Henry & June (1990) User Reviews

Maria de Medeiros as Anais = Perfect

[zenlunatic · 7/10 · 10 December 2002]

If you're drawn to this film as a Henry Miller fan and expecting the Paris of Tropic of Cancer, you'll be let down. This film is a character-driven drama and therefore it is not intended to reproduce Miller's vision. Instead, the film focuses on (then) newly revealed excerpts from Anais Nin's diary. Four characters: Miller, Anais, June (Miller's wife), and Hugo (Anais' husband) complete the love square within which fairly complex relationships play out.

The film is primarily concerned with Anais' sexual awakening through her relationship with Miller and his wife. And I have to say, de Medeiros exceeds all expectations in this role. Not only does she look remarkably like the young Anais, but she also seems to radiate the writer's deep erotic mystique. If nothing else, watch this film just for this performance-- besides, she's absolutely gorgeous. Thurman's performance is also quite good, her NYC accent believable and her dirty-girl role works well in contrast to Anais' bourgeois exterior. Ward as Miller took some getting used to, but Grant's character seemed wooden and artificial.

Literary and historical references are sparsely sprinkled throughout the film, and although Miller has a few monologues in which he attempts to express the point of his writing, Miller fans will find nothing more than a superficial synopsis. But again, this can't be counted against the film since its focus is Anais. As far as the eroticism of the new "Journals" goes, the film succeeds fairly well- but the images convey more than the dialog.

This brings me to my final point: the NC-17 rating. Historically, this film was the first with that rating-- the MPAA created the rating specifically for this film since they deemed it to risqué for an R. By today's standards, this film is an R. If you're looking for softcore, watch "Emmanuelle" or something.

7/10

Visuals From Heaven, Story From Hell

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 2 October 2006]

A sexy movie with two very interesting faces - Maria de Medeiros and Uma Thurman - and one ugly and obnoxious one (Fred Ward, playing American writer "Henry Miller.")

I wish Thurman had a bigger role in this movie. The photo of her in this picture - the one Ward stares at periodically - is one of the most fascinating portraits I've ever seen. De Medeiros is shown naked quite a bit but it's her face, with those big eyes and the 1930s look, that's interesting. The nudity and lesbian sex scene gave this a NC-17 rating, the first movie ever to get that rating (from what I read.), and deservedly so. In Paris in the 1930s, where this story is set, they were "ahead" of their time (secuarly speaking) regarding decadence. This movie captures that atmosphere, although it's a bit TOO sleazy at times.

The film features some wonderful photography. One of the best cinematographers in the business, Phillipe Rousselot, filmed this. The worst part of the film was simply no likable characters and a bit too many dull spots. But.....the film really offers some visual treats.

Nudity doesn't necessarily equate with eroticism

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 24 September 2005]

In 1931 Paris, French authoress Anaïs Nin, doing a study on D.H. Lawrence, finds herself intrigued by different variations of sexuality; she and her husband Hugo Guiler are drawn into friendship with Americans Henry Miller and his volatile bisexual wife, June. Miller, the unpublished New York writer just on the verge of a breakthrough with "Tropic of Cancer", sees Anaïs as a sexy child and has a half-hearted affair with her, but June Miller's feelings seem to go much deeper. Maria de Medeiros as Nin has a marvelous face and graceful manner that nearly manage to keep this handsome but unenlightening sexual odyssey together. Director Philip Kaufman hopes to be as uninhibited as his characters but, despite an NC-17 rating, his sexual sequences feel truncated (and when nudity is trotted out--as in the whorehouse sequence--it fails to stand in for true eroticism). Fred Ward, always worth a look, seems held back as Miller, restrained, and he's not helped by a bald plate which at times looks unconvincing; Uma Thurman has a smaller role as June, and Kaufman allows her to pose and smolder a bit too much, but she's looser on the screen and brings the narrative some much-needed danger. The picture has a lot of ambiance and is briskly paced and fancifully told, but it just doesn't succeed at being a risk-taking exploration of human sexuality simply because Kaufman takes so few risks. ** from ****

