Autumn in New York is a romantic drama film that stars Richard Gere, Winona Ryder,Anthony LaPaglia,Elaine Stritch and Vera Farmiga.It was written by Allison Burnett.The screenplay was about a successful middle- aged restaurateur and womanizer who falls in love with a sweet young woman who is terminally ill.It was directed by Joan Chen.An man gets an unexpected lesson in love and life from a much younger woman in this romantic drama. Will Keane is a wealthy 50-year-old restaurant tycoon who has a knack for wooing beautiful women, but is unable to commit to a lasting relationship. On day Will meets a beautiful woman in her early-20s named Charlotte Fielding; he turns on the charm in an effort to impress her, and soon the two are having an affair. But what Will thought would be a brief, casual fling proves to have far deeper repercussions when he learns that Charlotte is suffering from a serious illness and does not have long to live. The movie is a clichéd,formulaic and predictable melodrama.Also,it was weak and unmemorable.Even the presence of Richard Gere and Winona Ryder could not save this film.Also,their lack of chemistry only increased the many flaws this film has.They look unrealistic being a couple due to their 20+ year age difference.The only good thing about it is it generate genuine emotions in some scenes.Nothing more.

Perhaps Autumn in New York professes to be a romance movie with an alternative twist, or perhaps it simply wishes to appeal to feminine romantic sensibilities to the exclusion of masculine viewers, but either way, it doesn't say much for the standards of its makers. Indeed, it is worth noting that our little heart-on-her-sleeve protagonist, even in her desperate bid for true love, is savvy enough to be sure to target a real catch and date upwards – considerably so. The film cannot escape the clichés of all anti-male biases that exist among female writers portraying modern love – i.e.: guys are irresponsible and should be chastised when they display an aversion to attachment – they must be punished when they wander or cheat - because they invariably do – or when they just want to be free, (how dare they?) and most of all, no matter how women love to complain about men, they will persistently dream of being swept off their feet by the most beautiful and glitzy-rich among them, as they stage foggy erotic fantasies of wealth wrapped in obligatory tragedy. Precious Manhattanites with great penthouse apartments and seven figure lifestyles suffer too, wouldn't you know…So does everyone else on earth, of course, even if the Hoi Polloi haven't got the great view to reflect on it. If this a glimpse into someone's idea of what women might want as a conflict and resolution fantasies - an alternative to Hollywood's male driven macho escapist dreams - it is easy to see why smart men and women may prefer to stick with the unpredictable twists of our mundane reality; this may explain why this film did not meet with success. The fires of hell and the pain of solitude seem like heaven compared to this shallow and materialistic estrogen-driven daydream - Iron John to the rescue, please!

...even after reading all the bad reviews, even though I intensely dislike both the main actors, even though I dislike the entire "May/December romance" genre....I simply couldn't resist the title: Aumumn in New York. Manymanymany movies that take place in New York City use the city itself as a character. And occasionally, when New York is made a character in its own right, it becomes the Best Actor (or Actress, if you're so inclined.) And that's what happened here.It makes for a wonderful song, beautiful scenery and a romantic idea, but aside from how wonderfully New York played its leading role, the story placed in it sucks.There was a lovely scene in Central Park among all those gorgeous, brilliant-yellow leaves, some poignant landscape scenes of The City In The Fog and Snow, and the tune listed as "Elegy for Charlotte" on the soundtrack is worth the entire CD.Surely, in the future, a reasonably talented movie-maker will take this wonderful title and leading character and give them both a good movie. I can't believe somebody hasn't already. I hope they do, soon; the faster I can forget this one, the better.

It seems these days that most critics will do anything to a movie just for the sake of appearing all-knowing, echelonistic and fastidious. Indeed, if it was not for my growing dislike for the absolute quixotic nature of critics (most of my friends don't even bother reading taglines anymore. They go by word of mouth), I would not feel compelled to defend this movie. In my honest opinion this movie is not half bad. I would not buy it or even recommend it but I most certainly would not lambast it. Let us take a tiny dissection of some of the criticisms leveled towards this movie.The chemistry is terrible: Well NO not really. What is being mistaken for lack of chemistry is a detachment which is perfect for the tone of the movie. Both main characters have mental asides. Winona's character is hiding something and Gere's character feels this. Add this to his emotional dilemma (he has never really given a rat's ass about anyone before and you could see why the characters are not doing cartwheels in bed.The movie is cheesy: What do you call titanic? City of Angels? Do you think these bodies of work are original. This may come as a shock to you but there is no such thing as an absolutely original idea. Every idea or concept borrows ingredients from another avenue. Look at the matrix.The script is redundant: The dialogue is horrible but then again, so was the dialogue in Mission Impossible.I don't expect this mediocre movie to change the world or even make a serious impact on culture or what have you. I just don't appreciate a regular old run of the mill cheesy Hollywood flick such as this one being crucified when others are left to fly and are called "the best movie of the year". Something is wrong. I do not like this. It does not make any sense.