessey). Will and Charlotte's relationship IS awkward; it is SUPPOSED to be. Will has ALWAYS had women on HIS terms. However, he CANNOT have Charlotte on his terms; because, for the first time in his life, Will realizes his is not in control; God will take Charlotte from him in HIS good time. Had Will met his daughter, Lisa (Vera Farmiga), at ANY other time, he would have, no doubt, rejected her. Will learned he is NOT in control and that he IS accountable, just in time. Was it necessary for Charlotte to die for him to learn this? Perhaps not; however, it was an HONEST decisions by the writers to kill Charlotte off, so that Will could assume the role of the devoted grandfather. Had Charlotte not died, I don't believe Will would have ever fully realized none of us are EVER fully in control. Charlotte knew her destiny; that's why she returned Will's watch when she did. Charlotte `froze time' for Will that beautiful autumn, so that Will could realize whom he really could be.

I think most people were disappointed with AUTUMN IN NEW YORK because they expected a `traditional' May-December romance. Especially, since the `child abuse' scandals and sensationalism of the 80s, the movies have a terrible time with May-December romances. Funny, every week, TV's NORTHERN EXPOSURE showed a passionate, successful romance between a `twenty-something' and a `sixty-something.' Maybe it's time for Hollywood, like Will, to `grow up.'

"The stench of truth--ewww!"

[moonspinner55 · 3/10 · 8 December 2001]

"Autumn In New York" has delectable shots of brown and golden leaves fluttering down in the winds from craggy old tree branches, covering wet sidewalks and surrounding two movie stars staring into each other's eyes. But these stars (Richard Gere and Winona Ryder) are distinctly un-New York, and the filmmakers keep everything mushy, flip and coy. Ryder looks lovely, but she giggles too much in between her incredulous comments: "REALLY?!"..."WOW!"..."AM-MAAZING!" Gere, laughing with his mouth closed, gives a bloated performance, scrunching his face while tearing up at his black, beady eyes. Anthony LaPaglia is much better in a smallish role as Gere's best friend, Elaine Strich is amusingly jaded as Ryder's disapproving grandmother (although her line about only being able to afford pistachio nuts is ludicrous when she lives in such beautiful New York digs), but this romance cops a corny plea from "Love Story", and how long ago was that? The fact that some reviewers actually fell for this is, like, AM-MAAZING! *1/2 from ****

Average

[LeRoyMarko · 6/10 · 3 April 2001]

Slow moving romantic comedy/drama featuring Winona Ryder as Charlotte Fielding, a beautiful young women who falls for an older and richer man played by guess who, Richard Gere. It's actually what you could call a typical Gere movie! But Charlotte is sick and we don't know if she'll live much longer.

About the acting. Richard Gere is Richard Gere in this movie. I don't know about other reviewers, but it seems to me that he always delivers the same kind of performance. Beautiful Winona is good but not excellent in this one. After seeing her superb performance in «Girl, Interrupted», I was a little bit disappointed.

6 out of 10.

Who cares, just DIE already.

[pzilliox · 2/10 · 1 May 2006]

Let me sum up what I learned from this movie: If you're an aging, philandering jerk, you can restore your relationship with the daughter you abandoned by seducing a terminally-ill girl half your age, cheating on her, then grieving over her unavoidable death. If that sounds like "real life" to you, you're gonna LOVE this movie.

Ryder plays an early-20-something girl who falls for a 48-year-old restaurant owner. The lead characters "fall in love," but their relationship is strictly 2-dimensional. We're never given any clue about what is actually attracting these two people to each other. Her terminal illness is also totally unbelievable; Ryder's character has quite normal capabilities for the most part, until she suddenly gasps or unexpectedly falls over unconscious at crucial moments. The plot is totally disjointed, with very little understandable cause and effect established between various actions and reactions.

Gere is a decent actor, at least when he plays his usual stock character (the rich, self-centered playboy). He has some stupid lines to deliver, but he manages to be the only believable thing in the movie. But that only allowed me to hate his character with a passion. He's not just a womanizer, he's a big enough jerk to --now, try to get all this-- have quickie sex with an old girlfriend at his best friend's house, during a children's Halloween party, which he is attending with his current, dying girlfriend, whom he says he loves more deeply than anyone else he has ever known. After lying about the tryst, Gere finally tells Ryder that he HAD to have sex with another woman because he was "scared." Oh please! The screenwriter must be equally a jerk, because he obviously thinks we will actually LIKE this creep. After that kind of behavior, not only do I fail to like him, I can't care at all what happens to him.

