i read the other review before i watched this film and i decided that the "reviewer" was so negative that i should watch it anyway. Henry father died during the Second War and now his mum has married again, but Henry is not happy about it. The only thing he seems happy about is the new girl at school Grace, photography and watching films. One day he take a photo of Grace and his mom believes the man in the background to be Henry's father. Did he die in the war or not? The actor playing Henry is quite good and has a youthful and handsome face, so he is believable as a high school student. But his mums seems a bit young although it is possible that she had him as a teenager. Spoilers!!!! The only actor that felt below par was Henry's father, a bit over the top. At times i needed subtitles, but only because of the harsh northern accent. The film ran out of steam by the end and it was unbelievable that Henry would try to protect his father after all that he had done to hurt his family, so the writers could not think of a plausible ending, otherwise i liked the film, but only if it was a TV film.
11 Reviews
A reasonably enjoyable, feelgood TV drama that lacks edge
roger-pettit118 February 2012
Based on a novel of the same name by English writer Michelle Magorian (who also wrote Goodnight Mister Tom, which has also been dramatised for television), Just Henry is a sentimental drama of the kind that used to appear regularly on British TV at Sunday teatime. Set in the north of England in the post-Second World War period, it tells the coming of age story of 15-year old schoolboy Henry. Henry lives with his mother, his stepfather and his (at times) rather spiteful paternal grandmother. His father has been dead for 9 years - he would have been 38 years old at the time the story is set - and seemingly died a war hero. Henry's grandmother believes that her daughter-in-law's new husband isn't a patch on her dead son and is constantly trying to undermine their relationship. However, things are not quite as they seem - and Henry has to confront some interesting truths about his Dad, at a time when he is wrestling with adolescence, his discovery of the opposite sex and the need to apply himself to his education.
Just Henry is enjoyable enough. It is very well acted by a good cast. The problem, as I see it, is that it is rather too twee and sentimental. It could have done with more edge. Too much of it is bathed (both actually and metaphorically) in a layer of soft focus, almost sepia-tinted cinematography. The delineation between good and bad is simplistic. And the ending is unnecessary and ridiculous. It does not in any way stretch the viewer. Rather, it simply invites you to sit back, relax and bask in its wholesome atmosphere. A pleasant, entertaining but undemanding 80 or so minutes of TV. 6/10.
Just Henry is enjoyable enough. It is very well acted by a good cast. The problem, as I see it, is that it is rather too twee and sentimental. It could have done with more edge. Too much of it is bathed (both actually and metaphorically) in a layer of soft focus, almost sepia-tinted cinematography. The delineation between good and bad is simplistic. And the ending is unnecessary and ridiculous. It does not in any way stretch the viewer. Rather, it simply invites you to sit back, relax and bask in its wholesome atmosphere. A pleasant, entertaining but undemanding 80 or so minutes of TV. 6/10.
A good idea spoiled by the need to have a violent ending
Andrew_S_Hatton16 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
It started promisingly enough not quite as ponderous as some reviewers would have it but the ending was dire and unnecessary.
The idea being that a boy has grown up with tales of his dead father being a hero, but all that understanding changes as events progress.
It is immediately post 2nd World War in Britain (say 1946-8). Birkenhead and Liverpool are indicated but not made explicit and does not matter - it is not a Merseyside tale, but we are not in the South of Britain either. Some reviewers have complained about strong Northern accents, but I did not notice that, then although I am a Londoner, I have spent ten years on Merseyside.
Our teenage hero of the title has been raised by his young widowed Mum who has remarried and is much in love with second new husband. Mother in law from first marriage (Shiela Hancock) who cannot get rid of her false memories of her dead son, is a part of the family
The son becomes the hero as we see him at school making a fairly superficial relationship with the new girl at school. Mum gets pregnant, father turns up with a (sort of believable) explanation for how he had been thought a dead hero, then the script gets ridiculous.
Nonetheless I stayed with it to see how it all worked out.
I liked the period aspect and seeing Shiela Hancock, so it was not completely wasted for me, but this was not the sort of drama that gets one revisiting one's understanding and experience of humanity or adds anything to general knowledge about our recent past.
You'll probably get a better outcome by spending the hour and a half reading a book or doing something creative but if you are determined to be entertained by a moving picture with humans performing, it is not a complete waste of time!
The idea being that a boy has grown up with tales of his dead father being a hero, but all that understanding changes as events progress.
It is immediately post 2nd World War in Britain (say 1946-8). Birkenhead and Liverpool are indicated but not made explicit and does not matter - it is not a Merseyside tale, but we are not in the South of Britain either. Some reviewers have complained about strong Northern accents, but I did not notice that, then although I am a Londoner, I have spent ten years on Merseyside.
