In Theaters Sep 07 2008 @ 04:59 pm

REVIEW: Henry Poole Is Here

By Evan Derrick
United States, 2008
Directed By: Mark Pellington
Written By: Albert Torres
Starring: Luke Wilson, Rhada Mitchell, Adriana Barraza, George Lopez, Cheryl Hines,
Running Time: 100 minutes
Rated PG for thematic elements and some language
(out of 5 stars)

Roger Ebert famously said that “A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it.” That is an important observation worth dwelling on, for both film critics and casual filmgoers alike, but it is one that I am unable to always embrace. There are times when the ‘what’ overshadows the ‘how’ to such an extraordinary degree that it cannot be ignored, as in the example of Sin City: I find cannibalism and castration to be inherently distasteful, no matter how gorgeous the aesthetic that is layered on top may be. To those who would cry “Prejudiced!” I willingly plead guilty.

Henry Poole is Here is a ‘what’ over ‘how’ kind of film. I’ll happily say that we need more films like this, films that promote hope and redemption over despair and nihilism. However, director Mark Pellington’s intentions are so earnest that it makes the disappointment over his heavy-handed technique that much sharper in comparison. His ‘how’ shipwrecks his ‘what,’ and rather badly at that, although I am willing to eschew Ebert’s mantra in this case and grant him the benefit of the doubt.

Luke Wilson plays Henry Poole, a man with an omnipresent case of the grumps.
Luke Wilson plays Henry Poole, a man with an omnipresent case of the grumps.

Luke Wilson is the titular Poole, an “angry and sad” man who moves into a ramshackle bungalow in the middle of L.A. suburban hell. His real estate agent (Cheryl Hines) hums around him like a happy bumblebee, suggesting landscaping improvements and insisting on fixing the mediocre stucco work. Henry rebuffs her. “I’m not going to be living here that long,” he says, telegraphing the Big Twist that will “surprise” the audience at the film’s midpoint. She fixes it anyways.

Subsisting on a strict diet of Krispy Kremes and Absolut and scowling at overly hospitable neighbors, Henry just wants to be left alone with his mediocre stucco. This becomes problematic when Esperanza (Adriana Barraza), his devoutly Catholic neighbor, discovers the face of God staring out at her from a water stain on the stucco. A few phone calls later and the entire neighborhood has ruptured Henry Poole’s hard-earned bubble of isolation, eager for a taste of the miraculous despite his protestations to be left alone.

Henry Poole Is Here, perhaps better than any film in recent memory, skillfully walks the fine line between faith and skepticism. It offers a balanced perspective between the two, neither descending into sermonizing or cynicism; no one drops to their knees for the groan-inducing Altar Call moment and we’re thankfully spared any intellectually bankrupt “God is dead!” rhetoric. While the film does end on a hopeful note, it leaves enough ambiguity about how the characters arrived there for the audience to make up their own mind. Henry Poole is designed to begin conversations between faith and athiesm, not end them.

I sense a montage approaching.
I sense a montage approaching.

So then it’s a shame that Pellington feels the need to repeatedly beat his audience in the face with his Emotion Stick. Rather than rely on his leads’ performances to generate genuine emotion, he artificially fabricates a scmaltzy replacement through conspicuously hip pop songs, poorly motivated slow-mo, hazy out-of-focus shots, and trite lines of dialogue like “This is the last place I can remember being happy.” By the fourth montage designed to make one weep for Mr. Poole and his troubles (there might have even been eight – I lost count), my eyeballs were bleeding from repeated rolling.

Wilson and Rhada Mitchell (who plays Henry’s love interest) are both surprisingly good here, and Morgan Lily (as Mitchell’s mute daughter) steals every scene she’s in without uttering a word, so I am dumbfounded that Pellington had so little faith in them. Every time they manage to work up something approaching a connection with the audience he swoops in with a montage and sends the film reeling into Hamsville. This may stem from his extensive background in music videos (he co-directed U2 3D earlier this year), but more than likely indicates a lack of trust in his film.

The ‘how’ of Henry Poole is Here lacks the subtlety that its emotionally delicate story needed to truly succeed, but its ‘what’ remains endearing enough to recommend it to an unjaded audience. This is a charming, sweet film that inspires rather than depresses. Just bring along a blindfold and a pair of earplugs for when the montages kick in.

6 Responses to “Henry Poole Is Here”

  1. on Sep 07 2008 @ 6:11 pm 1. G said …

    Oh, 3.5 stars, eh?

  2. on Sep 07 2008 @ 9:09 pm 2. Evan Derrick said …

    Yeah, I was waiting for that comment.

    What can I say? It’s been lean pickin’s at the ole’ multiplex.

  3. on Sep 08 2008 @ 7:30 am 3. G said …

    I totally agree with you about the lean pickin’s. But although I didn’t see this movie, it looked like about a 2 to me. And Hamlet 2 was sub 2. And I gave Encounters 4.5. Plus, I haven’t seen What Happens in Vegas, but that 3 up there is pretty noteworthy, what with it’s metacritic score of 36.

    I understand your points about how this film’s well, to put it in a cliche way, how it’s heart is in the right place. But I still bet that I would have given this sucker a sub-3 score. It’s all theoretical though, because this is one of many films that I will probably die without seeing.

  4. on Sep 08 2008 @ 7:54 am 4. Evan Derrick said …

    Yeah, you probably would have given it a lower score, G. I imagine it would have been around the 1 star mark for you, though.

    Star ratings, of course, are all about subjectivity. I’ve been relatively ambivalent towards most of the stuff I’ve seen lately – I enjoyed it but didn’t really have strong feelings either way. Hence all the 3 and 3.5 star ratings.

    I saw High School Musical the other day and would give it 1.5 stars, and I also saw Straw Dogs, which I would give 4.5 stars. I’m not writing reviews on either, but does that make you happy now, G?

  5. on Sep 08 2008 @ 8:28 am 5. Evan Derrick said …

    Another thought: because we get to choose what we watch, that ends up skewing the star ratings towards the positive end. Take last weekend for example: if I was a paid critic, in addition to Traitor I would have had to have seen Babylon A.D., Disaster Movie, and College. I guarantee that those latter 3 would be scrubbing the dank moldy corners of the basement in terms of ratings, but because I can choose what to review, I avoided the obvious pieces of crap. Therefore the reviews tend to skew upwards.

    If all the energy we spend on discussing star ratings went into fighting world hunger, think what we could accomplish…

  6. on Sep 08 2008 @ 4:29 pm 6. Luke Harrington said …

    For the record G, I just looked at Metacritic’s page for Vegas, and you’re right about the aggregated score — but a solid 30% of the critics surveyed rated it at 60/100 or better. So clearly, I’m not the only one to have enjoyed that movie as a guilty pleasure (but I certainly wouldn’t think less of you for hating it). :)

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply