Il libro di Henry

"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

"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.

While rating and writing reviews about more recent similar films (I'm writing this in December, 2017) like Greta Gerwig's "Lady Bird," the Julia Roberts vehicle "Wonder," and Brooke Shields' turn in "Daisy Winters" (all films about young people struggling to cope with a variety of obstacles as they try to find their place in the world), I realized I was comparing them to how I felt when I exited viewing "The Book of Henry." I hadn't realized until now just how much "Henry" has stuck with me long after viewing, so I was surprised to find in checking my list of reviews written I had rated "Henry" but not written a review of it. I'm doing so now to alert those who may be wondering whether it's worth their time that it is, as I know it has gotten mixed reviews and didn't do well financially in theaters--but I'm also going to refrain from writing about any plot points or spoilers, as I was lucky enough to see "Henry" without knowing anything about it, not having even seen an advance trailer, and I recommend the same for you as the best way to see it: knowing nothing about any of its twists or even its core story. I found the cast perfect, in an ensemble kind of way, and remember the warmth and kindness generated by the film overall as I exited the theater. It has turned out to be one of my favorite films of the year, and I want to make sure to say so here because it was so terribly under-appreciated on its initial release, and barely seen by anyone, making it one of those films that, in my opinion, many people will be discovering on streaming or on DVD, and, after then watching it and enjoying it, wondering why they hadn't heard of it when it was released in theaters. It truly fits the "under-appreciated gem" label so many of these kinds of character-study films eventually end up with.

It's been a while since a trailer threw me completely. The intent of a trailer is to entice the viewer in to seeing the film, to tickle your curiosity. The trailer for The Book of Henry did this admirably. Like a magician's sleight of hand, it provided misdirection too. Having seen the film, I left thinking that that was not what the trailer implied. Hats off to  editor, Kevin Stitt.

The plot synopsis on IMDb.com, written by the distributors, Focus Features lays out the plot without spoilers:

Sometimes things are not always what they seem, especially in the small suburban town where the Carpenter family lives. Single suburban mother Susan Carpenter (played by Naoimi Watts) works as a waitress at a diner, alongside feisty family friend Sheila (Sarah Silverman). Her younger son Peter (Jacob Tremblay, who we last saw in Room) is a playful 8-year-old. Taking care of everyone and everything in his own unique way is Susan's older son Henry (Jaden Lieberher), age 11. Protector to his adoring younger brother and tireless supporter of his often self-doubting mother - and, through investments, of the family as a whole - Henry blazes through the days like a comet. Susan discovers that the family next door, which includes Henry's kind classmate Christina, has a dangerous secret - and that Henry has devised a surprising plan to help. As his brainstormed rescue plan for Christina takes shape in thrilling ways, Susan finds herself at the centre of it.

This is Colin Trevorrow's second feature and he has crafted a warm, charming, sometimes despair-filled film that ultimately brings a message of hope. Good triumphs over evil in the end, as it should in most films.  

Critics have been very harsh in their reviews. Some decry being emotionally manipulated! Is that not the whole point of going to see a film? Audience reactions are more favourable.

My reaction? I cried. Twice.

A very enjoyable and competent film: 3.5 out of 5

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.