Our teenage hero of the title has been raised by his young widowed Mum who has remarried and is much in love with second new husband. Mother in law from first marriage (Shiela Hancock) who cannot get rid of her false memories of her dead son, is a part of the family
The son becomes the hero as we see him at school making a fairly superficial relationship with the new girl at school. Mum gets pregnant, father turns up with a (sort of believable) explanation for how he had been thought a dead hero, then the script gets ridiculous.
Nonetheless I stayed with it to see how it all worked out.
I liked the period aspect and seeing Shiela Hancock, so it was not completely wasted for me, but this was not the sort of drama that gets one revisiting one's understanding and experience of humanity or adds anything to general knowledge about our recent past.
You'll probably get a better outcome by spending the hour and a half reading a book or doing something creative but if you are determined to be entertained by a moving picture with humans performing, it is not a complete waste of time!
Oh Dear!
missismiggins28 December 2011
Oh dear indeed. What could possibly have been an interesting movie was ruined from the start by the usual portrayal of Northern English.
Over the top accents, over the top acting, sort of embarrassing to watch really, does anyone think people behave like this?
Henry is a complete waste of space, along with the patronizing mother and sheep like stepfather - it just does not hold water - a pretty bad choice if you have paid a tenner to watch this rubbish.
Henry - despite looking to be about 30 is at school - not convincing in the least, who thinks this rubbish up? are they mentally challenged? More to the point who actually finances these movies? They must be even more mentally challenged.
Eee bye gum.... pound of cheddar missus! Give it a miss.
"A letter came for you today" ....."Oh...ave never ad a letta before" Terrible acting, probably a BBC prescription method!
Over the top accents, over the top acting, sort of embarrassing to watch really, does anyone think people behave like this?
Henry is a complete waste of space, along with the patronizing mother and sheep like stepfather - it just does not hold water - a pretty bad choice if you have paid a tenner to watch this rubbish.
Henry - despite looking to be about 30 is at school - not convincing in the least, who thinks this rubbish up? are they mentally challenged? More to the point who actually finances these movies? They must be even more mentally challenged.
Eee bye gum.... pound of cheddar missus! Give it a miss.
"A letter came for you today" ....."Oh...ave never ad a letta before" Terrible acting, probably a BBC prescription method!
Genuine complex emotions
ianxmas27 December 2015
It's sad that reviewers love to say 'Nothing like the book!'. If you want to read the book, then read it and don't write a movie review! If you want to watch a film that portrays complex emotional conflict at many different levels in a sensitive and realistic way, and if you are tired of formulaic and over-acted Hollywood trash, find an opportunity to watch this fine TV movie. This film deals with emotions and emotional conflicts - in adults and in children - in a very real-life (as opposed to synthetic Hollywood) manner. An ageing mother's wistful love for a departed son and hatred for the man who is taking his place in her daughter-in-law's life, the son with a misty and idealised memory of a father he can hardly remember,and the whole post-war era of trying to put bad memories behind and start afresh. There is moving and believable acting from the young (such as Charlie May-Clark as the uneducated but very savvy schoolgirl) and the old (the inimitable Sheila Hancock as the awful old gran). Ultimately, it is film of hope: of the losers finding their way to win and of the thoroughly bad getting their come uppance. If you want a film that engages you emotionally and leaves you feeling positive and optimistic, give this a try.
Very good cast so why so poor?
chpettit561 January 2012
For me good drama just clicks. It grabs me, I am hooked. There have been many good examples on TV recently but this is not one of them.
After the first few minutes I became aware of the actor's lines, always a sign that a film is not well written. As the film progressed it became more phony and, sometimes, even embarrassing.
This is a pity because the plot was very promising but the production simply didn't deliver. Although It has a surprisingly good cast, first class actors can only do their job with a first class script - this film simply doesn't have one.
it was ponderous and obvious. A good drama is always ahead of you, teasing, shocking, challenging you. This film moves at such a slow pace that the viewer is always there ahead of the action.
After the first few minutes I became aware of the actor's lines, always a sign that a film is not well written. As the film progressed it became more phony and, sometimes, even embarrassing.
This is a pity because the plot was very promising but the production simply didn't deliver. Although It has a surprisingly good cast, first class actors can only do their job with a first class script - this film simply doesn't have one.
it was ponderous and obvious. A good drama is always ahead of you, teasing, shocking, challenging you. This film moves at such a slow pace that the viewer is always there ahead of the action.
Good Film with Typical BBC Qualities
doug_park20012 September 2013
JUST HENRY concerns the plight of a boy growing up in a small Yorkshire town, circa 1950. He misses his WWII hero dad, doesn't like school and doesn't see much point to it even though a new inspiring teacher helps in this regard, and meets Grace, a very interesting girl who finds herself caught between Henry and his mortal foe, Paul. Like many BBC films, JUST HENRY does a fine job of meshing light, charming, funny moods with some very serious conflicts. Not a lot of frills and/or fast action--just an evenly paced film with a some truly memorable characters. Some really tense and unexpected stuff happens toward the end.
