Just Henry

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.