This movie teaches us a lot about love and life and the value of life at all age levels, and how precious one's mind and memory is. And, I know it's cliche, but 'sometimes you hurt the one's you love most.' Winslett and Dench are mesmorizing.


I agree with reviewer Mary Whipple on how the director very effectively goes back and forth in time: "Alternating between present and past, director Eyre develops innumerable visual parallels, showing Murdoch as a wild young girl (passionately played by Kate Winslett), uninhibitedly exploring every aspect of life, with Dench repeating similar scenes (such as the swimming scenes) late in life. The young John Bayley (Hugh Bonneville) plays his role so close in style to Broadbent that except for the obvious age differences, they could well be the same person, both blushing on cue. These four brilliant actors are completely successful in merging time frames to create two complete characters--Iris Murdoch and John Bayley."

Film biographies are tricky things. In a written biography, the author can explore the thought process, the moods, the intellect of the subject ands attempt to explain what made them interesting or great in their field. Film biographies essentially become a Cliff Notes version of the subject's life. It would be impossible to accurately and intelligently depict a person's entire life in a film, so the filmmakers have to depict an important period or an important series of events. The more memorable film biographies of the last few years have done this; "Man In The Moon" depicted a series of events, skipping around randomly, ending at the premiere of the TV show `Taxi', "Ed Wood" depicted a very strange man's road to become a film director. Both of these films, in addition to the third most memorable film biography of the last few years, were all written by the same team. They each cover a significant period of time in the subjects life.

"Iris", directed by Richard Eyre and adapted from the bestselling memoirs of his wife, written by John Bayley, depicts two periods from the life of novelist Iris Murdoch. The first is when Iris and John met and the second is during the last years of her life, before she succumbed to Alzheimer's.

The film contains two great performances. Judi Dench portrays Iris Murdoch at the end of her life and really makes the character believable. Even more interesting is the fact that her character has so few lines during this period. Most of her character is built with facial mannerisms and body movements. The other great performance belongs to Jim Broadbent. His portrayal of John Bayley is another great addition to his resume. Broadbent is, and probably always will be, a character actor, but he gives dignity to the meaning. Too unconventional to be a leading man, he continues to turn in one memorable performance after another. In his last three films, he steals virtually every scene he is in. His performance in "Topsy Turvy" was truly memorable, but his performance in "Moulin Rouge" was memorable, showy, grandiose and restrained all at the same time (difficult in any circumstance, but more so in such a frantic film). In "Iris", he plays a character who is probably 20 years older than the actor but never seems to be acting. He is a man so completely and utterly in love with this woman that nothing else matters in the film.

The film is memorable in that it uses two very good actresses to portray Iris Murdoch. Kate Winslet portrays the novelist in her twenties, when she first met John Bayley. Unfortunately either the writing or the acting prevented me from caring about this character, so it was difficult for me to see why John Bayley was so in love with her, especially in the scenes with Dench and Broadbent. Watching the scenes with Dench and Broadbent became a strange experience. I enjoyed Dench's performance immensely and loved watching Broadbent, but because I didn't understand why he fell in love with the Winslet character, I didn't believe in the relationship despite the strength of the acting. I hope that makes sense.

Also, the film seems to be constructed rather haphazardly. Cutting back and forth between the two time periods throughout the entire film, the film seems to lose its focus. Usually when a film cuts back and forth between two time periods the events in each time period are meant to emphasize the other. I didn't see the correlation between the two in "Iris". Yes, one period is when the two writers met and the other is at the end of their relationship, but that doesn't seem strong enough.

I have never read an Iris Murdoch novel or the two books written by John Bayley and I still don't know why Murdoch was considered so great. This is a fatal flaw in any biography. After watching "Ed Wood" and never seeing any of his actual films, I can recognize that he was a strange but extremely committed man. After watching "Man In The Moon", I get a sense of Andy Kaufman's strange comedic sensibilities. After watching "The People Vs. Larry Flynt", I get a sense that Larry Flynt was also interested in fighting censorship, even if it may have been profit based. I don't get a sense of what made Murdoch's writing good, great, interesting or memorable. Why? Because we only hear her speak at two functions. Are these speeches related to her writing? We only see her struggle with writing one book, but we don't hear any of the writing or find out about the book.