The Nin's Story

[writers_reign · 6/10 · 23 March 2012]

In terms of genres this is something of a one-off and coyly misleading via citing novelist Henry Miller in the title whilst actually taking as its basis the diaries of his some-time lover Anais Nin, so much so that it may just as easily have been titled the Diary of Anais - Frank. Director Kaufman plays fast and loose between an off-the-wall quartet comprising Miller, his wife June and a second married couple Hugo and Anais. Although I wasn't around at the time the film appears to have caught the atmosphere of Paris in the very early thirties albeit its primary purpose is to chronicle the erotic awakening of Anais via her growing attraction to both Miller and his wife. The fourth member of the quartet, Hugo, has least emotional depth and at times seems to be there solely to make up the numbers. Definitely not for everyone but certainly interesting.

"You want experience. You make love to whatever you need."

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 14 April 2022]

Based on long-suppressed sections of the writings of Anais Nin (Maria de Medeiros, "Pulp Fiction"), "Henry & June" makes for a fairly enjoyable picture. It details Ms. Nins' journey of self-discovery and sexual awakening as she keeps bed hopping, especially after making the acquaintance of American author Henry Miller (Fred Ward, "Tremors") and his seductive wife June (Uma Thurman, "Kill Bill" 1 & 2).

"Henry & June" is not to all tastes, to be sure: it's *very* slow, and some viewers will find it ponderous to try to sit through for two hours and 16 minutes. At the time, the amount of adult content was controversial enough to induce the ratings board to create a new rating of "NC-17". Scripted by director Philip Kaufman, with his wife Rose, it allows a glimpse into the creative process of these celebrated 20th century writers while crafting a wonderful recreation of Paris in the 1930s, and some potent atmosphere. The result is an effective melding of art and exploitation, complete with some mild sex scenes and a generous dose of nudity. Since the tale is told through Ms. Nins' eyes (and her perception of her new acquaintances), it's not to be mistaken for a biopic.

The film is cast extremely well. Both Thurman and de Medeiros are positively intoxicating, and in fact Thurman leaves such an impression in her early scenes that one does miss June when the character leaves the story for a while. Ward may indeed deliver a rather broad performance, but he really is a lot of fun to watch. Richard E. Grant ("Withnail & I") co-stars as Hugo, Ms. Nins' husband when we first meet her. Kevin Spacey ("The Usual Suspects") is amusing in a small, not terribly consequential role. Juan Luis Bunuel, son of the legendary filmmaker Luis Bunuel, plays the publisher in the films' opening minutes.

It is true that Kaufman and company go the route of appealing more to adult intellects; much of the time, they're not really trying to titillate you (which could definitely cause "Henry & June" to lose some viewers). But de Medeiros' performance (a case study in wide-eyed, previously untested sexuality), and the great look of the film (capturing the sights & sounds of the city and the era) do make it entertaining to watch.

Seven out of 10.

Could Have Been So Much More

[DanB-4 · 7/10 · 2 October 2001]

Henry & June has a place in film history as the first picture to be rated NC-17. There are films with much more sex a nudity and offensive material than this that get R in the US.

The film tells the love triangle of Henry Miller (Fred Ward), his wife June (the stunning Uma Thurman) and Anais Nin (the equally stunning Maria de Medeiros). There is lots of sex and trips to brothels, a casual lesbian romance and Henry bedhopping between the two leading ladies. It is this relaxed sexual freedom that is more the moral center of this movie rather than the sex itself.

There are some very erotic scenes, most notably the notorious and famous lesbian encounter between Anais and June towards the end. It is brilliantly filmed and contains a very early, wonderful role from Kevin Spacey playing a talkative paranoid loser.

All these good qualities are not binding enough to make a coherent drama of this length. It drags on and has some completely deletable scenes. It provides no real insight into the author as a character, but merely uses the writers a backdrop to tell the love-triangle story. Henry & June seems to stop itself short of being purely a sexual film or a drama. But still, it is a very good love triangle story.

