The Book of Henry

"The Book of Henry" is definitely not for people who like taut, coherent, logical plots devoid of standard clichés. As others have noted, it's really all over the place, and its mix of silly comedy and tear-jerker tragedy, realism and fantasy, cuteness and horror, and so forth doesn't exactly pan out in the end. Still, if you enjoy films that are simply different experiences, emotionally stirring even if they require you to heavily suspend disbelief, perhaps lay it aside altogether, this film will probably prove worth seeing, and you may really love it. It certainly keeps your attention with numerous surprises and much suspense. Fine acting by Naomi Watts and just about everyone else, along with some stunning scenery of the upstate NY setting, also help this film. I am glad to have seen "The Book of Henry" and would like to give it a higher rating, but with all its issues, I just can't.

It's a rare occurrence in which I heavily disagree with critical responses to films. I had no idea what The Book of Henry was about. I hadn't watched a trailer and I hadn't read the IMDb synopsis. Save for watching a web critic's review (which was stunningly brief in plot description), I knew nothing going into this except that it was directed by Jurassic World's Colin Trevorrow, the man at the helm of 2019's Star Wars Episode IX. If I had seen the overwhelmingly negative reviews for this film prior to trekking down to the cinema to see it, I probably would have skipped out. Then again, it was either this or Transformers: The Last Knight, and I know well enough by now not to see a film with Michael Bay's name attached to it. But, here we are, I've seen The Book of Henry, and I really like it, disagreeing with the negative critical reception it has received.

It's difficult to dive too much into the plot of the film. That's not because it's hard to follow, but it fares better the less you know about it. Henry (Lieberher) is a kid genius. Inventive and constantly thinking, Henry is the man of the house. He looks out for his little brother Peter (Tremblay) at school and even provides guidance for his video game playing, picture book creating mother Susan (Watts), and going as far to even take charge of their financing. When he suspects that his next door neighbor and fellow classmate is being psychically abused by her stepfather, he takes it into his own hands to save her. And that's all I'm going to say, because the less you know the better.

I'm quite surprised by how many critics have trashed this. Naomi Watts is on top form here and carries the emotional weight of the film, and Jacob Tremblay (of last year's excellent Room) is again fantastic albeit playing a smaller role. Lieberher completely sells it as Henry and is likable as the title character. Michael Giacchino (composer of films like Inside Out and Rogue One) creates a beautiful score that fits the film perfectly, and Trevorrow's direction keeps the film afloat despite a few screenplay misfires. For the most part, the script works despite its somewhat unconventional narrative, but I found it continuously unpredictable and responded heavily to the performances, especially Watts. There are a few small misfires but on the whole, it works in its own peculiar way, and the film is beautifully shot.

Whilst The Book of Henry is certainly not for everyone, it had me from the get go. I was at first concerned with Trevorrow being the director for Star Wars Episode IX, but now I'm intrigued to see where he takes it. I'm grateful not to have known anything about this film before letting myself become absorbed by it, and I thought about it for a long while afterwards. On this rare occasion, ignore the bad buzz and give it a go.

I went into The Book Of Henry expecting essentially a kids film, I guess by the title I figured this would be something akin to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010). I was wrong, I was really really wrong.

The Book of Henry is a masterful clever title that isn't for kids and I wouldn't even say is suitable "Family" viewing. It tells the story of a single mum with her two children, she's essentially failing at life and the eldest of her two sons (Still a little boy) is the man of the house. He's a child genius and his mother depends on him to an overwhelming extent. He begins to fear his friend next door is being abused by her father so sets about a powerful intricate plan but things don't go to plan and the whole film goes in a direction I certainly did not forsee.

A true tour de force The Book of Henry had me gripped with it's remarkable plot and strong performances, by the half way point I expected this to potentially be another 10 but sadly it fell short.

Don't get me wrong The Book of Henry is a good film, it's clever, it's witty, it's unpredictable and it's heartfelt but somewhere along the way it falls short of greatness.

It's tone is inconsistent and it would be very hard for me to narrow down a demographic, it's similiar to The Lovely Bones (2009) in it's dark overtones but oddly quaint imagery.

Well made and certainly an original piece this perhaps should have been better but regardless is a sweet little film.

The Good:

Unpredictible

Powerful stuff

The Bad:

Fails to truly deliver on its potential

Not sure Watts was the best casting choice

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Not every child actor makes me want to dive into the screen and slap them repeatedly. Most, but not all.

Naomi Watts tends to pick movies that are simply too good for her

"Violence isn't the worst thing in the world. What is then? Apathy."

I'm sure that some movie critics of reputable newspapers ("The Guardian" and the like) and magazines are awful, out-of-touch guys, who pine away on a dusty attic avoiding any contact with other human individuals. Pessimists who cringe at the sign of a bit of emotions and sugar-sweet feelgood moods and hide like a slug that encounters a grain of salt on her path. The result is an allergic reaction of disgust and aversion, after which they begin to spit their guts and criticize the targeted object. Is "The Book of Henry" really overly-sentimental? Is it so sugary that your blood glucose levels suddenly go berserk? Is it so un-freakin-believable that a Jerry Springer show looks like a realistic show? And does the second part of the movie about revenging a child molester feel extremely exaggerated? Maybe yes. However, calling this film the biggest crap of the year, demonstrates shortsightedness and empathy similar to that of a mummified Egyptian pharaoh.

