Henry Johnson

I am 9 minutes and 20 seconds into this 1 hour and 25 minute movie, somebody reviewed it and called it mamet speak, this is absolutely 100% undeniable atrocious ridiculous stupid terrible nonsense!, no way on somebody's green earth do two lawyers talk this way!, what they are saying is so nonsensical and dumb that no one and I mean no one unless you review this movie with a seven or an eight or something and have I guess dubious thinking skills possibly could sensibly consider this dialogue as in any way meaningful it is not meaningful it is in direct contrast to whatever is meaningful, don't waste your time on this well I'm going to call it gobbledygook if that's permissible, what a dumb movie.

Greetings again from the darkness. Show or tell ... films tend to lean one direction or the other. Visuals are obviously the key to the popularity of superhero movies and comic book adaptations, while on the other end of the spectrum we have 'Mamet-speak.' David Mamet is a Pulitzer Prize winning writer who has been nominated for Oscars, Tonys, and Emmys. Best known for his rapidly-paced labyrinthian dialogue, Mamet is known for both his stage and screen projects.

His 1976 play "Sexual Perversion in Chicago" was adapted into the film, ABOUT LAST NIGHT (1996), while possibly his best known stage-to-screen adaptation was GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS (1992), which was directed by the recently deceased James Foley). Other well-known Mamet screenplays include THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE (1981), THE VERDICT (1982), THE UNTOUCHABLES (1987), WAG THE DOG (1997) and HANNIBAL (2001). Mamet has also directed some of his own screenplays: HOMICIDE (1991), THE SPANISH PRISONER (1997), and STATE AND MAIN (2000). I also must mention one of my favorites, his underappreciated 1987 film, HOUSE OF GAMES.

Since it's been about 17 years since he last directed a feature film, it seemed fitting to post a bit of a David Mamet history lesson. For this one (he again adapted from one of his plays), he directs a small cast working with an enormous script of dialogue. There are basically four sequences, the middle two combine for Act II. A mesmerizing 23-minute opening sequence finds Mr Barnes (Chris Bauer, "True Blood") in a rapid-fire debate with his employee, the titular Henry (Evan Jonigkeit, wearing what I believe to be Mamet's eyeglasses). The conversation is two-sided as the men discuss the finer points of the law, among other things - including a decision Henry made regarding an old friend. As the scene ends, we viewers and Henry get a big surprise from Barnes.

The next two sequences find Henry taking in the philosophy and life lessons from his cell mate Gene (Shia LaBeouf). This follows Barnes' comment from earlier when he reminded that one of the signs of a psychopath is immense charm. Henry is clearly taken in by all Gene has to offer - both in their cell and in the prison library, as they analyze the role of fear and other crucial lessons that master manipulator Gene is inclined to share. The final sequence is a tense standoff with an armed Henry holding prison guard Jerry (Dominic Hoffman, Mamet's REDBELT, 2008). Again, we find someone offering advice and counseling to Henry, who seems mostly capable of being taken advantage of and making poor decisions. Henry tells him, "Do what you want - people generally do." And I do hope Mamet lovers will check this one out and bask in the Mamet-speak that we are too rarely treated.

Available VOD beginning May 9, 2025.

What a bore fest!

Is this really the same David Mamet, the one who gaves us House of Games who wrote and directed this terrible script?

He lost it completely.

Non stop speaking ogwash to hide a non existant intrigue is not the way to go.

The film is painfull to watch from the first minutes (the first scene is 20mn long of non stop fast speaking with very bad directing and pace) I was hoping it would get better later but it doesn't.

The two next scenes are the same type.

After 1 hour who felt like 3, I decided to fast forward (an I'm the patient type).

Nothing special at the end.

This is just a very basic story excessively badly told.

Avoid!!!

Firstly it's not a 10, it's more an 8. But tue 1s and 2s it does not deserve.

This is a brief look at a broken system which can quickly drive someone to madness in a falling-down esque way.

The acting is precise and the monologues are engrossing and believable. It's cold and ruthless and meant to be drawn out and dark! You need to imagine yourself sat in the audience in a dark theatre watching only 2 ppl on a stage ignoring all that's around you and totally delving into their world. If you try it to look at this as a film then you will misunderstand and belittle it. But this is a triumph and a testament to the creators. I'm guilty of not following Mamet's work but now I'm intrigued and shall be driving into his back-catalogue.

This is not cinema at its best and it's not meant to be. It's designed to be a mere snapshot of a handful of characters over an unknown time period. We don't need a backstory or building of characters or any real plot. We just need to sit and admire how a basic premise here can open our eyes, albeit for a very short time, to catastrophic events that could happen to literally anyone given the circumstances.

Henry Johnson is a phenomenal film to watch. They say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions and this film is the visual depiction of that phrase. It's a well directed tale that gains momentum as it shifts from scene to scene culminating in an ending that pulls you in, sways you gently back and forth and then throws you off a cliff. The dialogue between the actors throughout the film was so smooth that it brought to mind an Olympic relay team effortlessly passing a baton back and forth. Don't miss this one - it's been a long time since a film of this caliber has been made and probably a long time before one like it will be made again.