JUST HENRY is based upon a novel by Michelle Magorian and has been criticized for doing paltry justice to the book. All I know is that I enjoyed this film, and if the novel is much better (which is often the case), then I look forward to reading it.
JUST HENRY is based upon a novel by Michelle Magorian and has been criticized for doing paltry justice to the book. All I know is that I enjoyed this film, and if the novel is much better (which is often the case), then I look forward to reading it.
Read the novel instead!
jacobbond00720 May 2012
I finally got round to watching this recently. Having read Michelle Magorian's excellent novel, my expectations were quite high. The adaptation however turned to be a sad disappointment. It was poorly paced, badly written and lacked focus. What happened to Henry's interest in film? Sure, there were a few scenes in a cinema, and I was glad to see The Third Man being shown and homaged (with brief chiaroscuro lighting and dutch angles), but that whole element was pushed aside in favour of the uninspired drama scenes. I did admire some of its performances, especially Charlie Clark who gave an intriguing turn as Grace, but all in all it fails where the book was so successful.
Slow paced, somewhat depressing
roedyg13 September 2016
The characters are well-intentioned but stupid. They decide based on emotions, and never stop to think if their assumptions are true. They create all manner of misery for themselves because of this.
I found myself wanting to smack the bigotry out of them.
The movie is based on a mystery. Two teenage boys each lost their fathers in the war, but no one will tell them any details. They gradually figure out what happened, bit by tiny bit. You keep thinking you have the mystery solved, but then off it takes on another twist.
It takes place in post-war England. Everything is grimy, in need of a coat of paint, and worn out. This recreation of this time period is so good you don't notice it. There was one flaw, a theatre marquee a little too modern for the period.
The actors have accents, and sometimes they don't speak that clearly. Sometimes the sound is muddy (especially a scene in a drain pipe). I missed a lot of dialogue. Even hitting replay, I still could not make it out.
There is one kind-hearted, sensible, character, a school teacher. She has an exaggerated sense of how wonderful she is, but she is fun to watch.
Even the villain has redeeming qualities. His motivations are laudable. He is more manic than wicked.
There is one scene where a baby is born. It takes just a few seconds. They thankfully spare us the screaming and blood, even after warning us that it is coming.
I found myself wanting to smack the bigotry out of them.
The movie is based on a mystery. Two teenage boys each lost their fathers in the war, but no one will tell them any details. They gradually figure out what happened, bit by tiny bit. You keep thinking you have the mystery solved, but then off it takes on another twist.
It takes place in post-war England. Everything is grimy, in need of a coat of paint, and worn out. This recreation of this time period is so good you don't notice it. There was one flaw, a theatre marquee a little too modern for the period.
The actors have accents, and sometimes they don't speak that clearly. Sometimes the sound is muddy (especially a scene in a drain pipe). I missed a lot of dialogue. Even hitting replay, I still could not make it out.
There is one kind-hearted, sensible, character, a school teacher. She has an exaggerated sense of how wonderful she is, but she is fun to watch.
Even the villain has redeeming qualities. His motivations are laudable. He is more manic than wicked.
There is one scene where a baby is born. It takes just a few seconds. They thankfully spare us the screaming and blood, even after warning us that it is coming.
The new Oliver Twist
fareall11 January 2012
What a pleasant surprise! This is such a refreshing film that in middle I actually checked myself gawking at the screen. Henry's acting is purposely timid - actually all the acting is quite laid back and rightfully so. This is a film that is capturing another era of film-making. The other negative reviewer is absurd with his observations.
The entire story line is quick paced when they could have given more time to character development but for me I enjoy when there is imagination left to the viewers and the story line moves quickly.
There was drama and intrigue about how Henry's discovery will play out and you couldn't guess the exact recipe until the end. The supporting actors were all top notch. In a great British way that films of old used to be. From the teacher to the mother to the step-father. The film is a wonderful piece of art.
I am an action movie buff but gave this a watch and was not disappointed.
The entire story line is quick paced when they could have given more time to character development but for me I enjoy when there is imagination left to the viewers and the story line moves quickly.
There was drama and intrigue about how Henry's discovery will play out and you couldn't guess the exact recipe until the end. The supporting actors were all top notch. In a great British way that films of old used to be. From the teacher to the mother to the step-father. The film is a wonderful piece of art.
I am an action movie buff but gave this a watch and was not disappointed.
Poor version of good book
madunclehugh10 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
****Spoiler**** This is an awful film; nothing in it that matches the book at all. The book is superb but the characters in the film are travesties of what was written and changed beyond recognition and, in a number of cases left out completely For example Mrs Beaumont has become a teacher; Grace goes to the same school; Pip is left out altogether. There also appears to be no Molly and his grandmother is much more mobile in the early part of the film. These are just some examples of awful script and story. The book was a joy to read The scenery also did not seem to show that Ther had just been a war ( the book was good at painting a picture of 1949 Britain)
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
