User Reviews

This film, inspired by John Bayley's memoir in tribute of his late wife, the novelist Iris Murdoch, gives us some insight into the final years of Murdoch as she struggled with the effects of Alzheimer's Disease, and shows us how her personality developed from the quirky, intelligent student of her young days into the self-assured, measured writer at her peak.

Iris is played when young by Kate Winslet, whose portrayal veers from playful to irritating. As she grows older she morphs into the wonderful Judi Dench, giving a quite exceptional performance as the mature Murdoch. Playing John Bayley are two actors who uncannily resemble each other - Hugh Bonneville and Jim Broadbent. Broadbent was to win awards for his performance, and rightly so, although Bonneville was no less touching.

In a well-balanced supporting cast we have Penelope Wilton, Sam and Timothy West, Eleanor Bron, and Juliet Aubrey, giving assured performances.

Is 'Iris' truly a movie about a writer, and the business of writing and creativity? Well, no, as her writing is not central to the feel of the piece (although it does touch on her gift for words, and the tragic loss of the ability to process and work with them). It is something of a downbeat film, which will leave the more sensitive amongst you with damp eyes, but essentially it is an exceptional piece of work about the destructive power of dementia and Alzheimer's.

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+)

Iris is one of those dramas that is so startlingly well acted and accurate to reality that you truly see the people on screen suffering through the story rather than the actors portraying them. And in a film that stars Judi Dench, that is a remarkable achievement. Dench and Kate Winslet are made to look so similar that when the film jumps back and forth between past and present, which it does quite often, it is never jarring no matter how abrupt it is. The young Iris, played by Winslet, is similar to the character that she played in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in many ways. She is sexually adventurous without being promiscuous, independent without being unfriendly or unattached, and dependent without being needy or reliant. She ultimately pursues a successful career as a novelist, which serves to illustrate her love and dependence on words and to enhance the effect of her deterioration later in the film.

Iris is famously a study of Alzheimer's disease, which is the kind of thing that rarely makes its way into mainstream films, so it is that much more moving that a movie as brilliant as this one takes on the subject and brings it to the forefront in such a dramatic fashion. Iris goes from being a tremendously successful novelist to not understanding which side of an open door she should pass in order to get through it. As she loses touch with reality and experiences more and more difficulty in speaking and understanding, the most moving scenes are the ones that show the suffering that her husband goes through before his own deterioration.

Iris has spent her life exploring things like what it is that makes people happy and what makes them realize that they are happy once they are, and then shows as she loses touch with those things without even realizing it. Her husband, John Bayley, in a brilliant performance by Jim Broadbent, is the only man who she has ever been with that has truly loved her, and he is the one that has to watch her cognitive abilities decline. He is literally watching the love of his life slip away from him without her even realizing it.

The film is beautifully shot and the musical score enhances the film spectacularly and unobtrusively. It brings out the emotions in a movie about losing not only memory, but about losing the your identity, losing yourself. The gradual nature of the onset of Alzheimer's disease is one of the most brilliantly presented elements in the film. There is a conversation that Iris and her husband have in which she gives him a quote, which he responds to in a way that shows his own mental decline, and then Iris' as well.

Iris - "Between two evils always choose the one you haven't tried before."

John - "Mae West. Oh my vest! I tore my vest again this morning!"

Iris - "You must get some new vests."

John – "Jolly good…"

Iris – "You must get some new vests," then, surprised at herself, "I just said that."

This all kind of makes me wonder, because it is not very rare that I will ask someone a question that I already asked and they already answered, sometimes only a minute or two before, and when they tell me I just asked them that question I have to explain that I just wasn't sure if I had asked them out loud or just thought the question in my head. Where the answer ever went in my brain remains a mystery.

It is very important that the movie spends so much time showing how much of a fiercely intelligent philosopher (in Kate Winslet's words) Iris Murdock was, because it emphasizes the totality with which Alzheimer's affects her ability to think. As a young woman she could talk circles around people, but when she grew older and Alzheimer's began to set in she became confused by the simplest concepts, and the difficulty that her husband found in attempting to explain things to her and hide what must have been his overwhelming emotion.

I'm in the middle of reading a wonderful book by Sidney Lumet called Making Movies, and I just finished a chapter on actors, in which there is a section where he described some actors who believe so strongly in the material of a film that they will do whatever it takes to get the movie made. Many actors have taken salaries far below their usually asking prices in order to participate in a movie about which they felt very strongly, and Iris is one of those movies, although I don't know whether or not any of the actors took smaller salaries than they deserved. There is a short documentary on the DVD called 'A Look at Iris' in which the cast and crew talk about the movie, and it is clear how strongly they feel about the film. Kate Winslet nails it on the head in one clip, where she says that she knows that people who knew the real Iris Murdock would see the movie, so it was all the more important that she get the character exactly right. I love that.

