Welcome to Hal Hartley's world of the disenfranchised. The focus here is on Henry Fool (Thomas Jay Ryan), a passionate individual just released from prison after seven years, and one Simon Grimm (James Urbaniak), a simple garbageman with a seemingly apathetic view of the world in which he lives. Henry rents a room in Simon's house (which is occupied as well by his mother and sister) where he continues to work on his `confession,' the memoir he began in prison, which is actually a treatise on life that he believes will one day shake the world to it's very foundation. Expounding his passions to Simon, Henry urges him to cast off the shackles of his dreary existence and to express himself by writing down what he feels in the journal he gives him. Henry becomes the mentor, awakening something within Simon long dormant and as yet unrealized. Simon begins writing poetry, while at the same time we begin to see another side of Henry, a man unable to heed his own advice and whose quest for the life he seeks is too often derailed by his own indecisiveness and uncontrollable lusts. Ultimately, we realize that Henry and Simon are not so different from one another after all. Hartley's style bears a distinct signature, in that when his characters speak it is more than simply dialogue; it is small philosophies delivered in a mannered cadence that is engrossing and at times mesmerizing. The supporting cast includes Parker Posey (Simon's sister), Maria Porter, and one of the finest character actors spawned by independent film in recent years, Kevin Corrigan. In the final analysis, we realize that there is much more to `Henry Fool' than meets the eye. I rate this one 8/10.
86 Reviews
What a Surprise!
FiendishDramaturgy22 March 2008
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 :.
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 :.
Henry is No Fool....
tim-764-29185629 April 2012
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.
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.
I'll bet you a dollar you haven't seen a movie like Henry Fool.
Ben_Cheshire27 March 2004
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.
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.
Hal Hartley is just too smart for most movie-goers.
OneLuLu11 November 1998
Hal Hartley is just too smart for most movie-goers. He's got a lot to say--and he actually makes his characters say ALL of it; in tiny, impotent little phrases that never astound so much as when you find yourself understanding something large about them.
And Henry Fool is a fount of these emerging insights: one test is not enough to know the heart of a would-be hero, one giant failure is not enough to know the soul of a would-be romantic, love isn't always as deep as it is strong, poetry comes and goes, art is in the understanding...
Despite dispensing so many ideas, Henry Fool has amazing comic timing, some high drama, a little sex, death, and even a romantic ending. Not enough comedy, drama, sex, death, and romance for a big box-office turnout; but just enough to make the Hartley fans want more.
And Henry Fool is a fount of these emerging insights: one test is not enough to know the heart of a would-be hero, one giant failure is not enough to know the soul of a would-be romantic, love isn't always as deep as it is strong, poetry comes and goes, art is in the understanding...
Despite dispensing so many ideas, Henry Fool has amazing comic timing, some high drama, a little sex, death, and even a romantic ending. Not enough comedy, drama, sex, death, and romance for a big box-office turnout; but just enough to make the Hartley fans want more.
An Entirely Personal Film, Created From Scratch.
jzappa18 January 2009
What if the mentor who gave you success turned out to be the worst writer you've ever read...and was counting on your newfound influence? What if he married your sister? What if his ego was as big as Montana and at the same time as fragile as glass? How could you ever repay him? How could you ever resolve these questions? Ask Hal Hartley. Or see his movie.
This independent seriocomedy opens by studying a generally bungling garbageman named Simon Grim. He soon makes perhaps the first friend he's ever made in his life with Henry Fool, a sharply droll scoundrel, though a failure as an author. Henry's giant ego, what with his delusions of literary genius and grandeur, not to mention his comparison between his pedophilia and that of Socrates, justifies his wily, prose-like lines. Henry incidentally exposes Simon to the life of literature, who then writes a profoundly staggering poem, as we judge by the reactions of all who come across even a few lines of it. As Simon is swept up on his rise to the prestigious apex of the most talked-about underground poet in the world, Henry's own endeavors at recognition merely bring about unpleasant dismissal by the very publisher who commits with Simon to issue his already legendary poem.
Hartley is a very personal filmmaker. I particularly like a director whose film is entirely owned by him or her, especially one with an unlikely extensive running time like this one. Because his script is entirely his own, and created from scratch, he has actors suggest more than they divulge. Simon is a great poet because of how socially bound he is, never speaking or changing his expression and thus always looking inward, much like great poets have, like Rilke for instance.
