jimbo-53-186511
This story focuses on hot shot lawyer Henry Turner (Harrison Ford) and the after effects on his life following a shooting which resulted in him suffering brain damage, loss of speech and loss of mobility.I suspect that there are some people who may find this concept hard to swallow and on the face of it the premise is a tough sell; Before the shooting, Turner is an arrogant, rude, and seemingly uncaring individual - a man who is more interested in his career than his family (which seems to be a cliché with most lawyers). Then when he awakes from his coma and regains his ability to speak he suddenly seems to be a completely different person. This, on the surface, may seem like a contrivance, but personally I was prepared to buy it. We learn that Turner's memory & brain have been severely affected by the shooting - it then appears that Turner has just awoken as a new person. I don't believe that to be the case, I believe that Turner sees life in a new light and I believe that Bradley was a major contributory factor in all of this - Turner sees people doing good deeds and being kind to one another. Although his memory loss will have meant that he forgot about who he used to be, I still believe that his rehabilitation was the biggest contributory factor in improving him as a person. It probably also helps that he's away from a lot of his sleazy lawyer friends - there's no-one around to corrupt him.Ford's performance is another big factor in making the film work and his transition from arrogant slimy lawyer to mild mannered & gentle family man was just effortless. Likewise, the supporting cast were also excellent - it was also a bonus that Turner's daughter wasn't annoying as well.I think the most touching aspect of this film was Turner's relationship with his daughter (post shooting). He actually became more like a friend than a father. This is probably because his brain was probably at a similar stage of maturity to his daughters following his recovery. It was so nice to see him build a relationship with his family that probably never existed before.As well as being compelling as a drama the film also has many light hearted moments (many of the scenes between Bradley and Turner were absolute gems).I did have one or two very minor issues with this film; 1) I found it hard to believe that Turner's employers would allow him to return to work when he quite clearly wasn't ready to go back to work 2) It would have been nice to see the scumbag that shot him be brought to justice. Again, nothing major - just minor niggles more than anything.I really liked this film and thought it was a heart-warming, touching film that was thoroughly enjoyable from start to finish. It's not a film that warrants multiple viewings, but it's certainly something I'd watch again.
slightlymad22
I'm amazed at some of the negative reviews here, I really liked this movie.Plot In A Paragraph: Henry Turner (a brilliant Harrison Ford) is a despicable and ruthless lawyer whose life is turned upside down when one night whilst out buying some cigarettes, he is shot in the head during a robbery. Luckily, he survives the injury with significant brain damage and must re-learn how to speak, walk, and function normally. He has also lost most of the memory of his personal life, and must adjust to life with the family that he does not remember. To the surprise of his wife and daughter, Henry becomes a kind, loving and affectionate man.Bill Nunn is a stand out performer as Bradley, Henry's Physical Therapist, Annette Bening is great as Henry's wife, and Mikki Allen is also great as his daughter Rachel, John Leguizamo pops up too as the liquor store gun man. But this movie is all abut Harrison Ford he is the heart and core of the movie. I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention over the years
leplatypus
The movie is rather well directed, well scored, well played with a special mention for the daughter and the trainer but the story is just unrealistic. I know it has been written by mister Abrams (who does a cameo) but the story he wants us to believe has nothing to do with the real life. As too many Hollywood desk writers, the characters have no connection with the audience. Here, it's not the courageous cop or the brave doctor but the well-known brilliant and successful lawyer! We should tell those writers that there are thousand jobs outside to pick to tell a story! With such a dumb choice, the emotion is clearly washed up as Harrison gets the best doctor, the best clinic, the best house, the best school for the daughter, the best hotel and so on… His rebuilding as a new man is a good idea but considering the starting point, I really don't care after. About Harrison, he is always this formidable soft-spoken guy who is right and doesn't let go! But as I don't like to watch him play a bad guy, I don't like more to see him suffer. Finally, I have strong reservations before watching it and after watching it, it confirms that I shouldn't have picked it up!