Of course, Ryder's poor little sick girl quickly melts and forgives him, and believes him when he whispers to her he loves her. Frankly, at that point in the film I was thinking, "She deserves whatever she gets. Neither one of these people have a clue what love is." For some reason, by the end of the film, Ryder's sickness and death makes things okay between the restaurateur and his estranged daughter. Why? How? Who knows! Who CARES; I was just grateful the film was over!

Talking about love...

[jpschapira · 6/10 · 4 March 2005]

I can't send this film all the way to the bottom.

First of all, it is a love movie. Maybe we can hate love movies, but they always stick that loving feeling in us. It usually happens with romantic comedies like "Love Actually" and "Nothing Hill". Or charming movies like one of my favorites about love, a movie I find underrated and not felt (get it?): "Simply Irresistible". Anyway, it's that feeling, hard to explain; you can't reject love. I felt as I watched "Autumn in New York". Although this is not comedy; this is drama. I'll explain later.

Second of all, Winona Ryder stars in the movie. She's an excellent actress, and has never disappointed me. She tends to excel in every role she plays. I'm sorry if anyone thinks differently, but this film is no exception. She creates the perfect way of talking for a 22-year old character, giving the right expressions, whether dramatic or comedic, during the entire film. She's in the position a pop singer said (I hate to say it, but I found it perfect): "Not a girl, not yet a woman". Beautiful woman, great acting. Talking about acting; supporting roles are perfect for these movies. And in this one, they're a strong point. LaPaglia is relaxed and calmed. He is as charming as ever, and understands that his character it's not so important, respecting his position. Elaine Stritch also understands this, but she steals the show anyway. I guess she couldn't help it. And well, Richard Gere started his career when he was pretty old. That's interesting. I don't want to question his qualities as an actor. He's good. But talking about him takes me to the "Third of all" explanation.

This is drama, I said. Well, I mean that it isn't enough to make pretty expressions and to have pretty faces. I'm talking about Gere, in first place, and about his chemistry with Ryder too. Gere has the charm and the smile, but lacks the serious and deep facial expression a dramatic performance requires. His deception, or sad face, looks more like a disappointing face he would do in a comedy (of course, romantic also). This also ruins his chemistry with Ryder, who makes an effort to play a dramatic role. There's a lot of power (Ryder) against little power (Gere) in the few powerful scenes. But the difference should be established. This is drama, and although it's not good, it is well done. It's encouraging that the film tries to be real, and it should be; because that would make a difference from the usual deal. The characters are real because they stick to their personalities. Will (Gere) is a womanizer and he can't help it. But when he starts seeing Charlotte (Ryder), reality wins; because he's not going to give her the precious spot. He won't resist at the time of having sex with another woman, to generate anger in Charlotte, and opening the route of true love. This concept is missed in the movie. We wanted to happen, but not that fast. Velocity reduces belief; and we can't believe the love they're feeling. Still we stick to it.

She loves poetry. He loves food, not poetry. They are not the same; they just try too. In one scene, Charlotte is lying ill on a hospital; she hardly sees. Will sits next to her and whispers a poem. She's delighted and tells him: "Look how I have changed you".

A bad movie is the only beautiful thing that truly nourishes.

[spielfan-2 · 1/10 · 16 August 2000]

THE non-stop laugh-out-loud smash comedy of the summer. MGM really botched the advertising campaign on this one. I didn't realize that a screenwriter with the delightfully demented sense of humor of the creators of "Airplane" was making a spoof of romantic weepers. The lines were truly inspired comic gags. A small sampling: "Food is the only beautiful thing that truly nourishes." "I can smell the rain. When did I learn to do that?" "What About Love?!?" "You are my family!! you are my family (incoherent sobbing)" "What do we do, Will, with this moment that we're in?" Again, I state that this is just a small sampling of the plethora of howlers that exist in this film. Add to this the nonsensical secondary characters, the beautiful cinematography and two romantic leads that have all of the sexual chemistry of a drawer full of office supplies and you have the greatest gift to aficionados of bad movies everywhere. Believe me, a screenwriter has to work very hard to make Winona Ryder look bad. I do believe that she is one of the greatest actresses of her generation, however her abilities are not shown here. Aside from looking great she is given little to do, but deliver unintentionally hilarious lines with as much sincerity as she can muster. Truly a must-see in the pantheons of cinematic mis-steps.