Hartley wisely doesn't show the poem or the "confessions" over which Henry has long toiled. Whether they are good or bad depends on the histrionics of the outside story. They are almost the classic mystery items in so many thrillers and pulpy crime pictures, but to a much superior effect. They are not subsidiary, but vital.
This independent seriocomedy opens by studying a generally bungling garbageman named Simon Grim. He soon makes perhaps the first friend he's ever made in his life with Henry Fool, a sharply droll scoundrel, though a failure as an author. Henry's giant ego, what with his delusions of literary genius and grandeur, not to mention his comparison between his pedophilia and that of Socrates, justifies his wily, prose-like lines. Henry incidentally exposes Simon to the life of literature, who then writes a profoundly staggering poem, as we judge by the reactions of all who come across even a few lines of it. As Simon is swept up on his rise to the prestigious apex of the most talked-about underground poet in the world, Henry's own endeavors at recognition merely bring about unpleasant dismissal by the very publisher who commits with Simon to issue his already legendary poem.
Hartley is a very personal filmmaker. I particularly like a director whose film is entirely owned by him or her, especially one with an unlikely extensive running time like this one. Because his script is entirely his own, and created from scratch, he has actors suggest more than they divulge. Simon is a great poet because of how socially bound he is, never speaking or changing his expression and thus always looking inward, much like great poets have, like Rilke for instance.
Hartley wisely doesn't show the poem or the "confessions" over which Henry has long toiled. Whether they are good or bad depends on the histrionics of the outside story. They are almost the classic mystery items in so many thrillers and pulpy crime pictures, but to a much superior effect. They are not subsidiary, but vital.
character driven
T-1029 November 1998
If you like a movie that is character driven, you'll love Henry Fool which was written and directed by Hal Hartley. This movie abounds with interesting, quirky characters. The leads, Mr. Ryan, the title character, and Mr. Urbaniak, were terrific. The plot, where the teacher/student or leader/follower is reversed during the course of the story is not unique but is presented well. The other characters, Ms. Posey and Mr. Corrigan, undergo significant development as well. I don't want to give away too much but I will say that this movie involves characters that are not politically correct and bathroom humor (literally). The movie is long but you won't notice it as the movie is rich with dialogue (listen carefully), constantly changing scenes, and as already stated well developed chang ing characters. I've deliberately avoided the plot until now because I was afraid I would say too much, but it involves a drif ter writer (and much more) Henry Fool who encourages a plain introverted garbage man, Simon, to write down his thoughts. The other characters Ms. Posey, Simon's sister, his mother, and Mr. Corrigan, thug patriot(?) are interesting as well. My thanks to all involved for a great afternoon's entertainment. Three plus stars.
The only film I found thought-provoking but not enjoyable
Fermented19 July 2007
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.
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.
GOOD GOD MAN!!
Henry-2715 January 1999
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!!!
3 types of there
lee_eisenberg2 November 2006
Indie director Hal Hartley accomplished the quirky but definitely worth seeing "Henry Fool", in which a trashy writer helps a socially awkward garbage man discover his real talent. Since the title character describes three kinds of "there", I will use them to describe the movie.
There is much in this movie that will give you a new view of your own life.
Their talents come across very clearly in this movie.
They're the people showing us that movies work best when not showing things exploding for no reason except to show off some star.
Anyway, this is certainly a movie that I recommend. If it stars Parker Posey, you know that it's got to be interesting (see also "The House of Yes").
There is much in this movie that will give you a new view of your own life.
Their talents come across very clearly in this movie.
They're the people showing us that movies work best when not showing things exploding for no reason except to show off some star.
Anyway, this is certainly a movie that I recommend. If it stars Parker Posey, you know that it's got to be interesting (see also "The House of Yes").
INCONSISTENT
louie-1825 January 1999
I really loved Hal Hartley's "Simple Men" and looked forward to this movie, but it was so inconsistent I kept watching only because I assumed it was an allegory that would pay off eventually. It didn't. The title character was unbelievably irritating. Thomas Jay Ryan overacts so much I was beginning to think the movie was meant to be this bad, but with the "flawed hero" image that's painted by Hartley I knew by the end that it was intentional. He tries to pack so much into this one he creates innumerable holes in his storyline (i.e., Posey's pregnancy coincides with Simon's burst of fame, but he doesn't sign his publishing contract or read Henry's confession until the baby's born - 7-8 months later!; and after living there for 7 years, why is Henry unaware that Mr. Deng's corner coffee/poetry-reading shop has been changed to a fad-following rock n'roll club?) I guess I just didn't embrace the spirit of the message regarding the merits of nonconformity because of the bad acting and storyline. Hartley has done much better.