Whatever they claim, "The Book of Henry" is an amiable and entertaining evening filler. Something I'm yearning for after an endless series of nerve-racking or extremely serious movies where you need to stay focused, so you won't lose the thread after another plot-twist. I admit I watched the first chapter with more pleasure than the second chapter. Not because of the acting. But content-wise it was sometimes a bit too much and after a while it lost a bit of its credibility. For instance. I doubt you can buy a high-tech sniper rifle in the U.S. just by saying some obscure name and waving with a bundle of dollar bills. Let's skip the formalities! And someone calling the authorities after seeing an emotional performance of a ballet dancer, was quite bizarre. Especially when bruises and the timid behavior of the girl herself (plus Henry's testimonies) didn't ring any bells before.

You can say the film is kind of bizarre. Not only because of the family situation in which the Carpenter family finds itself. That's already extremely strange. Also the sudden twist in the middle of the story is bit of uncommon. Not often a main character leaves the story so early. Even though he isn't completely out of the picture. And that's why I'm talking about two chapters. The "pre" and "post" Henry period. Perhaps the mix of genres is a cause for criticism. At first, it looks like an innocent youth movie. Then it goes from a melodrama to a thriller with a revenge motive. Granted, that might be too much as well.

I enjoyed the acting the most. Jaeden Lieberher as bright Henry. A young boy looking at the world with very different eyes due to his unimaginable intelligence and at the same time he's still like an average, everyday boy. The way in which he confronts his classmates with the real facts is both sobering as extremely funny. Lieberher plays this with seemingly little effort. A brilliant mind but played in such a way that he remains human. Only I thought that his cartoonish machine he designed, using wires, hammers and wooden mechanisms, was quite contradictory to his high intellectual abilities. Naomi Watts (gorgeous role in "Demolition" by the way) is a known quantity, although she's acted of the screen a bit by her dominant son and all she seems to be doing is hitting the buttons on her PS4 controller. Even in the second chapter, Henry is holding her hand and is in charge of everything. But especially Jacob Tremblay, as the younger brother Peter, really surprised me. Not because of his impact on the story. But the professionalism he displays in shaping his personality. A likable and highly amusing character. Maddie Ziegler knew how to play the emotionally broken neighbor girl in a sublime way. A rendition in which the repressed emotions impressed more than Henry's occasional hyper-kinetic behavior.

Perhaps it's my age that makes me more melancholic and I'm touched much faster. However, I think most viewers approach this movie in a wrong way. I read somewhere that Henry's preconceived plan (which he has worked out in detail in his red booklet) is the opposite of his intellectual ability. A burst in his wisdom because it's revenge he's after. However, perhaps this was the only solution he could come up with after deductive and analytical reasoning. How does anyone react when witnessing that a criminal offense goes unpunished? And legal measures don't have the desired effect? Perhaps it takes more time for average intelligent people to come to the same conclusion.

I'm afraid I'm the only one with a positive opinion about this movie. Apparently, I like to root for the underdogs among movies. I'm sure that critics and opponents of "The book of Henry" will say that Trevorrow, after this cinematic adventure, delivered better work in the more realistic blockbuster "Episode IX". Even if he would add a scene with Chewbacca, Han Solo and Luke Skywalker dancing the can-can, these experts of stories on celluloid will probably approve it and claim that the man has added a willful interpretation to the Star Wars story. But he mustn't give in to willfulness when it comes to other movies (grinding teeth intonation). I am pleased that rebellious movies like "The Book of Henry" are made in Hollywood and not only the sometimes saltless crap that's being released. Because those are the movies where I say "Well, this was a great movie" when it's finished.

More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc

I gave 'The Book of Henry' 7 stars, but would love to have given it more. It really is an unusual movie, and I'm not talking about the subject matter. I'm talking about the flow of the movie. It has two distinct, very different halves, separated by some moments of gut-wrenching tragedy that will have all but the most cynical reaching for the Kleenex.

The first and most enjoyable part of the movie introduces the characters - a single mum, her two sons, her good-hearted but rough-around-the edges-friend and the girl next door, who just might be dealing with some problems of her own. The movie does a good job of this and we really develop an affection for these people. Then tragedy strikes and the movie suddenly veers off into an extremely ridiculous and far-fetched plot line involving the mother and the eponymous Book of Henry. It's silly and unbelievable and if you are able to put yourself in the mother's shoes and imagine yourself acting as she does, you will agree. You just wouldn't.

Fortunately for the movie, by the time the silliness kicks in we have enough emotional investment with the characters to carry us through to the end and actually enjoy the show. Acting throughout is good. Jaeden Lieberher and Jacob Tremblay shine. The adults are good too.

It's cliched. It's dumb in places. It's moving and thoroughly engaging in others. In short, it's seriously flawed, but it's enjoyable and despite the silly second half, the ending is satisfying if, again, a little unbelievable. I'm glad I watched it.