In Iris's own words, "If one doesn't have words how does one think?" That's exactly the question that this movie so touchingly explores. It is about people loving and then losing each other with torturous slowness, in one of the most moving and important films of 2001.

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.

Judi Dench's performance as Dame Iris Murdoch was not only flawless, pitch-perfect, and deeply moving, but it was also the performance of a lifetime. The Academy was ridiculous in overlooking her lost gazes, her subtle inflections in voice, her trembling hands, her puzzled mouth. Kate Winslet lost herself inside the young Iris, developing an entirely new set of facial expressions and voice tones. The movie accurately captures the intense passion for life and love that John Bayley describes in his novel, "Elegy For Iris." Altogether, a brilliant film, concise, humurous, terribly sad--and enhanced by four brilliant performances.

This episodic story of Iris Murdoch, best selling novelist, and her husband John Bayley, is not for the faint-hearted. There are no illusions here, and those that seem to exist are shattered by grim reality.

The film pulls no punches, showing Iris as a self-absorbed, stream-of-consciousness woman who becomes ill with Alzheimer's disease. Her husband, in sickness and in health, seems to always be a step behind her. However, he is enthralled with her - totally devoted and ultimately alone.

Yet, this portrait is beautiful and episodic, filled with symbolism, wonderful flashbacks, and the threads of a relationship built and undone. The four leads are just wonderful, with Jim Broadbent deservedly receiving an Oscar for his performance. Superb cinematography, editing, and direction support the actors and the great script.

Highly recommended. I give it 9 out of 10.

"Iris" is too short.

I wanted more about Iris Murdoch before she descends into Alzheimer's disease (stunningly portrayed by Judi Dench), other than a few lectures, and more explanation on why the young Iris fixed on her husband.

I haven't read the memoirs by the husband; it's possible that because the books and thence the movie are from his view point that we can't get inside Iris's head young, old, or befuddled.

The Young Iris segments mostly point up again that Kate Winslet has a beautiful naked body (was this before or after her baby?) and I didn't see how she did enough otherwise to justify the award nominations.

The Young Husband looks amazingly like the old Broadbent, so that the flashbacks are completely seamless, and both are terrific.

It's nice to see on screen a house as much of a mess as mine, filled with reading material, but I think we were supposed to react negatively at the sight and scream doesn't the British health services provide home health aides?

Altogether a very moving movie, helped by James Horner's music, especially sympathetic to what a caregiver goes through.

(originally written 3/3/2002)

There are biographies which attempt to tell the story of one's life with as much emotion and as much intensity as possible. Iris tries so hard to do so that it eventually slacks off in the end. Iris is the story of female writer Iris Murdoch, a world-renowned author who suffered Alzheimer's disease. Through the love and guidance of her husband, fellow author John Bailey, she was able to enjoy the last moments of her life and not feel frightened by death. Iris is played brilliantly by Dame Judi Dench and deserved an Oscar nomination for her role. Her facial expressions and personification of the character made us realize what Iris had become and made the audience feel sad. Equally compelling is Jim Broadbent as John Bailey, who gives a pitch-perfect performance as a husband who knows he has lost the woman he loves. He misses the fiery passion of Iris and longs for the freedom that she once had. Throughout the film, we are able to see glimpses of Iris's past and are able to see her freedom to speak her mind. We learn that she was indeed a passionate woman who was not afraid to express her sexuality and opinion on matters such as politics or society. Young Iris is played effectively by Kate Winslet and makes the audience realize with her tone of voice and character improvisation that the real Iris Murdoch was once a magnificent storyteller. The film is good performance wise and makes the audience realize that you could expect no more from such fine and respected actors. However, it is in the storyline in which the film loses its balance. It does not maintain the same passion as the actors present to the project and leaves us with a lot of questions and not enough satisfaction at the end of the film. The writers left a lot of details out of Iris's life and that is why the film is so poor. The storyline instead makes the audience hungry for more than what they bargained for. What we see on the screen is this interpretation of a woman's life that is a knockout performance wise. However, it leaves the audience with questions rather than answers.