The film is being released by Miramax for a week, before the end of the year, to qualify for Oscars. They probably believe that the film is worthy of Oscar nominations and at least two of the actors probably should get a nomination. But because the film doesn't explain anything about what makes Murdoch's life or work great, I can't recommend it. Thew film actually fails miserably on that note.

"Iris" is a well-intentioned, but unsuccessful film biography of a writer that I still know very little about.

For those who prefer brief reviews: "IRIS" starring Judi Dench and Kate Winslet is a heart-wrenching film that speaks splendidly of LOVE: joys & sorrows all-in-one.

Images of the young Iris (Kate Winslet) & the man she will marry change like a jazz segue to the characters in their older years . . . and so quickly you MUST believe that Kate & Dame Judi are the same person! Which is not to take away from the power of Jim Broadbent ~~ in his illuminating role as the elder John Bayley.

So vibrant and convincing! One magical scene after another; and then, the devastation caused by what reviewer Fionan Meade called "the cruel erasure of Alzheimer's". But the themes of love and creativity cannot be diminished.

Many readers & film-goers will ultimately face dealing with this disease and it will be a heart-breaking & back-breaking experience. Reviewer mcHAIKU believes there is courage to be found in this adaptation and recommends it without reservation.

When author/philosopher Iris Murdoch utters these words, she has no way of knowing that Alzheimer's disease will soon rob her of that freedom, leaving her the frustrated shell of who and what she was. Author of twenty-six books and winner of both the Whitbread and the Booker Prizes, Iris, at the end of her life, was, according to her husband, like "A very nice three-year-old child." The love story of Iris Murdoch, a free-spirited, passionate lover of arts and ideas, and John Bayley, the shy, introverted man who was her anchor in life, dominates this film, celebrating her life, even as Alzheimer's disease robs it of its meaning.

Directed by Richard Eyre, who converted John Bayley's book, A Memoir and Elegy for Iris, into the screenplay, the film honors Iris, John Bayley, and the love that survived even Alzheimer's disease. Judi Dench not only looks like Iris Murdoch, but also endows her with fierce independence, a curiosity about the meaning of life, and a strong will, characteristics which served Iris well, even in her decline. Jim Broadbent, who won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar, shows his love for her at the same time that he becomes enormously frustrated at his helplessness in dealing with her decline.

Alternating between present and past, director Eyre develops innumerable visual parallels, showing Murdoch as a wild young girl (passionately played by Kate Winslett), uninhibitedly exploring every aspect of life, with Dench repeating similar scenes (such as the swimming scenes) late in life. The young John Bayley (Hugh Bonneville) plays his role so close in style to Broadbent that except for the obvious age differences, they could well be the same person, both blushing on cue. These four brilliant actors are completely successful in merging time frames to create two complete characters--Iris Murdoch and John Bayley.

The obvious symbolism and deliberate parallels between the early and late lives of Iris and John Bayley will not escape any viewer, making the sad changes in Iris's mind even more agonizing to watch, particularly for anyone who has faced Alzheimer's with a loved one. As Iris herself observes, "I feel as if I'm sailing into darkness." Beautifully filmed by Roger Pratt, the exteriors, including the water scenes, show the vastness of the world that Iris loved to explore, while the interiors show her claustrophobic confinement and the robbing of her soul. Not an easy film to watch, it is nevertheless a brilliant achievement celebrating the endurance of love, even in the face of Alzheimer's disease. Mary Whipple

I'm not qualified to disagree with the glowing reviews of the acting, etc., but I was annoyed by the way the flashbacks were done. I suppose it was a metaphor for what Iris must have been going through.

But LOTS of people are slutty or succumb to Alzheimer's. What made Iris noteworthy was her writing. To focus on the former and almost entirely omit the latter is shamelessly manipulative, and it made my girlfriend, who lost a grandparent to Alzheimer's, cry.

I suppose the moral of the story is: Don't watch movies; read books instead.