A True Original
samkan23 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I came upon this film not knowing of Director Hal Hartley; i.e., despite seeking out independent and art house stuff. I concede I've a major crush on Parker Posey. Try my odd approach: I started watching the first half of FAY GRIMM, the 2007 sequel to HENRY FOOL. Only upon taking a break did I learn that FG was a follow-up. I then went back and watched the entire HF before returning to watch the second half of FG. That this worked so well for me must say something about Mr. Hartley's film making. I'm guessing something good.
Another IMDb User states that "You've never a film like HENRY FOOL". I could not agree more. Devices like subtle (and not-so-subtle) humor and gross outs (See CLERKS) are not new. But HF does the impossible: it presents an absolutely repugnant protagonist, a dull foil and a stagnant setting and endears the lout to us and makes an ugly mundane Queens neighborhood endearing.
I could write a small book about the relationship between Henry and Simon. The former is a fraud, knows he is such and even knows that others know he is such. No one sees through Henry better than Simon, who despite all his own inadequacies, understands that Henry is espousing wisdom that Henry does not fully understand and may not even believe. That Simon becomes motivated seems almost adverse reaction to Henry's unsolicited rants. The relationship continues but what do we call it? Nurturing? Festering? Pro-active? Antagonistic? One-ups-mans-ship? Is it Lennon/McCartney or Crips/Bloods?
This film becomes just so entertaining that I forgot that I was watching non-commercial, independent fare that wasn't going to blossom into elaborate sets, international settings (though such changes in FAY GRIM) or other expensive treats. I was having so much fun I replaced my scholar's cap with a backwards baseball cap and began rooting for..... well,.... actually I didn't know what I was rooting for. Maybe that is the beauty of HF. But when I got done watching HF I had the distinct belief that I had seen something original that was the product of - if not genius (I hate that word) - at least sincere inspiration and energy. I dare you to see it.
PS/I've no clear idea on why having a Budweiser can in almost every scene works so well. Miss Posey is absolutely hysterical and her performance tops even her Christopher Guest work.
Another IMDb User states that "You've never a film like HENRY FOOL". I could not agree more. Devices like subtle (and not-so-subtle) humor and gross outs (See CLERKS) are not new. But HF does the impossible: it presents an absolutely repugnant protagonist, a dull foil and a stagnant setting and endears the lout to us and makes an ugly mundane Queens neighborhood endearing.
I could write a small book about the relationship between Henry and Simon. The former is a fraud, knows he is such and even knows that others know he is such. No one sees through Henry better than Simon, who despite all his own inadequacies, understands that Henry is espousing wisdom that Henry does not fully understand and may not even believe. That Simon becomes motivated seems almost adverse reaction to Henry's unsolicited rants. The relationship continues but what do we call it? Nurturing? Festering? Pro-active? Antagonistic? One-ups-mans-ship? Is it Lennon/McCartney or Crips/Bloods?
This film becomes just so entertaining that I forgot that I was watching non-commercial, independent fare that wasn't going to blossom into elaborate sets, international settings (though such changes in FAY GRIM) or other expensive treats. I was having so much fun I replaced my scholar's cap with a backwards baseball cap and began rooting for..... well,.... actually I didn't know what I was rooting for. Maybe that is the beauty of HF. But when I got done watching HF I had the distinct belief that I had seen something original that was the product of - if not genius (I hate that word) - at least sincere inspiration and energy. I dare you to see it.
PS/I've no clear idea on why having a Budweiser can in almost every scene works so well. Miss Posey is absolutely hysterical and her performance tops even her Christopher Guest work.
Masterpiece with a perfect ending
williamknott25 May 2001
I love this movie. One of maybe three films I consider a masterpiece. I have read many reviews, though, where the reviewer seems to think the ending is an over-the-top, sell-out happy ending. I disagree. I think it's a great ending, but it's not as clear-cut as some people assume. I won't give it away for anyone who hasn't seen it, but in the very last shot which shows Henry running along an airport runway, watch it carefully: It is not made clear from the background of the shot which direction he is running, whether he's running *away* from something or *towards* it---which I love, because it leaves it up to the audience to decide for themselves what direction he's running in. I don't think it really matters either way; the point is that Henry has made a decision, and he's not just running with it, he's embracing it with all of his being. That's my interpretation of the ending---and I love it. I wonder if Hal Hartley did this on purpose (if so, it's brilliant), and I wonder if anyone else has noticed this.