ElMaruecan82
For all the virile toughness Harrison Ford showcased during his career, one director, Mike Nichols, believed in giving him a shot as a totally different kind of character, a man struck by amnesia, reborn as a sweet and caring husband and father, so delightfully contrasting with the arrogant yuppie bastard, conveniently a lawyer, he used to be. That could have been an Oscar-worthy performance for Harrison Ford, or a poignant humble drama about a family stricken by a tragic accident, but the outcome is so cheap, so predictable that it's not surprising the film has sunk into oblivion just as quickly and surely as Henry Turner's memory vanished.And the first blame is on the screenplay, there's nothing written by J.J. Abrams, a fitting name for a script that flirted so much with parody, that doesn't seem forced as a necessary set-up for an emotionally rewarding pay-off. The film opens with a man who's obviously a suave bastard, so confident over his own ego that he dominates anyone around him, from his colleagues to his secretary, from his wife Sarah (Annette Bening) to his daughter Rachel (Mikki Allen), lectured like an incompetent associate just because she dropped lemonade on Henry's beloved piano. You know when someone behaves so condescendingly and let's say patronizing toward a child that a scene where he's the Father-of-the-Year will come up. And naturally, in another badly made scene where you can tell the girl is waiting to 'accidentally' spill her glass of orange juice, so he can do the same thing to reassure her, that now he's changed.The problem is that that very scene, which supposedly show Henry's transformation, highlight the film's biggest problem which is Ford's portrayal of a simple-minded man. The man is shot with a bullet to his head when buying cigarettes in his usual grocery store (why the robber aimed at the head we'll never know) and after a comatose episode, he remembers nothing, not even how to speak, let alone to read … but don't worry, the recovery will be so spectacular for plot's sake that we won't have time to worry much. The miraculous cure is driven by Bill Nunn as Bradley, a charismatic and jovial care taker who'll make Henry finally speak by putting too much tobacco on his eggs. At that time, we never know whether Henry is an adult who just lost memory or a child in an adult's body. Anyone would believe a man dropping juice on the table as a joke, has something of a child, but had the plot stick to that characteristic, there would be no plot.Then we get to the last case he worked on, where he obviously hid precious information allowing his client, a wealthy and respectable Hospital institution to win the case, naturally, as a new man, Henry will side with the 'David' against the greedy and high-powered 'Goliath'. But how can a man so childish be able to understand the malevolent schemes he elaborated, did he get the innocence of a young child and hence understood it was just 'bad'? How about his colleagues, couldn't they see the man changed for the worst according to their own standards? "Regarding Henry" looks like an assemblage of micro-plots and subplots whose conclusions only depends on Henry's level of intelligence, which vary according to the purpose it serves. And if Ford genuinely keeps the right one-note performance as if he understood that Henry's behavior couldn't change, the writing is never on the same wavelength.It's a real shame, because the performances are all decent, Annette Bening is good as the devoted wife who discovers the new face of her husband, Mikki Allen, has a normal look that conveys an inner sadness, in her portrayal of a lost preteen. Bill Nunn steals the show, I especially liked their last conversation about the meaning of their life, and the idea of second chance (the film needed more moments like that). I also liked some plot points regarding sex and money, real-life marital issues, but Nichols was in a hurry to get to Henry's redemption and to incarnate it through a real good deed, when he give the incriminating evidence to the couple he'd just ruined their life, the rest elements of the story hardly mattered at that moment, and it was time to end the story. Nichols made so many solid and poignant stories and "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" reduces "Regarding Henry" to the level of a TV Thursday afternoon drama.There might be another problem "Regarding Henry" which simply is due to the very premise of the film: since Henry changed as soon as he recovered from that injury, he was a good man from a beginning, and de facto, he couldn't be nothing else, the character didn't evolve, he didn't owe his goodness to a change of mind, but to a strike of fate. Noentheless, there were many opportunities to make the story more endearing: his previous mistress, the adultery, the relationship with his daughter, something that make us wonder what could happen next. There's nothing in the film any film lover wouldn't see coming from a mile, should that ruin the enjoyment, not so? But there has been so much great films released since that it's incomprehensible how the collision of such talents could give such a mediocre result. Talk about an unfortunate accident, mostly to be blamed on the writer and the director who couldn't see through it, and the actors who could at least try to spice up a little bit. Give Ford a great screenplay, and he'll make you a real Oscar-worthy performance (this comes from someone who just saw "Witness" again) "Regarding Henry" is victim of that common syndrome from wannabe great dramas, you don't see what they are, but what they try to be. I'm not sure "Regarding Henry" intended to be so flat, but it did.
