Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Armand it is this kind of film out of words. not reviews, not descriptions, not the sound of critics voice are inspired option to present it. only watch it and you understands that. because it is a book adaptation, portrait of an extraordinary writer but, more that, it is amazing show. its basic virtue - performance. the characters becomes skin of actors. the film becomes, step by step, pure delight. result - a gem. a pure gem in which Dame Judi Dench does a brilliant work and Kate Winslet shines. in fact, it is a form of dialog between the two actresses. subtle, precise, astonishing. the lead character is only axis. and this extraordinary dialog represents large circle grace of splendid support of Hugh Bonneville and unique Jim Broadbent. it is a huge map of nuances who seems become exercise of metempsychosis. so, please, watch it ! sad, full of joy, hope and brilliance, it is little more than a film.

Red_Identity This is a very well-acted little British drama. I don't think it's anything all that remarkable, and it's just solid. But the four leads do put in some great work, especially Judi Dench and Kate Winslet. What's surprising is the fact that Dench was nominated under Leading while her co-star Broadbent supporting. Seems like they knew the younger Bonneville would have no chance so they just put broadbent in supporting, but knew Winslet had chances of getting a nod. Either way, deserved and if anything it just strengthens Kate Winslet's filmography more. She's one of the finest actresses working right now, if not my favorite overall. Very consistent.

TheLittleSongbird 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

Malcolm Parker 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.