Also, the score, like everything about this movie, is subtle but powerful.
Also, the score, like everything about this movie, is subtle but powerful.
A good story with great potential, but...
deproduction7 July 2000
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.
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.
Imperfect (of course) but extremely worthy
jayson-424 January 1999
I rented and watched "Henry Fool" last night and spent much of this evening tracking down reviews of this extraordinary film. I'm surprised that none of them invoked Dickens, or at least John Irving.
There's a constancy in Hartley films: beautiful photography, disciplined design, and (usually) extraordinarily attractive actors who mouth almost excruciatingly gassy dialogue in a deadpan style that seems to serve as ballast. "Henry Fool" is no different. But this film delves so deeply and sympathetically into the Big Issues -- love, obligation, and most of all ART -- that it delivers a wallop that reminds me of how I felt at the end of Irving's "Owen Meany". And I mean that as a high compliment.
"Henry Fool" is imperfect, at moments even ridiculous, but you just might be changed by it. Not bad for a movie.
There's a constancy in Hartley films: beautiful photography, disciplined design, and (usually) extraordinarily attractive actors who mouth almost excruciatingly gassy dialogue in a deadpan style that seems to serve as ballast. "Henry Fool" is no different. But this film delves so deeply and sympathetically into the Big Issues -- love, obligation, and most of all ART -- that it delivers a wallop that reminds me of how I felt at the end of Irving's "Owen Meany". And I mean that as a high compliment.
"Henry Fool" is imperfect, at moments even ridiculous, but you just might be changed by it. Not bad for a movie.
I want to be Simon Grim for Halloween!
Jimmy Jimmereeno25 November 1999
This one snuck up on me. I was renting movies as usual and had remembered seeing a preview for this like a year ago, all I remembered was the title. It was great! Here it is a week later and I'm still thinking about it. I now want to see everything by Hal Hartly.
some genius but not all great
SnoopyStyle2 January 2017
Simon Grim (James Urbaniak) is a shy awkward garbage worker. He lives with his loud bossy sister Fay (Parker Posey) and mother. He is befriended by frustrated writer Henry Fool (Thomas Jay Ryan) who gives him a notebook. Simon gets beaten up. Henry sleeps with both Fay and their mother. While Henry's writing is rejected, Simon's writing becomes celebrated.
James Urbaniak is a fine quiet weirdo and Parker Posey is hilariously loud. "Mom! Simon's got a broken rib..." She makes Hal Hartley's words sing. The weak point is Thomas Jay Ryan. Henry Fool is a crazy character. He needs to be played by a more charismatic actor with a wild energy. Ryan doesn't have a big enough screen presence. Also Hartley's quiet oddball manneristic style keeps the energy low. There are bit moments of utter genius writing but there are not enough to make the whole great.
James Urbaniak is a fine quiet weirdo and Parker Posey is hilariously loud. "Mom! Simon's got a broken rib..." She makes Hal Hartley's words sing. The weak point is Thomas Jay Ryan. Henry Fool is a crazy character. He needs to be played by a more charismatic actor with a wild energy. Ryan doesn't have a big enough screen presence. Also Hartley's quiet oddball manneristic style keeps the energy low. There are bit moments of utter genius writing but there are not enough to make the whole great.
Hartley comes of age.
DukeEman18 April 1999
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.
Maybe Brilliant
Vadezy1 June 1999
I saw this movie a while back and have thought of it often since. I have this notion about what its all about and what it all means.
A creative person is inspired by both the good and the bad. The good influences tend to get a disproportionate amount of attention, but they can oftentimes be less important than the bad. When I say bad, I don't mean destructive, but rather I mean those influences which are greatly flawed or of low artistic merit. Great works often come out of protest, whether consciously or subconsciously concieved. Maybe that is the case here.
Henry is the force that pushes Simon to the task of writing what becomes a crushingly important epic poem. Of course, we later learn, perhaps to little surprise, that Henry is a terrible writer himself. Yet, despite his utter lack of ability, he is the essential force at work in the narrative.
