Protraph
Lack of good storyline.
Portia Hilton
Blistering performances.
Guillelmina
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
happyendingrocks
Harry And The Hendersons can best be described as E.T. re-imagined with a smaller-scale plot and a larger-scale star. It's not quite a rip-off, as there is nary a Reese's Piece in sight, but with both an identical message and a similar reliance on fish-out-of-water humor, it's hard to imagine anyone phoning Harry instead of phoning home.To be fair, Harry seems to be aiming more for "cute" than "poignant", and at least in that regard, the film succeeds admirably. The humor is decidedly aimed at the grade-school set, and most of it involves Harry wrecking the Hendersons' house as he adjusts to the discrepancy between his size and the scale of his new environment. There are no big laughs here, but the film is amusing in its own quirky way, and having John Lithgow as the centerpiece of Harry's struggle to fit in a world far too small for him certainly helps with this.Many things about the film don't work, but I suppose that's to be expected. The rather dicey attempt at conflict involves a sasquatch hunter (yep, they're everywhere...) wanting to hunt down Harry and adorn his parlor with the granddaddy of all trophies. However, bringing this misguided big game enthusiast into suburbia is a hard pill to swallow. He seems so intent on bagging Harry that he's apparently willing to walk into the house of a family of strangers and shoot the big fella in their living room. I'm not sure how many people have pet deers, but it's hard to imagine even the most callous hunter wandering into their neighborhood and gunning down their backyard Bambis.The Hendersons' neighbor Irene is probably supposed to be on hand as a comedic foil, but she's far too cloying to be anything but annoying. The fact that they introduce her with the singular character trait of being a busybody also makes much of the physical humor of Harry's wreckage unrealistic. If their neighbor is so nosy, surely she would have been curious when she heard the loud rumbling of Harry's clumsy remodeling? If we're being asked to imagine a 7-foot sasquatch literally crashing through the floor into the attic below, we also have to imagine that the amount of noise and tremor this would cause might possibly alert the person living next door.The real reason to recommend this film is Rick Baker's wonderfully realized Harry, who is easily the most realistically-molded sasquatch in film history (not much competition there, granted). Harry isn't supposed to menacing, he's supposed to be adorable, but we have to give Baker credit for rendering his creation with such detail that no matter how big he's smiling, we still sense that this big beast could easily tear someone to pieces if necessary. The late Kevin Peter Hall is the perfect actor to fill these immense shoes (feet?), and as in all his roles, he brings actual character to the role no matter how many layers of latex and hair they pile atop him. Hall's eyes are pretty much all we see of him here, but the range of emotions he conveys with simple expression brings forth the human qualities we're supposed to identify with in Harry.Watching the trailer and noting the deluge of scenes that didn't appear in the film, there is a sense that this was a troubled production. I'm not sure what William Dear was setting out to make, but he apparently did his best with what he had, and the result is a family film that has enough winning qualities to make the fantastical premise work. Harry doesn't quite tug at the heartstrings, it's far too sappy for that, but it is a film with the power to make you smile. Not a bad selling point, that.Though the ending sets things up for the inevitable Harrys And The Hendersons, it's probably a good thing this film wasn't successful enough to spawn a franchise. As it stands, it's just good enough to recommend, and it's hard to imagine a sequel doing anything but stripping the film's limited charms away.This is not an essential film by any means, but fans of the Spielberg school of fantasy family fare could certainly find a worse way to spend an afternoon.
Lee Eisenberg
Yeah, this is the typical "family flick" from the '80s. I first saw "Harry and the Hendersons" between kindergarten and first grade; I'm not sure that I would recommend it for children that young. I saw it again a few years later, and it seemed hokier each progressive time. Needless to say, a major surprise came when I read the cast. Aside from John Lithgow, Melinda Dillon and Don Ameche, there's also Lainie Kazan (the mother in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"), and in a smaller role there's William Frankfather (the albino in "Foul Play"). Director William Dear also has a brief appearance.Anyway, not a bad movie, but nothing that I would recommend.And yes it's true, my dad knew co-writer Ezra Rappaport as a teenager. I don't know whether or not Rappaport was involved in the production of another movie after this.