*** out of ****.

If you like Maria de Medeiros here and in Pulp Fiction, then seek out the small Spanish, Film Goldenballs.

I wish I was back in high school...

[pderocco · 2/10 · 29 August 2005]

when this sort of thing seemed so cool. In all fairness, I only watched the first three quarters of this movie, but that's all I could stay awake for. Does anyone find all this talk about "liberation," "inner self," and so on, at all convincing? Just about every line lacks verisimilitude. Let's back up the TiVo for a minute... "I've never been with a woman I could be so sincere with." (I need to remember that one next time I'm in a bar.) "Everybody says sex is obscene. The only true obscenity is war." (Heavy, dude.) "I saw your true nature when you were dancing out there." (Another good pickup line.) "I'd love you at eleven--I love you now--I will love you at a hundred." (I'll be asleep at eleven.) Is this how Henry Miller really talked? Or is it merely how Anais Nin really wrote? Even her own lines: "I've been dying to write something about it--about how necessary this book is for our times. You gave us a blood transfusion." No actress could pull such a line off gracefully, and Maria de Medeiros is no exception.

Beyond all that, how did they manage to goose this up to an NC-17 rating anyway? They must have paid someone off, for it's the only way they could have provoked any sort of buzz for this movie, and given anyone the impression that this would be worth sitting through. The sex scenes earned their classification as "erotic" primarily because everyone moves slowly, and they're filmed mostly in extreme close-up--but they weren't nearly as sexy as the shower scene in Porky's.

Finally, Fred Ward can't pull off the bald look. He looked more like a monk with a shaved pate surrounded by a ring of thick, healthy hair.

If the movie suddenly got terrific in the last half hour, then I apologize to everyone for misleading them. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Hidden Treasure

[Raskolnikov · 10/10 · 6 June 1999]

Phillip Kaufman's loving examination of Anais Nin's relationship with Henry and June Miller is an enthralling journey. In the film Anais is inspired by Henry and June to descend into a world of debauchery that fuels her erotic writing. We the audience see Henry and June through the eyes of Anais, which may mean it's not exactly as they really were, but rather a romanticised version of them. This is NOT a biopic of Henry Miller, which is the foolish mistake that some reviewers seemed to make on the films release.

The script tends to meander a bit, lacking any real plot. Each scene lives for itself, some more successfully than others. But in the torrid climax when Anais' wild ways have finally caught up with her, it all comes together nicely to leave a feeling of completion.

The cast is first rate. Maria de Medeiros, despite not having top billing, get's the bulk of the screen time as Anais. She has a captivating look, and embodies a sense of innocence throughout, despite displaying the most promiscuous nature. If at times she overdoes the melodrama, she should be commended for managing to purr out some rather flowery dialogue without sounding silly. Many lesser actresses would have faltered.

In what is undoubtably the highlight of his film career, Fred Ward instils Henry with some old styled charisma and gusto. While he gives us a throughly entertaining Henry, I still however have trouble seeing this character as a writer of erotic fiction. He seems too much like a man's man. The original casting choice of Alec Baldwin would make more sense in this case, but I doubt in the end he would have been as entertaining in the role as Ward.

Uma Thurman, as June, gives a memorable performance. It's the most showy character in the film, and Thurman gets the chance for plenty of legitimate scenery chewing. She uses the full scale of emotions and performs a transformation of the character from menacing seductress to pitiful emotional wreck. Despite the surprising comments of one of the other posters here, it really is one of the best performances of her young and promising career.

In support, Richard E. Grant is awkward (probably purposely) as Hugo, Anais' well-hung and faithful husband. Jean-Philippe Écoffey is adequate as Anais' cousin and brief lover. Kevin Spacey is amusing in what now looks like a cameo, but then was quite an important role for him.