I think Henry relates to the viewer in the same way he does to Simon. I apologize to Thomas Jay Ryan if I am wrong here, but his performance is not good in the conventional sense. He is melodramatic and sometimes just plain ridiculous. But I think that is part of the idea. Perhaps the viewer can be inspired, artistically or otherwise, simply by the flaws of Ryan's performance, which are so evident. I know it at least made me think. His performance stirs because it is off, not reprehensible like some mailed-in action superstar performance, just off. Maybe this is brilliant.
A creative person is inspired by both the good and the bad. The good influences tend to get a disproportionate amount of attention, but they can oftentimes be less important than the bad. When I say bad, I don't mean destructive, but rather I mean those influences which are greatly flawed or of low artistic merit. Great works often come out of protest, whether consciously or subconsciously concieved. Maybe that is the case here.
Henry is the force that pushes Simon to the task of writing what becomes a crushingly important epic poem. Of course, we later learn, perhaps to little surprise, that Henry is a terrible writer himself. Yet, despite his utter lack of ability, he is the essential force at work in the narrative.
I think Henry relates to the viewer in the same way he does to Simon. I apologize to Thomas Jay Ryan if I am wrong here, but his performance is not good in the conventional sense. He is melodramatic and sometimes just plain ridiculous. But I think that is part of the idea. Perhaps the viewer can be inspired, artistically or otherwise, simply by the flaws of Ryan's performance, which are so evident. I know it at least made me think. His performance stirs because it is off, not reprehensible like some mailed-in action superstar performance, just off. Maybe this is brilliant.
A Clumsy Classic
withnail-421 June 1999
Henry Fool is the story of a pretentious, coffee house dilettante who finds redemption, not by composing a great book ("confessions") but by taking action in a way that partially redeems the crime he was convicted of.
He does take part in the creation of a great book, but only indirectly. Ironically, he performs the role of an Elmer Gantry, inspiring great art from a naive artist, whom he is able to empower. The movie has some terrible editing jumps & other flaws of independent films, but has already become a classic, in my view, because it makes people think, and is unforgettable.
He does take part in the creation of a great book, but only indirectly. Ironically, he performs the role of an Elmer Gantry, inspiring great art from a naive artist, whom he is able to empower. The movie has some terrible editing jumps & other flaws of independent films, but has already become a classic, in my view, because it makes people think, and is unforgettable.
One slow, barely-watchable film
NJtoTX16 January 1999
I wanted to like this film, but I found it unbearable. Hard to believe it's about 137 minutes - it felt longer than Titanic. It took a real effort to make it to the end. A reviewer quoted on the video box called it "Hilarious!" One outrageous bathroom scene does not make a moody, brooding, pretentious, glacially-paced film "hilarious." If Henry Fool is so much as a dark comedy, then I suppose Shindler's List must be, too.
Something special
kriksis-23113 August 2014
The most underrated movie I've seen...
This week, I wanted to watch the best of the best movies that I haven't seen, and out of all the movies like "Se7en", "The Usual Suspects" and "The Green Mile", that are considered the best of the best, the only one worth the 10, is this little known indie film.
There's just something special about this movie I cant describe. The acting is top notch, as well as writing, and the ending is ingenious.
But, I do think some people will dislike this movie. Some, like me, will love it, some will find it bad but there is no way to give this movie less than 4/10.
This week, I wanted to watch the best of the best movies that I haven't seen, and out of all the movies like "Se7en", "The Usual Suspects" and "The Green Mile", that are considered the best of the best, the only one worth the 10, is this little known indie film.
There's just something special about this movie I cant describe. The acting is top notch, as well as writing, and the ending is ingenious.
But, I do think some people will dislike this movie. Some, like me, will love it, some will find it bad but there is no way to give this movie less than 4/10.
"Arty" but still worth watching
MBunge11 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
It's pretentious and a bit too long, but writer/director Hal Hartley manages to get out of his own way enough to make Henry Fool a satisfactory excursion into the offbeat.
Simon Grim (James Urbaniak) is an alienated and nearly mute garbage man. He lives with his aimlessly slutty sister (Parker Posey) and his burnt out husk of a mother (Maria Porter). Their quietly desperate lives are upended one day when Henry Fool (Thomas Jay Ryan) takes up residence in the dingy basement apartment in the Grim family home. Henry is obscene and impulsive, debonair and contemptuous. He's like a bipolar homeless man with a masters degree in English literature, someone who always comports himself as being much smarter than his circumstances.
