Henry Fool (1998)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Now, I'm not really a literary person, but I love film and this gem sparkles. For me, an unknown director and two lead actors was given credence by solidly good reviews and when it was shown on Sky Arts, I recorded it. I had heard of - and seen Parker Posey in films before, though.Henry Fool covers vast areas of literary philosophy and it is itself literary in its sheer story-telling. Ever intriguing, the characters jump off the screen, larger-than-life, yes, but, oh, so honestly displayed, we feel we know these individuals, like they were friends and neighbours.James Urbaniak, as the gangly, bespectacled refuse collector, Simon, whose social graces are near nil, who we see right at the start stumbling across a fornicating couple, is superb. Via several narrative routes, Simon gets to meet up with roguish, ex-con (sex offender) Faustian, Henry Fool, who is a confident, scruffy novelist (Thomas Jay Ryan). Henry gets Simon to write, in an attempt to get his thoughts and feelings out and to communicate better with the world.Over the film's two-and-a-quarter hours, we witness Henry messing up his life more and more - getting Simon's sister (Posey) pregnant and drinking into addiction and getting further into debt. Meanwhile, Simon's poetry is cautiously received, initially cited as 'pornographic' but daring and brilliant, culminating in a Nobel Prize. Henry, meanwhile, always on the cusp (but never getting there) of finishing his own great memoirs, being actually rather untalented, falls further apart.What ensues from Hartley's Cannes-winning screenplay is a detailed, original and very realistic tale of two oddballs and their surrounding loved ones and associates, which never rushes either them, nor us.The sparse, atmospheric score (also attributed to Hal Hartley - source IMDb) superbly adds to the feel and tone of the film.This indie flick is probably too oddball and has no star names to draw it from near obscurity into the mainstream. Not only is it immensely enjoyable but involving and engaging, too. I usually delete films from my provider's box, once seen, but this one I want to see again. Fine film.

This is a story of a whirlwind force of character that blusters in and transmogrifies a community for both good and bad. In doing so, the essence of the neighborhood is somehow brought to engender the truth of being, and to simply live life through experience, eschewing society's rules of proper conduct. In doing so, a caricatured world is created that seems pleasantly larger than life in order to express some greater deed. The result is brilliant. The characters are quirky and disturbingly fun, largely unbelievable and yet endearing in a unique fashion. The dialog was memorably sensational, with Henry Fool leading the pack with his celebrated utterances. The direction was the culmination of Hal Hartley's greater experience rolled up into one amazing flick. AS well, the camera man was unobtrusively masterful, using the tricks of the trade with subtle wit. Both painfully direct and wickedly humorous, Henry Fool ends with the same symbolic mastery of his awe-inspiring entrance. Merci beaucoup.Genruk of Evil Eye Reviews

Its not that its groundbreaking in the way it tells its story, or that its story is that unusual - its tricky to put your finger on which element makes Henry Fool so unique, but as a whole the work is very unique indeed. If i had to give you a reason why this felt so new to me, was that i'd never seen a movie entirely devoted to literature before, the power of poetry in particular. I found it quite refreshing.Hartley has gone for an atmosphere of strangeness, a kind of artificiality which still rings true, and it works completely. Henry Fool (the character whose nature this movie is an investigation into, which takes the narrative form of his walking into the lives of a low-class suburban family, especially disaffected garbage-man and potential poet Simon) talks and behaves like what he imagines himself, which is the roguish hero of some tragic, romantic Shakespeare play, and a kind of difficult genius. But is he a genius for real? Is this "confession" he's writing, his life's work, a masterwork, or a piece of sh*t? Henry affects the lives of a small group of great characters in Simon's local neighbourhood, all drawn with marvellously light brushstrokes, and all seeming like imagined, literary beings, yet still very human. But is he a good influence or a bad influence on this neighbourhood?I can't predict whether you'll like Henry Fool or not - all i can tell you is that i found it captivating and original to the last.

"Henry Fool" is well-cast (then again, I'd pay cash money to watch Parker Posey read the phone book), but it's wildly uneven. And it goes on forever, apparently without figuring out what it's trying to say. Is it a comedy? a drama? a social/cultural/literary satire? At the supposed-to-be-funny parts, the rest of the audience were laughing more than I was; I found the humor to be rather obvious. This is one for the nose-ring crowd. Adults, keep moving.