Philippe Rousselot's cinematography is beautifully done. He creates an almost surreal feeling of Paris in the 1930's. The music is also well placed and adds to this mood. Kaufman and Rousselot make the numerous sex-scenes things of beauty rather than titillating, they get creative with them. In fact, the film is surprisingly unarousing considering the amount of sex occurring in it. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I guess you can decide for yourself. Why on earth it got an NC-17 rating I don't know. I doubt it would if released today.

Not everyone will like this film. It is 'arty farty' so to speak. It's maybe even a little pretentious. But I find it to be a fascinating and just plain absorbing trip. I have managed to find the time to watch it quite a few times, and it seems to improve with age. I recommend it to any thinking filmgoers.

9/10

Should have been entitled "Anaïs & Henry"

[=G= · 6/10 · 5 August 2003]

"Henry & June" is a well filmed hack job which spends most of its time looking at bits and pieces of the experiences of writer Anaïs Nin, mostly those involving the infamous author Henry Miller and/or her liberal feminist Bohon lifestyle during their Paris period. The film is analogous to a lurid paperback with all the pages torn out except the "good" ones..you know, the dog-eared sexy pages the book automatically opens to when you pick it up. A poor attempt at a biopic with B-flick macho-man Fred Ward laughably cast as Henry Miller, this self-absorbed exercise in pseudointellectualism flunks on all levels, including the erotic, except cinematography and visuals (costuming, makeup, sets, etc.). Not recommendable. (C+)

To call it pretentious would be a kindness.

[ayn5242 · 3/10 · 1 January 2006]

What, I wonder, is the superlative of pretentious. Yes, I know that it's 'most pretentious,' but that doesn't seem dramatic enough to describe this very long, long journey into total self-congratulatory eroticism. The film is based on portions of Anais Nin's diaries -- she wrote something like 9,000 pages, and you don't need to read more than a tenth of those to know that you are in the hands of one of the most self absorbed women who ever walked the planet. For one who is supposed to have been all about Art, she really seems to have been all about Anais. Nothing else much mattered. And this film, which is supposed to focus on her relationship with Henry and June Miller, really is all about her. The more libidinous she becomes the more 'innocent' she claims to be.

Anyway, about the movie: Maria de Medeiros has an amazing, triangular face with huge eyes. Her unique looks and tiny perfect body make us pay attention. I found Fred Ward's Henry Miller a bit too thick to be convincing. Somehow, from what I've read of Miller, I think he would have been a lot more intuitive and sensitive to the female psyche (we know he knew a lot about the female physique). Uma Thurman was wonderful as June. Really a stellar, moving performance. I wanted to see more of June because I was left not quite understanding how she worked. I guess Henry and Anais didn't either.

Hollow lusciousness

[andromaro · 6/10 · 28 September 2022]

The movie has potential, starting from the cast which is spot on. It is visually captivating, and it succeeds in taking the viewers along the sexual self-discovery of angelic Anais.

However, I found it lackluster in terms of plot. I didn't like the character June at all, including the performance of Thurman, very repetitive and unnerving.

It is inevitable to compare this movie to Kaufman's previous work, The unbearable lightness of being,which is much more erotic, with far superior photography and a much larger scope thanks to the background of historical relevance. Here it's just sex, always unfaithful and quite dull more often than not.

Art can be agony

[mjneu59 · 4/10 · 26 November 2010]

Philip Kaufman tries to recreate 1931 Paris in much the same way he successfully recreated 1968 Prague in 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being', and with roughly the same ménage-a-trois. But in trying to make lightning strike twice he apparently lost sight of the difference between sexual liberation and self-indulgence, and what was meant (again) to be an uncensored celebration of life and love resembles, here, something not unlike '9½ Weeks' for egghead intellectuals. Perhaps avid Henry Miller fans will appreciate all the highbrow eroticism, but for most of the film the characters do little else except agonize over Art and tell one another what geniuses they each are. Kaufman's luck with casting is unimpaired (Uma Thurmon's June Miller calls to mind Greta Garbo doing an imitation of Mae West), but his direction is almost comically self-conscious, built around a visual scheme of tight, TV screen close-ups and an oh, so naughty depiction of libertine Paris which pales next to Alan Rudolph's similar but more colorful portrait in 'The Moderns'. Posterity will remember the film for its groundbreaking adults only NC-17 rating, a distinction hardly earned by such tame soft-core entertainment.