Lenny's Grade: **1/2

Jim Broadbent won a well deserved Oscar for his work in this film, leaving Kate Winslet and Dame Judi Dench as also-rans for once. Iris Murdoch was a fantastic writer, but the film is not about her, it's about her husband's loss of her to Alzheimer's. The flaw is that it keeps on focusing on her without showing us who she is. Because her talent was in her books and her mind, we are told what he's lost, we only get a sort of superficial Iris. We see literally, from the young John Bayley's perspective where their relationship sprung from, but learn little about why her work meant anything or even if it did really mean anything to him. We know she was was fantastic with words, but they're not in the script because while Winslet and Dench do a great job, the script is John's story. The fact that John Bayley was married to one of the greatest writers of the 20th century should not have distracted the directors attention from the fact that this story was never about her.

Seems that we're in front of a biopic, but this is more another "mental disease film". "Iris" only focuses in two aspects of the writer's live: the meeting with Bayley when she was young and above all the decadence and alzheimer suffering when older. What about the other interesting aspects of Murdoch's life? And why they forget the other people who surrounded her and make them appear just plain in the film?

I went out of the cinema having the feeling that I had enjoyed supreme performances, delicate direction from Eyre and a coherent construction of the story-line (that editing evoking the disorder of Iris when ancient), but without knowing that writer at all.

Dench and Broadbent do a fantastic job charting the devolution of Iris' faculties as she struggles with Alzheimer's; the problem with this film is during the flashback scenes. Winslet is average, not great in her portrayal, but that's partially because the script doesn't present Iris Murdoch in her early days as a very sympathetic character. Instead of coming off as a free spirit she's far more of a sexually confused egotistical dilantette who uses everyone around her. Scenes where Iris is supposedly revealing her shady past and her motivations fall completely flat...there's not enough of a sense of vulnerability or that she really NEEDS her husband. Ultimately that takes away from the Dench-Broadbent storyline. I felt badly for Broadbent's character as he clearly was in way over his head trying to take care of Iris, but I was puzzled as to why he stayed with her in the first place as she treated him so awfully when they were young.

The flashbacks also aren't handled quite right, the interaction between the "present" and past scenes is too jarring. I suspect that it was a conscious choice to do it that way in an attempt to describe the ravages of Alzheimer's, but the film really suffers as a story because of it. This film would have been better served as a straight linear narrative without the constant flashbacks, focusing on either the young or old stage of Iris' life.

Iris seemed to have all the makings of a great film at the outlook. It is supposed to be of an interesting person and who many consider a genius. The cast seems to amazingly put together and the film is made of a notable director. Yet this film is lacking a lot in many aspects.

Now the acting is the one thing that was not lacking, especially considering the way the rest of the movie went. The performances were the only thing that gave me hope for a fulfilling movie. Especially when it came to that of a prominent couple and a famous well rounded woman. That woman is played by two of the finest actresses; Kate Winslet and Judi Dench play Iris Murdoch at the opposite ends of her life. These casting choices were perfect as well as the choice of Jim Broadbent who plays the role of the older Jim Bayley. These choices are ideal and the film is came some what alive only because of them. They gave depth to their roles were not too much was given and made us feel emotions for characters that didn't come off as too interesting in the film.

Where this film does very much fail is the directing and writing by Ricard Eyre. The pacing of the film is horrible and our view of Iris Murdoch and Jim Bayley is extremely limited. Rather than them coming across as intellectuals, we are simply just told they are that. The story basically surrounds that of Iris Murdoch's battle with Alzheimer's disease and for not really any logical reason the telling of her early life is wasted. If you take Murdoch and Bayley for what they are in the film they come off as desperate and pathetic. Also in the movie their is not enough of a build up towards the end to make us feel anything emotional towards the characters. The film drags on with no climax at all and this movie is only about 90 minutes. This movie was supposed to be a short romance instead of a biopic and that proved to be very costly in a very boring and seemingly pointless film.

After Iris, why would Hollywood bother making any more Alzheimer's disease movies? This one has everything you'd ever expect or want in such a tragic story, and since it was based off the title character's memoirs, it's even sadder. There's no reason to keep making this extremely sad story over and over again when no one really wants to watch it. The only reason people get suckered into renting them is to see one of their favorite actors or actresses show off their acting chops, but as the majority of actors have proved, there are plenty of other types of roles that can show off acting chops that have nothing to do with Alzheimer's disease.

In any case, if you're renting Iris, it's because you want to see Judi Dench's or Kate Winslet's Oscar-nominated performances, or Jim Broadbent's Oscar-winning performance. Judi and Jim are wonderful, but since they're great professionals, have you ever seen them in movies where they weren't wonderful? You don't have to rent this one to prove that point. Yes, they run the gamut of anger, fear, pain, hope, love, and sadness, but do you really want to put yourself through this movie?