Henry is a writer and claims to have written a "confession" that will roil the world with its power and insight, but he won't let Simon read it. What Henry does do is inspire Simon to put his own thoughts to paper with the result being an epic poem of such profane beauty that everyone who encounters it must respond with either devotion or loathing. Henry guides Simon into cultivating his own talent in spite of the world's opposition, while falling in love with his sister and revealing more of a past that turns out not to be quite as high minded as Henry likes to put on.
Eventually Simon takes on the life of Henry's dreams. Henry, however, falls down into Simon's old life until an act of either heroism or debauchery moves Simon to try and salvage what's left of his one-time mentor's existence.
This is what you call a "character drama" where what the characters do is less important to enjoying the film than how they do it. What distinguishes Henry Fool from other such work is that it's really not much of a showcase for its cast. Thomas Jay Ryan is given a charismatic part to chew on, but the other actors either have little to do or, like James Urbaniak, they play characters of such limited scope that it never seems like they do much.
No, what makes this urban yarn of frustrating reality work is its slow unfolding of a paradox. Simon Grim is a sub-ordinary man who meets the seemingly extraordinary Henry Fool and is led to being something more than he could have ever imagined. But that same transformation of Simon shows Henry to be nothing at all like what he appears. Simon becomes what Henry always presented himself as, and Henry is forced to abandon his dreams and become what Simon was. It's a very careful take down of intellectual pretension underscored by an admiration of real creative ability. And yes, a movie can attack pretension while being itself pretentious.
Throw in cultural observations, some amusing and some overblown, along with a prescient understanding of what the internet was going to do to the publishing business, and you've got a diverting but slightly taxing motion picture.
Simon Grim (James Urbaniak) is an alienated and nearly mute garbage man. He lives with his aimlessly slutty sister (Parker Posey) and his burnt out husk of a mother (Maria Porter). Their quietly desperate lives are upended one day when Henry Fool (Thomas Jay Ryan) takes up residence in the dingy basement apartment in the Grim family home. Henry is obscene and impulsive, debonair and contemptuous. He's like a bipolar homeless man with a masters degree in English literature, someone who always comports himself as being much smarter than his circumstances.
Henry is a writer and claims to have written a "confession" that will roil the world with its power and insight, but he won't let Simon read it. What Henry does do is inspire Simon to put his own thoughts to paper with the result being an epic poem of such profane beauty that everyone who encounters it must respond with either devotion or loathing. Henry guides Simon into cultivating his own talent in spite of the world's opposition, while falling in love with his sister and revealing more of a past that turns out not to be quite as high minded as Henry likes to put on.
Eventually Simon takes on the life of Henry's dreams. Henry, however, falls down into Simon's old life until an act of either heroism or debauchery moves Simon to try and salvage what's left of his one-time mentor's existence.
This is what you call a "character drama" where what the characters do is less important to enjoying the film than how they do it. What distinguishes Henry Fool from other such work is that it's really not much of a showcase for its cast. Thomas Jay Ryan is given a charismatic part to chew on, but the other actors either have little to do or, like James Urbaniak, they play characters of such limited scope that it never seems like they do much.
No, what makes this urban yarn of frustrating reality work is its slow unfolding of a paradox. Simon Grim is a sub-ordinary man who meets the seemingly extraordinary Henry Fool and is led to being something more than he could have ever imagined. But that same transformation of Simon shows Henry to be nothing at all like what he appears. Simon becomes what Henry always presented himself as, and Henry is forced to abandon his dreams and become what Simon was. It's a very careful take down of intellectual pretension underscored by an admiration of real creative ability. And yes, a movie can attack pretension while being itself pretentious.
Throw in cultural observations, some amusing and some overblown, along with a prescient understanding of what the internet was going to do to the publishing business, and you've got a diverting but slightly taxing motion picture.
Not a bad 2hr plus Beer Commercial, if that's what you like.
todddles9 August 1999
Okay, I am not the biggest art house film lover. I have enjoyed many of the artier tales that have made their way to the screen, but this one lost me. Maybe it was the extreme length of the movie. Maybe it was the incredibly Long pauses that went so far beyond existing for effect. But most of all, it was the so very obvious endorsements for Budweiser. I don't think the movie went for more than fifteen minutes without flashing a bottle, or a billboard, or something else. It became a joke. I was waiting for Henry to turn on the TV and see one of the Frog commercials. I couldn't wait for this movie to end. I sat with a couple of friends, who enjoy all types of independent films, and all we could do was try to spot the Bud ad, like looking for Waldo. If you missed this in the theater, skip it on video.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