Meek Latin Rhythms in Passionate Paris

[tedg · 16 July 2003]

Spoilers herein.

According to Woody, 90% of success is showing up. If you are a writer, that is a non- trivial commitment. It means that you need to leave your cocoon and take your unprotected self into risky territory. It is the only way to guide the reader. The less risk you take, the less value in general to all parties. Then it is a merely a matter of direction. A common direction is sex, and a common linkage is the so-called passion for life conflated with rich writing.

That's familiar enough. I have a database of literally (double literally!) hundreds of films on this notion. I am astonished at how few of them actually take the kinds of risks they attempt to portray, how few actually show passion -- and quite apart from that, how seldom we encounter a real connection between the emotion risks of sex and those of writing. The gimmick here is supposed to be two warring books, each about the same woman but from entirely different perspectives. Since we cannot experience the books themselves, we are exposed to the perspectives. The trick is engage us in the same way that they are engaged -- to invite an obsession with these three as they obsess with each other.

The problem is that no one involved in this project has sufficient passion, much less the ability to transport it into our souls. Uma tries to look steamy and deep, but is still just a dumb flower child. Ward is horribly miscast and spends all his energy on a faux New York accent and demeanor. In all fairness to him, the real Miller appears to have been similarly occupied.

I was really impressed with Maria de Medeiros' eyes, which had the practiced effect of constant discovery. She really looks the part, but gets lost in Kaufman's apparent confusion about what he wants to do. He already had successfully merged sexual competition and the similar competitions of large politics in "Lightness of Being." But I credit that success in large part to the fearlessness of all three actors. Here we have the same three roles more or less, and his meek guidance is not enough to make up for their meeknesses.

If you want a film based on a real story that is more accurately connected between sex and writing, check out "Nora" and "Beat." Both are flawed but each has passion overlain on the real case. Another real case with a film that actually works is "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" though the sex there is abstract.

Two sex/writing films that really work for me are "The End of the Affair" (Julianne Moore version) and "Pillow Book." Risk there. Dangerous writing, dangerous watching.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements

"Abnormal pleasures kill the taste for normal ones"

[Bored_Dragon · 7/10 · 15 May 2019]

Henry & June is a biographical erotic drama about Henry Miller, writer of the cult "Tropic of Cancer", and his wife, June, from the pen of his mistress Anaïs Nin. "Tropic of Cancer" is gathering dust on my bookshelf for decades, but after watching this movie I had to read it. Frankly, halfway through the book, I was on the verge of giving up reading, but the movie is good. Especially the performances of Fred Ward, Uma Thurman and Maria de Medeiros. And to spice things up, there is also brilliant Kevin Spacey.

7/10

Atmosphérique

[mcgillkurt · 6/10 · 20 March 2021]

The place lives. Paris. The period. I found myself watching the background most of the time instead of the actors. It would be hard to cast Henry Miller. Under any circumstances. Bruce Myers is such an accomplished actor with a fascinating background. (Such a tragedy to see him succumb to C-19.) He doesn't quite occupy the space - the body - of Henry Miller. And this may sound trite, but I could never take my eyes off his shaved (bald) head. As an American - not waving any flags - I wondered if could be hard for a Brit to play an American. A Brooklyn boy. A lot of people do it. Perfectly. (Matthew Rhys - in the HBO series "The Americans" - comes immediately to mind.)

Uma Thurman has such emotional range. A very strong performance as June. The principal character - it's not Henry Miller - Maria de Medeiros has very convincing look as Anais Nin. And she carries the role quite effectively. So much so, that one might forget that the film is - in theory - supposed to be about June and/or Henry Miller. Maria: Portuguese, but with an impressive French patina.