In continual flashbacks, a young Judi and Jim are portrayed by Kate Winslet and Hugh Bonneville. While the old couple fit together like two halves of a whole, as Jim says in an early scene, the young couple is shown as vastly different people who don't really fit in each other's worlds, as Kate says in a later scene. Hugh is bumbling and incredibly shy, and Kate is a bold, free spirit who sleeps around and hurts him. She's perpetually taking her clothes off, which feels gratuitous and cheap. The movie would be infinitely better and classier without the nudity, as the story is about a couple's life together not about a woman whose sole characteristic is that she can't keep her clothes on. This is not Kate Winslet's movie, even though she was nominated for an Oscar. Unlike her costar, she doesn't try to become a young version of her older counterpart. She's merely Kate Winslet with a wig on. Hugh is fantastic, transforming into such a picture-perfect youthful version of Jim Broadbent, it's almost impossible to tell them apart. If you've gone into this movie never having seen either of them, you'll probably think it was one actor throughout the entire movie with age make-up in some scenes.

If you do decide to put yourself through this very upsetting subject matter, you will be treated to two truly wonderful performances by the men. As is usually the case in these types of movies, the ill person isn't given nearly as much to do as the person who watches and endures, so Judi's performance isn't as involved as Jim's. Jim will make you cry, but he always makes you cry, doesn't he?

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to nudity and adult subject matter, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Essentially this is the story of love, loss and human frailty, and what a story it is. It is so truthful, powerful and heart-wrenching. The film is beautiful to watch too, with the cinematography and settings just exquisite, complete with a lovely score, a touching script and sensitive direction from Richard Eyre where he directs with a sharp academic mind. And the parallel flashbacks are beautifully done. What makes Iris are the strength of the performances, because the acting is just brilliant in this film. Judi Dench is wonderful as always, and Kate Winslet and Hugh Bonneville are believable too, but the best performances for me come from Jim Broadbent as her devoted husband Jim Bayley and Penelope Wilton as society hostess Janet Stone. In conclusion, it is a beautiful and very poignant film, so much so it hurts. 10/10 Bethany Cox

This screen biography of Iris Murdoch flashes back and forth between her twilight years as she battles Alzheimer's disease and her life as an aspiring writer in the 1950s. The casting is uncanny - it's totally believable that Winslet and Bonneville would age into Dench and Broadbent, respectively. The acting is also quite good, particularly Broadbent as the supportive but long-suffering husband of the woman who enjoyed a sexually adventurous life, a role that won him an Oscar. The problem is that there isn't much to the script other than mundane scenes of life then and now. Without a compelling plot to tie it all together, the film fails to sustain interest despite its short length.

Judi Dench gives the performance of a lifetime as author Iris Murdoch, who eventually developed Alzheimer's disease. She really gets into the role, as she's done with every one of her performances with which I'm familiar. Jim Broadbent won Best Supporting Actor playing her husband John Bayley, who loves her but often gets frustrated by her mental condition. This is certainly a movie that I recommend to everyone. Also starring Kate Winslet as young Iris, and Hugh Bonneville as young John.

I still remember when Jim Broadbent won his Oscar. The next day, we were hiking up an Indian dwelling in Bandalier, New Mexico (it was spring break), and I was thinking: "When people heard that, I bet that most of them were thinking "Jim who?".

The movie is a biography of writers Iris Murdoch (Kate Winslet, Judi Dench) and John Bayley (Hugh Bonneville, Jim Broadbent). They meet at Oxford. She's the more flamboyant and he's awkward. Over the years, she continues to be the more vibrant one in the marriage and a famous novelist. Then she starts the suffer from Alzheimer's disease.

The acting is superb from all four primary actors. Winslet is winsome and Bonneville is awkwardly compelling. Dench's deterioration and Broadbent's suffering are outstanding. It does have essence of true romance. The courtship is heart warming and the struggles are heart breaking. That is what's most compelling. The only drawback is possibly the split timeline may pull some of the focus from each other.

a film escaping to definitions. because it is an example of...magic. for impeccable performances of Judy Dench and Kate Winslet. for the essence of Alzheimer. for the portrait of an unique writer. for tension and for cruelty and for dialogue and for atmosphere and for something who, for long time, remains fresh in the memory of viewer. it is not easy to say why "Iris" represents more than a good adaptation or a great movie. maybe, because it is a story from yourself. or a mirror. for the references to the first meet with the style of Iris Murdoch. and for the remember of our extreme fragility. short, a film entirely remarkable.