Actually, the opposite.
Retinol is the active form and so it was reasonable enough, before data came out quite some while ago, to figure that supplying the active form could be the best way to supplement Vitamin A.
Now it was known for a very long time that retinol could be toxic, even enough to kill a person, at very high doses such as what results, for example, from eating the liver of a polar bear.
And it was known that when retinol or derivatives were used at relatively high doses medically -- for example Accutane is a retinol derivative -- there were toxicity problems.
Of course that wouldn't prove a problem with lower dose use.
But some years back (I don't now have the specific reference) a very large study found that supplementation with Vitamin A, as retinol, at common doses correlated with DECREASED life expectancy. This is the only type of vitamin supplementation shown to have such an effect. The effect was both statistically significant and substantial at doses of only 5000 IU/day.
Many companies selling vitamins pulled retinol and its derivatives from their products after this.
Beta carotene does not have this effect, but at for example 5000 IU/day fully supplies the body with what it needs to produce enough Vitamin A itself. Any excess simply goes towards adding an orange hue to the skin, basically.
Supplementation with retinol can readily and often does result in levels that are excessive, if defining an on-average effect of decreasing lifespan to be "excessive."
Now there is newer data as well on adverse effect of retinol supplementation on absorption of calcium.