As someone who is absorbed in and by the genius of Henry Miller - I can remember reading "Tropic" on a bookstand in a drugstore during my lunch hour on Market Street in SF in the 60's - Mr. Myers portrayal is rather low voltage despite the fits of anger and breaking a few dishes.

Rather amazing that it took 30 years for Miller's book to be published in the US, considering that I seem to remember "Deep Throat" playing across the street in a porno house at that time. "Tropic" became a kind of ritual for me: after a quick barbecued rib at the Walgreens takeout counter, I would continue my serialized exploration of the exotic (and erotic) delights of Paris in the 30s.

Couldn't do it.

[Aristides-2 · 4/10 · 14 April 2007]

(1)Couldn't watch it for very long. I tried because the cinematography was so wonderful but one doesn't want to walk out of the theater whistling the camera work.

(2)Not quite bad enough dialogue to make it unintentionally funny and watchable. (3)Not bad enough acting too: ditto the above. Actually Maria de Medeiros was quite good; the combination of her appearing to be naive while having an erotic mind was very well done. But Uma! Oh poor thing! Was that a Brooklyn accent she was failing to make real? Fred Ward too, wise-guying his way through which made his shallowness the character. A celebrity impersonator.....wonder if he can do Jimmy Cagney or Robert De Niro? 4)Quite often an author is not well served in a movie and in this case the very honest reporter of nitty-gritty life, Henry Miller, was desecrated. Would anyone who had never read him be motivated by this movie to do so? I think not.

I've done the vilest things - the foulest things - but I've done them... superbly.

[lastliberal · 8/10 · 29 June 2007]

Anaïs Nin is hailed by many critics as one of the finest examples of writers of female erotica. She was one of the first women to really explore the realm of erotic writing, and certainly the first prominent woman in modern Europe to write erotica. Henry and June is based upon her life in Paris around 1931, and her relationship with Henry and June Miller. This relationship strongly influenced her as both a woman and an author.

Phillip Kaufman (Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), Quills, Raiders of the Lost Ark) does a superb job of directing his own screenplay and presents a story that flows smoothly as it presents a picture of bohemian life in Paris that consumed the banker's wife.

I am not sure they could have found someone better than Fred Ward (Remo Williams) to play Henry Miller (Tropic of Cancer, Tropic of Capricorn, Black Spring). He just seemed to fit right in with the character.

Uma Thurman (Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction) was fantastic as his wife, June, the bi-sexual who fell in love with Nin. After realizing that she lost Nin to her husband, she left him. What was interesting was that Nin immediately left Miller to return to her husband. You really need a scorecard to figure out who is married to and sleeping with whom.

Nin was played by Portuguese actress Maria de Medeiros (Fabienne in Pulp Fiction). She was sensational as the woman who fell into the bohemian life and lifestyle.

There were brief appearances by Kevin Spacey as a lawyer who wanted to be a writer, and the person who introduced Nin to Miller.

The slice of life in Bohemian Paris in 1931 has to be seen to be believed. It was an exciting time and certainly an exciting place. To see a piece f some of the greatest writers in American erotica, even fictionalized, was also great.

Henry and June holds the distinction of being the first film to receive an NC-17 rating.

"Henry & June" Is Not As Great As It Thinks It Is

[D_Burke · 4/10 · 9 April 2011]

Why is it that movies that are groundbreaking and controversial because of their prurient content are almost always never really great films to begin with? "Deep Throat" (1972) was the very first hardcore porn film that modern-day audiences went to see in droves, yet it was not a good movie, and was far from erotic or sexy. "Fritz The Cat" (1972) was the first animated motion picture to be rated X, yet it was a series of vignettes with a character who was really a jerk. With its shock value, it was underwhelming at best.

