What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

A seriocomic epic from '97, possibly Hartley's magnum opus, with a running time of over two hours, a cast of dozens and gorgeous sharp-focus cinematography. Fans should be reassured that the familiar Hartley performance style is still at work—oddly inflected line readings with long, pregnant pauses in between and the occasional two-characters scene with the actors circling each other like wary kabuki dancers. The rambling, often preposterous screenplay could have been composed by the titular Fool himself, sprawled out at the kitchen table with a sixer of Bud, but somehow all the indie shenanigans really come together in a way that kept me watching attentively to the last, ambiguous shot (which direction is Henry running in?). At about the two-hour mark, this stylized, shambolic comedy turns serious, bringing out the themes of guilt, atonement and personal responsibility that have been implicit all along. Great performances by the usual expert cast, though, like other reviewers, I missed Martin Donovan, Adrienne Shelly and other regulars from earlier Hartley films.

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 :.

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").

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.