Henry Fool (1997)
4/10
A good story with great potential, but...
7 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.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed