Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

vincentlynch-moonoi This is what I call a "small film", but every once in a while it's a small film that gives you the opportunity to savor fine acting performances.It seems as if quite a few of our reviewers don't like this film. I think that's because they expect Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro in a totally different types of films. I can't say that Jane Fonda is one of my favorite actresses, yet, almost every time I do see one of her films, I'm impressed. It wasn't until 1986 that I began to appreciate Robert De Niro. I learned that it wasn't his acting that turned me off; it was more the types of films that he often acted in. Now I like few things more than watching a good -- mature -- performance by a truly fine actor.This is clearly not the type of role that we usually associate with Jane Fonda -- a poor woman who works in a bakery factory and has a family life that is less than ideal. She looks a little worn out...which is just right for the part. Surprisingly, she's perfect here.It's a very different role for Robert De Niro, as well. He plays an illiterate who is fumbling through life. When he loses his job he has to put his elderly father into a public home for the aged, where he dies. That jogs De Niro to finally learn to read and write. ANd he asks Fonda to be his teacher. Of course, there's a lot of frustration in the process.No film is perfect, and the weakness here is that we know that a romance is going to develop and that they will live happily ever after. It's kind of obvious. So, as with many films, the joy is not where the film is going, but how our characters arrive at that destination.One of the things I like about this film is that it shows the lives of a socioeconomic group that we don't often see in films.The primary supporting actor worth mentioning is Swoosie Kurtz. Kurtz was an actress who was quite popular for a while, and this film made me realize that I hadn't see her in a while. I looked her up and was surprised to learn that she was now in her 70s. She does a nice job here as Fonda's sister. Fonda's son here -- Harley Cross -- does a nice job...believable. Martha Plimpton, as the daughter, also does nicely.Thankfully the mandatory sex scene -- a disastrous one -- is brief. But it exemplifies the somewhat awkward route to love these two people are having.I'll tell how good I thought this film was. I wasn't feeling well the evening I started watching it. I was very tired, so I thought I'd watch maybe half the film, and finish the rest the following day. Nope, I stayed up until nearly 1:30 a.m. to finish it one sitting.I give this a very strong "7". Recommended.

SnoopyStyle Iris King (Jane Fonda) is recently widowed and working at the bakery factory. Money is tight. Her purse is stolen and Stanley Cox (Robert De Niro) helps her. He's an illiterate cook at the factory canteen. She has two kids Kelly (Martha Plimpton) and Richard. Her unemployed sister Sharon (Swoosie Kurtz) and her no-good husband Joe (Jamey Sheridan) are staying with her. Kelly reveals that she's pregnant. Iris and Stanley start hanging out together and she finds out his secret. She lets the cat out of the bag to his boss and he's fired. He's left with menial work and forced to leave his father in an old-age home. When his father dies, he can't even spell the name for the death certificate. He asks her to teach him how to read.The story has a lot of tough things going on for these poor people. The problem is that it's done with little drama. Both Fonda and De Niro are going low key with their performances. The romance is a slow boil. The movie doesn't hit big points hard or stay with them. The first big move is Joe hitting Sharon. Yet there is little follow up with them. Kelly is pregnant but that's another side trip. The most compelling part of the movie is the illiteracy but I'm not impressed with them transitioning to a romance. The acting is solid but it's all done without much tension or drama.

Desertman84 Stanley & Iris is a romantic drama that features two big stars in Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro. The screenplay by Harriet Frank, Jr. and Irving Ravetch is loosely based on the novel Union Street by Pat Barker.Swoosie Kurtz,Martha Plimpton,Harley Cross and Jamey Sheridan co- star to play key supporting roles. This movie is about an odd love story between a widow and an illiterate.It was directed by Martin Ritt. In this socially conscious drama with romantic overtones, Iris is a working mother with a job at a large commercial bakery who is still getting over the death of her husband, though her circumstances don't give her much time to grieve. She's sharing her house with her two children, Kelly and Richard; her unemployed sister, Sharon; and her thuggish brother-in-law. The tensions at home become even greater when the teen-aged Kelly announces that she's pregnant. One of the few bright spots in Iris' life is her blossoming friendship with Stanley, a nice guy who works in the bakery's cafeteria. However, Iris starts noticing a few odd things about Stanley and it slowly dawns on her that he can't read. When the boss figures this out, Stanley loses his job which is an especially troubling development, as Stanley has just had to put his father in a retirement home. Homeless and out of work, Stanley turns to Iris with a special request which is he'd like her to teach him how to read.The elements are in place but they don't add up to great drama in this well-meant effort to personalize the plight of illiterate people.But nevertheless,it's as honest and direct and entertaining as the considerable talents of everyone involved can make it.There is also a good supporting cast here, and Fonda is effective in her role. But it's DeNiro who shines with a very affecting performance, as well as a natural chemistry with Fonda.That is why this movie with many flaws is a harmless little romance that's elevated by the charisma of its two stars.

andy_roy Just finished watching this movie, and it has left me quite confused. At one level, I enjoyed the movie immensely, for its powerful performances (OK - I have this terrible bias. No matter how much I try, I cannot completely dislike a De Niro movie) and the director's willingness to tread off the beaten path and look at issues that are real and disturbing, but which do not necessarily make the cash registers tingle. At another level, throughout watching the movie, I could not contain my disappointment at the inept treatment that is meted out by the script and the sketchy storyline.Was the director trying to document an epic human struggle, crafting out a modern day fairy tale, commenting on disturbing social issues or telling a plain love story? And this is where, I think, the movie fails. John Ford, Frank Capra and a host of others have made epic movies about human struggle; Bergman, Woody Allen and a host of art-house directors have delved on various social issues and several film makers from William Wyler to Stephen Spielberg have had their versions of modern day fairy tales. But none of them wanted to be everything in one movie.The first fifteen minutes of the movie make you think you are about to watch an intense, off-beat social document about burning issues like illiteracy, widowhood, old age, loneliness, teenage motherhood, poverty, mother-daughter relationship etc.In fact they are all hurled at you one after the other in the first reel itself. It's like the director saying - OK, this is CNN. First the headlines....now, let me see, have I missed anything. Oh of course, teenage motherhood. OK...here you go! OK, guys, now I'm done with the social issues bit, let's get to the love story part.OK, now - guys - how about some real fairy tale stuff. A rags-to-riches story that's so improbable. Guys, I have only ten minutes of shoot time left - quick, get him rich...hurry! It's here that I feel intellectually cheated.At one point in the movie, Robert De Niro asks Jane Fonda: why does it have to be all or nothing for you? That's the same question I'd like to ask the director.I started by saying it's an intriguing movie. Intriguing because, despite all this, despite the predictable ending and the lack of character-building (the waster brother-in-law shows up once and then disappears forever, for instance) and general lack of depth - you cannot really dislike it. The sheer poignancy and the earnestness of the lead characters (they were battling a sorry script along with poverty, loneliness etc. - full marks to them!) makes you forget your cinematic senses for a while and keep on watching.If I get a chance, I'll probably watch this movie again, and it's not because of Mr De Niro alone.Drawing a somewhat (though very different in theme and treatment) parallel - a much more powerful film about middle-aged post-marital flirtations starring De Niro in a similar 'soft' role was 'Falling in love' with Merryl Streep. However, while FIL delivers perfectly, on every count and remains a mini-classic (IMHO), this one comes nowhere close.It could easily have. Pity.