I love this movie so much

Simply Perfect

Captivating movie !

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

The year: 1990: 3 films are released with Robert Dinero: Awakenings, Goodfellas: Stanley and Iris. Each carries their own weight: the talents found in Goodfellas can be seen in this film.When Deniros illiterate character runs in the rain to Fonda's character and in desperation yells "teach me to read," you feel the hurt, shame, limitations and prison an adult lives in being illiterate.This is why I love Bobby: also: Fonda is fantastic too.

Working-class romantic drama from director Martin Ritt is as unbelievable as they come, yet there are moments of pleasure due mostly to the charisma of stars Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro (both terrific). She's a widow who can't move on, he's illiterate and a closet-inventor--you can probably guess the rest. Adaptation of Pat Barker's novel "Union Street" (a better title!) is so laid-back it verges on bland, and the film's editing is a mess, but it's still pleasant; a rosy-hued blue-collar fantasy. There are no overtures to serious issues (even the illiteracy angle is just a plot-tool for the ensuing love story) and no real fireworks, though the characters are intentionally a bit colorless and the leads are toned down to an interesting degree. The finale is pure fluff--and cynics will find it difficult to swallow--though these two characters deserve a happy ending and the picture wouldn't really be satisfying any other way. *** from ****

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.

This is a wonderful movie, with perfect performances by the very best actors. Anyone who doesn't appreciate this little masterpiece has probably spent too much time in front of the TV. The writing is superb, and the direction flawless. From the opening 360 degree pan, which ends by a close-up of the bakery (which is, in fact, the center of the drama), to the outstanding last line of the film (which is, in fact, the theme of the movie), the storytelling is absolutely first-rate. The acting is a study in naturalistic performance style. Jane Fonda is, as always, the best of the best, but Stanley's father steals the show. De Niro, as Stanley, gives an understated and totally endearing portrayal of a resourceful and intelligent "illiterate." This film is the opposite of the "blockbuster" -- finely crafted, intimate, and uncompromising.