Henry Fool (1998)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

I wasn't going to review this one, because I only watched/own these films because I'm an avid Goldblum fan. Yeah, I know he's not in Henry Fool, but he IS in Fay Grim, and because Fay Grim makes no sense WHATsoever without having first watched Henry Fool, I have them both.Having started out that way, Henry Fool was, for me, something to "get through" in order to get to the "good stuff" with Jeff.Boy, was I surprised. Henry Fool is a brilliant piece of work. I was shocked, frankly. Now, I can't stop telling my friends about it. This is thoughtful, even if it is a bit dialog-heavy. It is fun, even as it takes itself seriously. It appears superficially fun and quirky, even as it surreptitiously broadens its depth. It entertains, even as it teaches us to shoot for the stars.Henry appears to follow his own advice - he appears to shoot for the stars, when all the while, he seems to be buying into his own con...or does he? This film is awesomely quirky, but there is substance beneath the idiosyncratic screenplay. This has become one of my new favorites. However, you can't fully appreciate the depth of the deceit without following this one up with a good strong dose of Fay Grim. Check it out, or lose out on a GREAT ending to this film.I would recommend this for just about anyone who likes intrigues, livid dramas, and/or Parker Posey. I have to say this is one of her best performances. She's a NUT in this! It rates an 8.4/10 from...the Fiend :.

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 pornography 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.

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.