Rating: 
Summary: Fantastic Love Story Concerning Illiteracy!!
Review: In this film,Stanley(Robert DeNiro),a hard worker, unable to read or write is befriended by a blue class hardworking widow,Iris(Jane Fonda) who teaches DeNiro how to read and write in which their friendship later blossoms into love.It's a fantastic love story concerning illiteracy!!
Rating: 
Summary: REALLY HEARTWARMING BUT...
Review: it is as if these people are not living in America or like it was in set mid seventies.Though de Niro and Jane Fonda are excellent you feel sadness throughout the whole movie except for the last bit.I felt like I should give them alms.
Rating:
Summary: A very satisfying movie
Review: It's a story of working class that works hard and ends up being successful and finding love. Leaves one feeling good. I'm going to add it to my collection.
Rating:
Summary: Terrific performances.
Review: Maybe you've forgotten that Robert DeNiro was once considered America's best actor. Maybe his constant involvement these days in lousy projects (Showtime, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Hide and Seek, et al) has diminished his reputation? Well, Stanley & Iris is a terrific place to go to see him at his guarded, emotionally tight best.
This is a middle-aged love story, about two people whose lives have been difficult, and who need each other more than they know.
While the direction and story are somewhat weak, the characters of Stanley and Iris and DeNiro and Fonda's performances make the film.
Here you will find excellent acting, genuine vulnerability and and angle of repose and beauty.
Rating: 
Summary: a movie worth watching...
Review: One night, I was watching television and Stanely and Iris was just beginning.. so I sat down, relaxed and watched it. I never heard of this movie before (i haven't seen a lot of movies).. and I was intrested to see Robert De Niro play this role in this type of movie.. After watching this movie, i really thought it was a nice movie to watch.. it was entertaining.. it wasn't an awful movie, but it wasn't the greatest movie ever.. it is a good movie to watch when your by yourself when you feel like there is nothing to do.. because you can just do what i did and relax.. get confy.. and just watch.. And if guys are reading, its a good movie to watch with your girlfriend lol
Rating:
Summary: A Small Triumph
Review: Roger Ebert and the Maltin crew have been unnecessarily unkind to this film, each giving it only two-and-a-half stars. Ebert's Sun-Times review of this film is not available at his Web site or at imdb.com, so I cannot comment on his criticisms. The Maltin crew, in "Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide," complains that the movie is flat and underdeveloped. There is some justification for the Maltin crew's comment. At the beginning of the film we find Iris (Jane Fonda) sharing her home with her children, her barely working sister, and her shiftless, dishonest brother-in-law. These last two characters disappear quickly from the film and make only brief reappearances. Their relationships with Iris are never developed. The two children are, for the most part, simply "there." There is, likewise, no exploration of Stanley's (De Niro) relationship with his father, except to show unexpressed love and respect. Nor is anything made of the relationship of Stanley with Iris' son. Nor of Stanley with his various employers. Neither Stanley nor Iris seem to have any friends, at least we never see them. There is some very limited development of Iris' relationship with her pregnant unwed daughter. There is a lot of exploration of the relationship between Stanley and Iris. The film is about them and really only about them. Anyone else in the film has little more than a brief walk-on. Is this film "flat" or "thin," or would it be more just to call it "lean?" This was Martin Ritt's last film. Certainly, it must have mattered to him, and just as certainly he knew how to create a more richly textured film with well-developed subplots. Obviously, he chose not to. He chose instead to concentrate on the relationship between the two title characters and included other characters only if he needed them briefly to better define these two. Stanley and Iris are both tortured souls, troubled by demons, he with illiteracy, she with grief over the death of her husband. Each is afraid to confront these demons before they meet one another, and then not until a long time after their first meeting. They both have a sense of dignity. The harshness of life has taught them to suppress their feelings. They do not show emotion readily. Their lives are simple and dreary. Given who these characters are, it is clear that neither Fonda's nor De Niro's acting will catch fire. And to develop other story lines would simply be a distraction. So we have really just these two characters, and the strands of the story are his life, her life, and the slow cautious development of their life. Again, Ritt could have developed a richly textured film like Robert Benton's "Places in the Heart" (another film about people helping one another escape from adversity and also underappreciated by the critics). Obviously, that wasn't what he wanted. The film that Ritt wanted us to see is this simple straightforward one. In its own special way it is a wonderful film, and it closed Ritt's career in much the same way that "Madadayo" (yet another underappreciated film) closed Kurosawa's. There are some other apparent weaknesses in the film, although they are not those claimed by the critics, and they too have their reasons. Fonda and De Niro speak a simple language but with a diction inapropriate to their class, and Fonda simply looks too good for a woman who must struggle to keep bread on the table. Neither sounds like they are from New England. Perhaps, they would be more convincing if they looked and spoke like working-class people, with horrible elocution and worse grammar. But that would distance them from us, make us too analytical about their situations and characters, and ultimately alienate us from them. Better to leave audience alienation to the films of Jean-Luc Godard, a director who alienates his audiences as a matter of principal. (He is, after all, a Brechtian.) Life is full of compromises, and so is art. Unlike some critics, I am not incredulous at a woman's of Iris' obvious intelligence and quality of expression having such a dead end job. I doubt few women would be either. This is not a film about illiteracy. Stanley's illiteracy is simply the vehicle for bringing the characters together and creating his problems. This is a film about people damaged by life through no fault of their own, finally daring to look for some ray of hope. And please, let us not say how much better the film might have been had it ended in tragedy or, at least, further dreariness. Let us admit that we, the audience, also need to find happiness, that we crave to be loved and to feel pride, and let us not warily turn our backs to these characters who seek no more than that. It takes a certain meanness to rate this film, as did the Maltin team, at the same level as "The Toxic Avenger." And how should one react to Roger Ebert, who gave this film a thumbs down while granting three-and-a-half stars to Wes Craven's "Last House on the Left" (1977), an amateurish ultraviolent film that begins with the brutal murder of a young girl and ends with the horrific vengence exacted by her parents? A modern American suburban version of "The Virgin Spring?" I don't think so, no matter what Wes Craven may claim as his inspiration. I may be too uncritical, but I like "Stanley & Iris." I am won over by its simplicity and its nobility. I do not find it be either flat or underdeveloped. Ebert and the Maltin team were clearly disappointed, perhaps, because they were expecting a different film. "Stanley & Iris" is not a great film, but in its quiet, humble, dignified way it is certainly at least a good film, and we are diminished if we dismiss it too coolly.
|
