Old Henry is a drama that will be familiar to any fans of westerns. It is about a farmer who comes upon a wounded man with a satchel full of money. The man is being hunted by a ruthless lawman, putting the farmer and his naïve teenage son right in the middle of a dangerous situation. It’s got shootouts, threatening speeches, macho wisdom and pasts that just can’t be outrun. It seems like something Clint Eastwood would have been attached to star in in the early '90s. I didn’t believe all of it (there are a couple of major revelations that felt very forced), but it is entertaining, well-acted and skillfully crafted. It is a good movie that occasionally flirts with getting really good.
Tim Blake Nelson is grizzled and wary as Henry, a man who probably shed some blood in his younger days, before getting married and finding religion. After the death of his wife ten years prior to this story’s opening, he keeps to himself, tending to his farm with the help of his son and brother-in-law (Henry’s dead wife is the only woman who even gets so much as a reference; there are no women in the cast). A lot of this information is given out organically, in snippets of conversation. Though Nelson plays him in a way that suggests his begrudging kindness is a sort of atonement. His blunt way of speaking certainly lends itself to that interpretation.
A much showier performance is given by Stephen Dorff as the aptly named Ketchum, a sheriff desperate to find the man Henry has brought into his home. Ketchum is given a few traditional western villain traits. He is prone to long speeches that take colorful detours, he likes to whittle and he always maintains his cool, whether he is being shot at or committing cold-blooded murder. It is clear Dorff is playing a well-worn type, but he is pretty good at it. Old Henry needed an active antagonist whose will would jar Henry out of his routine of chopping wood and feeding his animals. Nelson and Dorff bring the two sides of the plot together believably enough, especially considering its target audience has undoubtedly seen versions of this story before.
As in many westerns, the shootouts not only bring things to a climax, they also reveal a lot about the characters. Writer/director Potsy Ponciroli keeps things simple for the action scenes. They feature a small number of characters in a location where it is easy for viewers to keep track of where everyone is. This is not the type of movie where the characters have a plan before shooting, yet it never feels the slightest bit chaotic. The action is realistic under the circumstances, since everything comes down to the inevitability of how these specific men would act. That makes it more engaging because it is plot-driven, as opposed to spectacle.
I enjoyed Old Henry and really wanted to like it more than I did. Ultimately, the plot ends up being a little too clever for its own good. By the end, there are far too many aspects of Henry’s behavior (not to mention the behavior of the mysterious man with the stolen loot) that don’t match up with the final act’s revelations. Lines of dialogue intended to explain backstory raise questions that don’t get addressed. When I thought I had a firm grasp on the who and the why, the movie pivoted in a way that actually subtracted depth from the characters. Regardless of those issues, it is still worthwhile. It does the classic western stuff well and the cast/overall production are very good. Fans of the genre should definitely check it out; they’ll likely have a good time with it.
-Ben Pivoz