I really liked it

[Matt-115 · 8/10 · 13 August 2000]

This movie has many weaknesses, but there is something really superior about it nonetheless. On the negative side, everything people are saying is true; the dialogue is clunky, the plot is predictable, and the chemistry is weak. On the other hand, the charisma of both the leads is amazing and I really fell in love with Winona Ryder's character. I think the makers of this film were resigned to the the fact that as far as writing was concerned, they weren't breaking any new ground. What they did instead was dress up the standard love story with great actors, nice clothes, and pretty settings. Despite the gloss, there is a story here that everyone can identify with at some level. The result, in my opinion, is something magical that I can't pin down. I think it's a success.

Pleasantly surprised

[AmigaJay · 7/10 · 4 March 2023]

I take each film on its own merits, and yes, it has clichés and corny moments, but what romantic film doesn't?

This film isn't overly mushy, in fact it's quite the opposite, with the relationship being what it is, flaws and all known by both sides. It doesn't hide from this fact, or make excuses on the male perspective, it is what it is, as they say.

As for the story. Can a leopard change his spots? Sure people can change for the better, its not too far fetched to think the story was possible.

The ending without giving too much away, was very sad of course and didn't have the Hollywood ending some may have wished for, but true to life it was the better and more realistic for it.

I enjoyed the film, wasn't bored, shed a tear, not a-lot more to say, maybe not a classic but well worth a watch.

Warning!! To All Men out There!

[longislandlloyd · 1/10 · 15 May 2005]

Don't say that I didn't warn you....but if you have anything better to do like go for a root canal or a vasectomy, then do that! But don't go anywhere near the video store today. Even if your wife or girlfriend promises you that "Special Treat" if you bring home "Autumn in New York", don't do it. It's one of those rare films that every man in this world fears he has to watch to show his girl that he has some sensitivity. I am not against those typical "chick flicks". There have been many enjoyable ones over the years - most starring Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks, Goldie Hawn, Bette Midler, or Dustin Hoffman. But this piece of garbage is totally unwatchable. How tired are us guys watching aged, over-the hill rich guys making it with cutesy pubescent "teens"? This story has been done and redone so many times on the screen, it's not original, funny, identifiable, sympathetic, or emotional. There is no surprise or even happy ending. And as for the chemistry between Richard Gere and Wynona Ryder....a big fat ZERO. The dialogue between the two was so lame as to be embarrassing. It appeared that both characters were reading from the teleprompter and couldn't wait to get the thing over with and collect their paycheck. I was at least hoping that the character, Charlotte, would get arrested for shop-lifting at Bloomingdale's just to add some spice to the movie. And speaking of spice...the "love" scenes were as bland and cold as re-frozen ice cream. And the scene with Will cheating on his babe Charlotte made no sense at all and was just a useless distraction. Somebody here wrote that the movie at least had some great scenes of N.Y. From what I can tell, it appeared that the movie was filmed in Hollywood and used phony N.Y. backdrop shots behind the actors. I just got no feel for the City or it's people. And one last criticism, is there helicopter service between Cleveland and New York? This whole story seemed like a big fraud to me. At least it's out of the theaters and not cheating any of us guys out of $18.00 for 2 tickets.

is it so bad it's good?

[martha_mathews · 1/10 · 23 February 2007]

oh my gosh. i wonder if the glowing reviews of this film have been posted by people taking the pee eye s s.

this film is a shocker, however, if you can enjoy watching truly awful, clichéd, fantastical films, you can probably have a good laugh at the expense of the misguided team who put it together. one wonders if they genuinely believed in what they were doing or whether it was merely a cynical attempt to exploit their chosen market.

it's a while since i've seen it, but its awfulness lives on.

particularly the awfulness of the young woman's 'hat' creations and the ridiculousness of those around her declaiming her 'talent'. she also makes the healthiest looking corpse i've ever seen.