"Henry & June" does not sound like a controversial movie, but it made movie history when it became the first mainstream motion picture to earn the NC-17 rating by the Motion Picture Association of America. That rating was the permanent replacement for the X rating to differentiate explicit mainstream films from pornographic films in the eyes of moviegoers. While it's easy to see why the movie got an NC-17 rating, it's not a very good movie otherwise overall.

"Henry & June" is based on a true story that was brought to the public's attention from diaries written by Anais (pronounced en-NIGH-eese) Nin. Nin is portrayed by Maria de Medeiros, who is the best actor in this film by far, and really saves it from being a forgettable mess. In fact, the film centers so much on Medeiros' character that you sometimes wonder as you're watching this film "What's so great about Henry & June? Why wasn't the film called "Anais"?"

Well, Henry is Henry Miller (Fred Ward), an American author who resides in Paris, France to complete a book he wants to title "Tropic of Cancer". He finishes the novel, but it becomes one of the most controversial books of the 20th century. More on that later.

June (Uma Thurman) is Henry's wife who feels more like an on-again, off-again girlfriend. She is an actress who is also from the United States. She's married to Henry, but they fight, and she travels back to the U.S. This happens about three times in the film.

Thurman is a very good actress who was great in "Dangerous Liasons" (1988) and later in "Pulp Fiction". Here, her acting felt stiff and forced, not only with her bad New York accent which sounded like a horrible impression of Mae West. I just really wasn't convinced when she fought with Ward on screen. I detected no emotion of any kind when she was supposed to be emotional, and you could almost see the traces of glycerin when she was supposed to cry.

Another person who acted pretty badly here was Richard E. Grant, who played Anais' husband Hugo Guiler. It seemed like Grant's main role in this film was to criticize Anais for not coming to social functions, and to turn the other eye when Anais had affairs with both Henry and June. Maybe that was the point of his role, but Grant was not even the slightest bit convincing. Every line he spoke sounded as if he was reading it from a cue card.

So this film is about decaying marriages in the midst of Paris and a social circle of struggling writers, and was very reminiscent of Ernest Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises" in many respects. So why did it deserve the NC-17 rating?

My opinion is that it didn't, and it seemed as though the filmmakers threw in prostitutes and nudity in an attempt to purposefully go beyond the R-rating. Even then, I thought the sex scenes, especially the ones with prostitutes, didn't contribute well to the story at all. As I watched these scenes progress, I couldn't help but think, "What does this have to do with anything!?!?!" Such prolonged sex scenes weighed the story down and slowed the film's pace to a dull crawl.

Because of its rating, "Henry & June" made movie history, but the film spent two hours and seventeen minutes telling a story that could have been told in an hour and fifteen minutes. While Medeiros and Ward acted well in their parts, Thurman and Grant were noticeably weak. The provocative scenes this movie provided may have been erotic, but often times felt unnecessary to the plot. It's too bad also, because the movie's rating gives this film a significance that it really never deserved.

Anaïs Nin: "Something is always born of excess - great art was born of great terror, great loneliness, great inhibitions, instabilities, and it always balances them."

[Galina_movie_fan · 8/10 · 20 October 2008]

"Henry & June" (1990) by Philip Kaufman which is based on the book by Anais Nin is a wonderful film, a rare and admirable example of how an art-house erotic film should be made. It tells an interesting story that concerns the famous and scandalous American writer Henry Miller during the period of work on his first major work, "Tropic of Cancer" in 1931 in Paris and two women without whom the book would not have happened. One of them is his wife, June Miller, who is a constant presence under the different names in all Miller's works. The other - Henry's (and June's) close friend, lover, and confidant, Anais Nin. The film is an adaptation or mediation over the Anais Nin's journal which she wrote for 60 years and described in it the intimate details her inner world, including experiences with sexuality, and the meetings and relationships with prominent bohemian personalities of literature and art, who came from around the world to Paris, always known as the Mecca for creative individuals. Nin said about her life long writing in diary, "This diary is my kief, hashish, and opium pipe. This is my drug and my vice." Anais met in Paris provincial but talented non-conformist Miller and his exotic, sensual, and irresistible wife June (Uma Thurman never looked so attractive, as in this movie) and began affairs with both of them that would change their lives and influence enormously both Miller's and Nin's literary work. Anais is also known and praised as one of the first and the finest female writers of erotica. One of the reasons for film's success was director/writer Philip Kaufman's ability to delicately transfer to the screen the erotic intense atmosphere of Nin's writing as well as the spirit of Bohemian Paris in the beginning of the 1930s.

