Iris

This film succeeds where the overrated "A Beautiful Mind" fell short. It puts its subject's life into perspective and gives a sense of her worldview and, needs, and desires--as opposed to just focusing on the illness. I think it is also more effective in its use of different actors to portray the main characters at different ages, rather than using distracting age makeup, like in ABM. I came away from this with a profound admiration for Iris Murdock, whereas I felt like I hardly got to know John Nash at all.

But enough with the comparisons. This film stands well on its own as a tribute to the companionship shared by Iris and her husband John Bayley throughout their long, complex, relationship. Broadbent deserved that Academy Award, although I would say he plays more of a lead character than supporting. Seeing Iris through Bayley's loving eyes is what makes the film an enriching experience. He is the one who must adapt to her unconventional lifestyle, and their journey together is a rewarding one.

One person who commented stated that this was "another disease movie." Funny how you never hear a complaints about "another gangster movie" or "another romantic comedy" or "another suspense thriller." SO WHAT? First of all, it is not a disease movie, it is at its heart a romance, and a "meaning of life" film, much moreso than a film about Alzheimer's disease. Secondly, the disease is the device used to illustrate their level of understanding and commitment to each other. And finally, I cannot imagine telling Murdock's story WITHOUT giving the disease its proper weight in the course of the film.

The scenes when the characters are younger are blended seamlessly with the latter day scenes. Kate Winslet and Hugh Bonneville (uncannily resembling a young Broadbent) are very true to their older counterparts' personalities, and add yet another dimension to film. All in all, this is a production of which director Richard Eyre and cast (and Bayley, who wrote the book on which the film is based) should be extremely proud. It should have been seen by more people in 2001. Grade: A

"Iris" is an intense character-study that is full of bravura performances, but is also a film that struggles for greatness and never quite reaches the mark. Iris Murdoch was a great English novelist, arguably the greatest of her time, but Alzheimer's would strike the writer and eventually take away everything needed to continue her literary work. The film splits in two between Murdoch's early life (played by Oscar-nominee Kate Winslet) and her latter life (Oscar-nominee Judi Dench). What we see is Murdoch's relationship with her true love and future-husband John Bayley (Hugh Bonneville in the early sequences and Oscar-winner Jim Broadbent in the latter stages). "Iris" struggles as it goes back and forth between the early years and the latter years of Murdoch's life. This makes the film like a jumping-jack that just does not know when to quit. The film is not complimentary to Murdoch in her early years as she is shown as a teasing bi-sexual who basically uses men and women for her own personal gain. She is also shown as a somewhat cruel person who intentionally and unintentionally hurts those closest to her. Dench, on the other hand, plays Murdoch as a woman slowly losing control of those things most important to her. There are definitely flashes and similarities between the four actors who play the two characters flawlessly. Broadbent is best, but his Oscar win is not dominant by any stretch of the imagination. The film also looks somewhat cheap and rushed at times. It is just so British and the production values are not near as high as they really should have been. However, the film does show the Alzheimer's Disease in a very accurate way. Those who have seen it firsthand (I have) will find the film very difficult to get through because the research done for the movie is second-to-none. Those who are not familiar with the disease will find the film intriguing and interesting. "Iris" is a fine effort and the performances save the day on more than one occasion, but overall the film is not quite what the film-makers had hoped it would be by the final act. 4 stars out of 5.

This movie has an all-star cast -- Judi Dench as Iris Murdoch, Jim Broadbent as her husband, John Bayley, Kate Winslet as the young Iris Murdoch, and Hugh Bonneville as the young John Bayley. The actors have physical appearances that makes it easy to believe we are seeing the same characters young and old. The editing is interesting, often cutting back and forth between the young and old characters within a scene.

I am not familiar with any of her works, but I have learned that Iris Murdoch was a very fine and prolific writer. She loved the language, and had a very unconventional outlook on life. This film seems to be more about her onset of Alzheimer's and her husband's trying to deal with it, rather than a story about Iris and how she came to be who she was. The story they chose not to explore I believe would have made a more interesting movie. For me Kate Winslet was the real star of the film, playing the younger Iris, and I came away wishing the film had spent much more time on her story. While the later Alzheimer years are important and interesting, too much of the film dwelled on these latter years.

Iris Murdock was an author and a shining light within the literary community in England. As an older woman she holds the same enthusiasm but is gradually being given over to the effects of Alzheimers. Her husband, John, tries to cope watching his wife slip away while he remembers how things were when they were young and falling in love.

I knew of this film due to Broadbent rightly taking the Oscar for it (with an exclamation of `stone the crows!') but I noticed it wasn't really in the running for anything else and never got round to seeing it. Seeing it now I am in two minds as to whether it works or not - I think it depends on what you take the film's aim to be. As a story about Iris herself I didn't think it really worked. It told me very little about her and didn't give me much to work with in regards her character or her relations when she was younger. We are given images and scenes from Iris and John's youth but I never felt that I ever really connected with who they were at that young age. The stuff with them as an elderly couple works well but again it could have been any elderly couple and it made no difference to me that Iris was a writer or any woman.

What works excellent is the portrait of an elderly couple struggling with the effects of Alzheimer's on their lives - hers as a sufferer and his as one watching his wife vanish day by day. I was very moved by all of that side of the film and found some of it very hard to watch. Most of this is due to Broadbent and it is this that he won his Oscar for. I felt his pain throughout the film and it was intense considering what a normal cheerful old man he played. Dench is excellent and her portrayal of Iris is very strong in terms of being an Alzheimers sufferer but not so much as a character I'm meant to learn about. The playing of both Winslet and Bonneville is good but I came away with the feeling that they were just assigned to do impressions of their senior co-stars; they don't manage to shed light on the past very much but they are good background.

Overall this film is not great if you are expecting to learn about Iris the author. However a film about Alzheimers it excels and is well worth seeing. Broadbent is wonderful and deserved his Oscar - his pain and his loss is so very real throughout the film that it is impossible not to feel something even if the film doesn't manage to do great development with the characters.

"Iris" tells of British novelist Iris Murdoch and her husband as they struggle together with her Alzheimer's affliction. The couple is portrayed in youth by Winslet and Bonneville and in old age by Dench and Broadbent with all delivering sterling performances. The plaintive and wistful story is told through interleaving scenes of the older couple's struggle with moments from the younger couple's life. As far as it goes, the film is an excellent product. What it doesn't deliver, however, is a deep sense of Murdoch, her philosophies and complexities of thought thereby giving greater depth to the character and a sense of the significance of what she is losing. In short, the film dwells too much on the disease and too little on the woman. Recommended for more mature viewers (B+)