A film about transcendence

[FlickJunkie-2 · 7/10 · 11 January 2001]

There is a lot to hate about this film, most of it unjustified. This film has been a lightning rod for venomous criticism, but despite its unpopularity, it is a good film. The reasons it put people off follow. First, it is a tearjerker and those are decidedly out of style. Today's audiences don't seem to have much tolerance for dying characters unless they are being blown up in an action flick, hacked up in a horror flick, dying of some politically correct disease, or a member of an endangered species. Second, both Winona Ryder and Richard Gere gave unaccustomed performances, quite different from any they had given before. Since most audiences liked the way they were before, this change was an unpleasant shock. Finally, the age difference was off-putting, making Gere seem much older and Ryder seem much younger than we are used to.

For all the blistering criticism leveled against this film, it is a well-crafted story about the changes that love can foster in people's lives. Joan Chen's direction provides a sensitive look at the relationship between these star-crossed lovers, with some enchanting looks at New York City as the romantic backdrop. Although her pacing is a bit slow, the portrayal of the relationship, and particularly the effect it was having on Will (Gere) is probing and delicately done.

This film is about transcendence, both for the characters and for the actors that portrayed them. Each of the characters grew and changed during the film, while both of the actors expanded beyond their previous limitations. I was delighted to see Winona Ryder break out of her dour, grave type and give a breezy and effervescent performance. If you put all her previous appearances together you would not have seen as many smiles as you see in the first ten minutes of this film. It seems that Ryder has always played overly serious and mature characters. She went through her teens and twenties without ever having a chance to act like a kid. As it turns out, this part reveals that she has much greater range than anyone originally thought she did. I hope this is a preview of things to come as she makes an attractive romantic figure.

Richard Gere also continues a transformation of his image with this film. He started down this path in `Runaway Bride' with Julia Roberts, playing a more insecure male lead than his normal macho portrayal. In this film, he actually becomes introspective and tortured, which is very unfamiliar territory for him. Despite the fact that his fans are probably retching, this role represents a very courageous attempt on his part to move out of type and expand as an actor. He does a wonderful job, giving a mature and complex performance that I didn't think he had in him.

This is not a great film, but it is a good one. I rated it a 7/10. I believe it is particularly important as a redefining moment in the careers of two excellent actors, which has broadened their reach and deepened their skills. Not every film is about whether the audience likes it, although I did. It is good drama, which goes beyond the schmaltzy romance to reveal the deep inner workings of the human heart during tragedy and adversity. In that regard, it is a success.

Trite, clichéd and looooong

[hpyphntm · 1/10 · 1 September 2000]

Should be called Walking in New York. Scene after scene, Gere walks and walks and walks, probably working in the "Damn, he's sexy" angle.

Even the actors couldn't save this movie (not to say that Gere is a shining example of acting prowess). It was full of one-liners that one would only expect in cheap, tawdry romance novels, but never on-screen in a major motion picture release. "Unless..." Gere says with an expectant look on his face when he explains to Charlotte (Ryder) that his date for a benefit party had canceled on him and he's not going because he doesn't want to go alone. The line is delivered with the same stinted, cookie-cutter way it was written. So perhaps I should be singing kudos to the actors for delivering exactly what the script dictated: empty emotions and lost, plaintively hollow words. The story was lacking and clichéd to the point that I couldn't even have any sympathy for the plight of the characters. Charlotte was a caricature of a fey faerie, not a stretch for Ryder, and Will was a caricature of a rags to riches playboy, not a stretch for Gere.

The *only* thing that kept me sitting in the theatre were the air conditioning and comfortable seats and the occasional bit of lovely cinematography. There weren't many images that were "Wow," but there were a few, and that somehow made the $4.50 I spent on the movie *almost* worthwhile.

Just doesn't feel good..

[hishwe · 7/10 · 10 September 2005]

I have watched the movie a couple of times on the cable, mainly because I'm an avid fan of Richard Gere.The story-line has interesting subplots, which sadly don't evolve further,eg- Charlotte's reaction to what Will did to her mum, why does she return the watch{what does it signify or why does she take it in the first place}are examples of how sub-plots are nipped into the bud, as the story enfolds.The intimate scenes aren't electric, or I wonder if they had subtlety as their underlying theme.The background score is heavenly, and so is the scenery,esp.the falling leaves, Central Park. Unfortunately,there's a certain element of depression,moroseness inherent in the storyline from the inception,the photography{though wonderful},all of which exude coldness,just doesn't feel good when you watch the movie- a queasy feeling when some innocent is about to be executed.I wish they had ended it on a happier note, with the cardiac surgeon successfully performing the surgery.The end,where they portray Charlotte's reflection is quite poignant.Only one query-Did it mean that the rest of his life, he'll be true to her memories, and not indulge in his former activities? What say thou? feedback will be appreciated.