ccthemovieman-1
This was a generally-entertaining comedy, and a typical modern-day morally- weak one because of its Liberal slants. What Liberal bias? Well, how about anti-hunting, anti-guns, the normal cheap shot at (Republican President) Ronald Reagan, a plug for evolution, a ton of OMGs, a lot of profanity including kids swearing, etc, etc.) All of this Left Wing nonsense wasn't needed, either, as it could have been a solid family-oriented comedy and adventure. Take the cute and funny little kid (Joshua Rudoy?). He profanes three times. The first time, he apologizes and his father responds, "It's okay; it's close to what you meant, anyway." In other words, profanity from your little son is okay, according to th script writers.Otherwise, it's a fun movie with a humorous gorilla "Bigfoot," a fast-moving story and you even get some nice Oregon woods scenery. There is just no excuse for the language in here, and this should have been rated PG-13. I laugh at the people who call this "good family fare." I haven't seen one movie yet with John Lithgow in it, that wasn't sleazy.
Shawn Watson
Harry and the Hendersons is one of the first films I remember seeing in the cinema as a kid. It was 1987 and my uncle had just passed his driving test so he was well into driving places and the cinema just happened to be one of them.Even though the film is only 110 minutes long, they still had an intermission halfway through, for some reason. And I swear, they actually had ushers coming round selling stuff before it started back up again. I believe that is the first and only time I have seen such old-fashioned picturehouse practices. But it makes my original memory of this film so much more nostalgic.The Hendersons consist of wannabe artist/gun salesman dad George (that always brilliant John Lithgow), loving mum Melinda Dillon, a bratty daughter and a hyperactive son. On returning from a camping trip in the Pacific Northwest, they accidentally run into some sort of large furry creature on the forest road. Originally believing it to be a bear, George steps out of the car to prod it with his gun a few times. But the bear has man-like hands and George suddenly asks his family 'What if it's...HIM'.Bigfoot! Think of how much he's worth! So they tie him to the roof of the car and drive him home, while George thinks of the best way of selling him. Later that night, he is curious as to how big his feet really are. So he sneaks down to the garage with a measuring tape only to find that he's no longer strapped to the roof of the car, but poking around in the kitchen fridge.The Hendersons stand back as bigfoot (or Harry as he is later renamed) stomps around the house and garden investigating all their strange belongings. Though he doesn't care much for all the animal trophies hanging around everywhere. Freaking out, George tries to snipe Harry from through the bedroom window, but has a change of heart when he realises that Harry is just big, harmless oaf.The best scenes of the film involve Harry making himself at home in the Henderson house. His mannerisms and body language are similar to a child warned to be on their best behavior while visiting old relatives. He constantly looks a bit nervous and uncomfortable but is always ready to grab you for a big hug.Rick Baker deservedly took home an Academy Award for Best Make-Up Effects back in 1988 for this movie. Harry Henderson is an amazing character with a wonderfully wide range of expressions and emotions. All E.T. ever did was sit there looking bug-eyed. Not Harry though, you can't help loving him. I so want my own Bigfoot.Even now as an adult I think this movie is still great. As a kid I remember feeling the panic and excitement when Harry got lost in Seattle and the half-crazed Bigfoot hunter Jacques LaFleur (David Suchet) doing lots of sleaziness in order to have him shot, gutted and sold to science. Forgive the repeated comparison, but to me it was more involving and fun than the man with the keys in E.T.You just don't get family movies like this anymore. Back in the 80's Steven Spielberg's Amblin production company made loads of great family movies like Gremlins, Goonies, the Back to the Future Trilogy, Young Sherlock Holmes and Innerspace. They all had some kind high-concept spin that crud such as Like Mike and Crapper by the Dozen don't.It was a great time to be a kid back in those days. We weren't cynical and jaded and hooked on Playstation like modern children. We still had a sense of adventure, a longing for the outdoors. Anything could be out there. Maybe Harry is actually bumbling around in the woods as I write this. Like the Patterson/Gimlin film that inspired it, Harry and the Hendersons is one movie that will be timeless forever.