At the of Anais' request, her journal was published only after the death of all the participants in the events. Anais' relationship with Henry and June, which led to her own realization as writer, served as the basis for the Philip Kaufman's film. Kaufman wrote the script together with his wife Rose, and made a brilliant, disturbing, outrageous film, which had made history by having been the first USA film to receive the NR-17 Rating, so called "kiss of death". Henry and June is an adult film in the literal meaning of this word, it is the movie made for adults which explores in the insightful, exiting and artistic way the motivations, inspirations, and desires of the famous figures of Art. The acting is universally good with terrific Maria de Medeiros as Anais Nin. It is impossible to take one's eyes off her face - so charming, lovely, and desirable she is. She possesses the power of commanding the screen and she is the best thing in the movie which belongs to her Anais Nin.

Forgettable!

[b4peace · 23 July 2001]

So some people described this film as: "great cinema", "absorbing movie", "perfectly acted", "amazing story", "stunningly filmed", and so on. I must have been watching a different movie!!!

Maybe we like movies if we see ourselves reflected in them? I couldn't relate to these characters. Were they really like this? I've been curious about Anais Nin for years and if this her actual portrayal, well I'm very disappointed. Henry, June and Anais are all selfish people who actually need to feel pain to feel alive! What a weird lot! And Hugo, what a fool to love someone like Anais.

None of them seem to know the meaning of true love. Anais particularly. June got it right when she criticised her for using people as food for her writing.

There's nothing in this film that makes it endearing or memorable to me. I lost interest early on but watched to the end in the hope that the film would redeem itself. But if you want an experience of erotica, then maybe this is a good example. And June Miller became a social worker (end credits)... give me a break!

I just wanted it to end but it never would

[sarah_se1 · 4/10 · 4 January 2003]

I suppose that the IDEA of the film Henry & June is alright; you know, find yourself, discover who you are, etc., etc. ... but does it really have to involve so much prolonged sex scenes? And really, what WAS the point?

I kept on waiting for this film to actually, I don't know... begin, I suppose. It just seemed to go in circles. And just when you think that you can't take it anymore, they throw in another half an hour. I kept on thinking to myself, For God's sake, this is almost bordering on porn. All sex, and minimal pointless plot (and what good plot there was, they sure didn't focus on it as much as trying to create arousing scenes) Why don't I just leave? --- I didn't leave, although now I wish I had. I just kept on hoping that it was going to get better. But it didn't. I stayed in the end because I figured that I might as well if I had made it through the rest of it.

I thought that the actors were ok though, considering what they had to work with. But in the end presentation will never add up to substance, and substance there was not. Again, I beg of the director, What the hay was the actual point? I give Henry & June a 3 out of 10. See it if you so desire, but I REALLY don't recommend it.

An enchanting and overlooked film

[Idocamstuf · 8/10 · 30 December 2004]

Director Phillip Kaufman stirred up quite a bit of controversy when this film was first being released, most likely because of the intensity of the love scenes, but after watching the DVD I am now thinking that this film could have maybe slipped by with an R rating. The film faired poorly at the box-office, but seemed to have received generally positive reviews. The best element of this film is the atmosphere, which truly resembles the time period in which the film takes place. The story of the romance between the two writers is interesting on its own, but the great acting gives it a boost. Overall, a highly worthwhile film that will come as a pleasant surprise. The 6.3 rating is too low. I would say it deserves at the very least a 7. Ill give it an 8.