Although fairly entertaining, "Henry Fool" ultimately does not satisfy. What point is being made? Merely that artists are rarely appreciated in their own time, or that if they are, it is because of commercial success? This is hardly an overwhelming revelation. Or if we focus on Henry's fate, what is there other than how unfortunate his luck has been, or how woefully inadequate his self-knowledge? A lot of younger viewers will applaud the audacity of some scenes, but these are trifles, fast food tidbits to keep the viewer entertained. Hartley wisely omits any exposition of the actual memoirs or poetry being regarded; to do so would invite judgment by the viewer, and perhaps make even more ludicrous Simon's eventual winning of the Nobel Prize (after only 7 years of Simon's work being on the scene, we can only conclude that some major house cleaning has been done in the critical circles in Stockholm). But the film tries to play both at farce and drama (the wedding, suicide, denouement, etc.), or we could forgive these events' unlikeliness. We are just not that impressed that it took Henry to get Simon to come out of his shell for that to carry the film. As Henry makes his run for it at the end, we ask ourselves "So?"
Review of Henry Fool
