Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

BasicLogic I don't want to talk about the two movie icons in this film, I just want to talk about the poor logic flaws in this film.Stanley was not an immigrant from the none English speaking foreign country, he's an American, born in America. He grew up in America, educated in the American education system, even he's an orphan, he would have been educated from the elementary school to junior high, to high school. That's a basic American underage education provided freely by the American government. Even if by any chance he might be a person with serious learning disability, he at least could have learned how to read and write the basic English. So there's no way this Stanley character created by this stupid film could not read or write A to Z alphabets, his own first and last names, read the street signs. He's not a retard person born with serious brain damage. Even a deaf child would have the ability to learn how to read and write. Yet this Stanley guy, born in America, could not read or write, even his own full name. Hey, this is not the primitive 200 years ago America, boy never got the chance going to school, so he could write and sign his name with a big X like Indians. The Stanley guy was later fired due to his illiteracy. The excuse to fire him was he might do something wrong in his food processing job. BUT, a VERY BIG "but", how come he could be hired by the bakery factory in the first place? Did he have to sign his name with the HR Dept. when he was hired?Although both leading actors performed nicely in this somewhat awkward and too predictable romantic film, there were so many question marks and flaws in this film that could never be justified or explained. It's like building a structure without foundation. Even building a wood cabin, you still need to build a foundation first. Without foundation, nothing can stand. It bothered me extremely when I tried to watch this film, because its poorly founded logic blocked me to watch it blindly. I just couldn't sweep the illogic storyline, the basic premises of a scenario under the carpet and shifted my focus to the later bloomed romance. A love story built on a ridiculous foundation simply couldn't stand long enough with a basic reasoning logic.

kmcollins29 I watched the 1990 film Stanley and Iris last night for the first time. I had always wanted to see this movie, as I am a big Robert DeNiro fan. Knowing that the film was poorly received upon its release I still went into my viewing with an open mind. Unfortunately the reviews were spot on twenty-two years ago. This film is very bad. I mean VERY bad. A real waste of the talents of both Deniro and Jane Fonda. I may have been a little more generous with this review if it was a low budget piece with two lesser caliber actors at the helm, but this is not so. Not only is the story generally weak, but this film suffers from perhaps the worst editing that i have ever seen in a major studio film with high profile stars. The story moves on from scene to scene, seemingly not explaining events that have lead up to what we are watching. It was like I was watching a poorly trimmed down television airing of a studio film that was compressed for time, however that was not the case here. this was an unedited presentation on Cable. Unless you are absolutely smitten with Deniro or Fonda, avoid this film.

petyank I guess if a film has magic, I don't need it to be fluid or seamless. It can skip background information, go too fast in some places, too slow in others, etc. Magic in this film: the scene in the library. There are many minor flaws in Stanley & Iris, yet they don't detract from the overall positive impact of watching people help each other in areas of life that seem the most incomprehensible, the hardest to fix. Both characters are smart. Yet Stanley can't understand enough to function because he can't read; he can't read because he's had too much adventure in his childhood. Iris, although well-educated, hasn't had enough adventure and so can't understand how to move past the U-turn her life took. In both their faults and strengths, the characters compliment each other. It may be a bit of a stretch to accept that an Iris would wind up working year after year in a factory, or that a Stanley never hid his illiteracy enough to work in construction or some other better-paying job. And while these "mysteries" are explained in the course of the story, their unfolding seems somewhat contrived. I assume no one took the time to rethink the script. Even so, it's a good movie—just imagine what De Niro, Fonda and Plimpton would have done on screen if someone had!

Ric-85 This film has a special place in my heart, as when I caught it the first time, I was teaching adult literacy. It rang very true to me and even an outstanding student I had at the time. There are scenes which make you gulp with sudden emotion, and those which even put a smile on your face through sheer identification with the characters and their situation. Excellent performances by Jane Fonda and Robert DeNiro that rank with their best work, a great turn by a young Martha Plimpton, an inspiring story line, and a haunting musical score makes for a most enjoyable and rewarding experience.