Henry Fool

Henry Fool_720p(480P)

source: Henry Fool

Simply put, a pompous, pretentious BORE of a film. Did Mr. Hartley really need two hours and seventeen minutes to tell this trite little story? Would have been a nice little half-hour filler piece on PBS.

Like most of Hal Hartley's films, Henry Fool is a story with a moral, heavy on the dialogue, but enjoyable nonetheless. My summary responds to an extant IMDb comment on the film, which is one person's opinion. While I understand why not everyone would like Henry Fool, I know a number of people who would, especially if they're into dialogue, are writers, enjoy making fun of writers, or enjoy plays, or play-like movie acting like some of David Mamet's film work. There's a lot to like about Henry Fool, a great cast, a great Faustian story, and an explanation of the difference between "there," "their," and "they're" better than any I've heard. Actually, the only I've heard that I can remember, but pretty funny regardless. As usual, Parker Posey is fantastic, but so are James Urbaniak and Thomas Jay Ryan. It's an ensemble work, quirky, a little heavy handed, but entertaining, thoughtful, and well written.

It takes a great deal of care for a film to suspend my disbelief and bring me in. Usually, the most important aspect of a film to me are the characters. If I believe the actors and connect with the characters, I get drawn in and become able to care about the story. That is the exact area in which this film failed me. The main drawback was the title character. If people like Henry Fool actually exist, I've never encountered them. People just do not talk like Thomas Jay Ryan did in his part as Henry. Hal Hartley's films are always interesting, always thought-provoking, and always intellectual, but they've never struck me as being believable. I run into the same problems with Kevin Smith's films. The characters always sound like they're reading a script. Arguments always resemble a court case in which the two lawyers always know exactly what the other is about to say and always have an immediate and perfect recital ready to retort. To me, the inescapable result is total transparency for the film. It always sounds like one person arguing with himself over and over again, always working to get across one single point of view. With many independent films, my suspension of disbelief is lost due to poor acting and poor sets, both of which are unavoidable for the lower-budget indie film. The sad part about this film is the acting was good, the sets were well-done, and the story was delivered well. The problems exist in the writing and the poorly-developed characters, a problem that is common when total creative control of the film is in the hands of a single mind.

I still am in shock over what i just saw. Henry Fool has got to be the best full length film ever!!!!.....Ok, maybe not. But it is a close second to whatever movie I can't think of right now. I am visibly shaken by the feelings i experienced from watching it. The only other movie that comes to mind as being absolutely essential to see would be Surviving Desire which is also a Hal Hartley Masterpiece. Who is this genius and when can I meet him to thank him for changing my life?? Ever since I witnessed Martin Donovan's character Jude in Surviving Desire, I have been possessed with the will to live every moment of my life without pausing to think of how much pain I may experience from caring about someone or letting my feelings be known. Now, with Henry Fool I feel like Hartley has realized what he is best at and returned to what he knows is his best work. James Urbaniak is amazing! I hope to see him in many more movies. I have been so disillusioned by the so called critically acclaimed actors like Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro. It is so refreshing to see an actor like James Urbaniak. He gives me hope for the future. I am also happy to know that Hartley continues to work with Parker Posey. Henry Fool is my pick for Movie of the Decade!!!

I found myself in a bizarre predicament with this film. It was a film that I could easily see myself discussing with a group of friends, and remained thinking about it after seeing it. However, I got no enjoyment out of it. From an intellectual point of view there were plenty of topics worthy of discussing, such as the worth of the mass view of your work and what constitutes art versus * but the problem for me was the presentation of these ideas. For me, the supposed hero of the story did nothing of his own accord and was led around by the ear of the title character doing exactly what he said. It's hard to root for him if he really has no stock in what he is doing. As well, the title character Henry Fool is unlikeable, and not just because he has a history of deviance. He practically forces his desire for success on someone who otherwise would not want it. There is no dynamic between the two, just a man and his tool that he uses for his own personal gains. To me, neither was likable and it ruined the chance of me rooting for their successes. Meanwhile, the film as a whole seemed needlessly self referential, occasionally fashioning some blatant point through the main character's work or another character's comment that applies almost directly to the film itself. It makes it feel as if the characters are only ways of forcing the writer's concepts about his own work to come to the open, and it uses them for whatever it wants and lets them pick up the pieces afterward. After all this, however, I think that I would still recommend you watch the film. While I have much bad to say about it, it made me think, and when any film does this, it is worth watching simply because I can easily see how a variety of opinions could be formed about the film. Furthermore, not being a writer I found it difficult to identify with any of the predicaments, which might add a personal touch to those who can. At the least I can appreciate an intelligent man trying to make a film of the topics that feel relevant to him.

"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.

An insightful piece on the collapse of a world gone mad. Our central figures consist of Henry Fool who enters the simple life of Simon, the garbage person. All hell breaks loose as simple Simon unleashes his sedate wrath in the form of a poem, (that we, the viewer, never get to read but know of its power from the trouble it causes). A little epic that says more about the USA than any other film has over the last decade. Director, John Sayles, has come close on a number of occasions but not in this grander manner.

Although fairly entertaining, "Henry Fool" ultimately does not satisfy. What point is being made? Merely that artists are rarely appreciated in their own time, or that if they are, it is because of commercial success? This is hardly an overwhelming revelation. Or if we focus on Henry's fate, what is there other than how unfortunate his luck has been, or how woefully inadequate his self-knowledge? A lot of younger viewers will applaud the audacity of some scenes, but these are trifles, fast food tidbits to keep the viewer entertained. Hartley wisely omits any exposition of the actual memoirs or poetry being regarded; to do so would invite judgment by the viewer, and perhaps make even more ludicrous Simon's eventual winning of the Nobel Prize (after only 7 years of Simon's work being on the scene, we can only conclude that some major house cleaning has been done in the critical circles in Stockholm). But the film tries to play both at farce and drama (the wedding, suicide, denouement, etc.), or we could forgive these events' unlikeliness. We are just not that impressed that it took Henry to get Simon to come out of his shell for that to carry the film. As Henry makes his run for it at the end, we ask ourselves "So?"