Extreme ick factor taints any chemistry

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 17 May 2014]

Will Keane (Richard Gere) is a womanizing restaurateur on the cover of a magazine. Charlotte Fielding (Winona Ryder) has her 22th birthday party at his restaurant. She makes weird little hats. Her grandmother (Elaine Stritch) knows him as an old friend of her mom. He starts flirting with her and maneuvers her to a date. After their first night together, he tells her that he can offer her nothing, and she tells him that she has a terminal heart tumor. Meanwhile there is a mystery woman Lisa Tyler (Vera Farmiga) around.

There is a high ick factor especially since the movie hints at him and her mother having a thing in the past. She's playing a giggly little girl. She's literally giggling about him dancing with her mother. He's the weaselly Don Juan type. She's so young that she can't see that he was just trying to seduce her that first time around. She's so clueless that she's shocked by her mother's past with him. It's not romantic. It's just sleazy. Next to Gere, Winona Ryder is like a fawning teenager. And why do they have to keep talking about her mother? I understand that there is a May to December romance that gets turned upside down. It's not as poetic as the movie supposes. The chemistry is all wrong. If she doesn't start off as terminal, then it might make the movie more poetic. The dialog is fairly weak and there is limited tension in the story. I don't know what drives the movie if we rule out happily ever after right off the bat.

Critics be damned. This film works.

[=G= · 6/10 · 4 January 2001]

"Autumn in New York" is a melodramatic, highly romanticized, and somewhat predictable old guy, young babe love story. However, Chen does a masterful job of choreographing the technical and artistic with the story making it easy to buy into this film which keeps the Kodak moments to a minimum, fast forwards past the fluff, and sticks to it's purpose of developing characters and story.

Many seem to have forgotten that romantic melodrama is a genre, not a liability. When times were tough (eg:WWII), this genre was Hollywood's most popular and offered blessed escapism for a needy public. Critics and naysayers be damned. Within its genre, "Autumn..." is one of the year's best.

Okay, this was BAD

[mwhitmore03 · 2/10 · 8 July 2001]

First of all, who's going to believe that a 50 year old like Richard Gere is going to stop his playboy ways for Winona Ryder? Especially when she's terminally ill. I think everyone's sick of seeing very old men hooking up with very young women. It's totally unbelievable. Plus, the plot was one of the most cliche, corny things I've ever seen. Not very interesting at all. And what was up with that sex scene? Was it from the goldfish's point of view? Very weird.

From a couple of seventy somethings

[George-64 · 8/10 · 13 August 2000]

My wife and I are 70 plus, and we enjoyed the movie very much. It is disappointing to read the poor reviews this movie is receiving. The photography was magnificent and New York is shown as it can be, beautiful. One thought we had while viewing it was "Paris, eat your heart out". The story line was not bad either. We recommend it to older folks like us who are tired of movies sprinkled with the F word.

so bad it's genuinely hilarious

[davidxryan · 7/10 · 26 July 2003]

If it had been on artistic merit alone, I'd have given this film a 1, but for all the laughs I've had from it, I'll give it a 7. It has the funniest sex scene ever committed to film, and don't get me started on the "there's only one doctor who can save Winona" stuff...

What a Load of Baloney

[rbrb · 3/10 · 27 September 2006]

Dear of dear, what a pretentious piece of garbage this movie is.

So called womanizer, played by Richard Gere, falls in love with a young cutie played by Winona Ryder, but she happens to be terminally ill, blah, blah, blah.

As their relationship develops she becomes much so less cute and ever so more more whining, and he becomes even more horny like for instance him bonking with another woman on the balcony of his best friend's house when Winona is downstairs....

But nevertheless Gere unsuccessfully tries to persuade us he really does love her, though apart from his flowing locks many would find this actor wholly unattractive and in fact quite repulsive.

Climax: Will the hired hand heart surgeon save her in the end, hence "Resurection";or should this film really be called "Love Story II"????? Who knows, but who cares!!!!

As 1 mark for Elaine Stritch, 1 mark for some nice shots of Autumnal New York, and 1 mark for some half decent albeit manic depressive music: but otherwise, this picture is generally drivel, and once again Hollywood is trying to lecture us upon how we should behave which I find offensive.

3/10.