I saw this film in December 2000 at the Black Nights Film Festival in Tallinn, Estonia. It was one of the best films there.
I don't recall all of the finer plot points, but I do remember that the film goes much deeper than the "thriller" context into which a lot of people commenting on this site keep wanting to pigeonhole it. To me it was about the often losing struggle to find balance between one's creative impulses and the realities of one's life. It's really about finding one's place in one's own life, and I find it to be quite inspiring. I even agree somewhat with the criticisms that it wasn't exciting enough - it wasn't meant to be. In my mind, this film is not really a thriller and IS a psychological drama of the highest order.
Curiously enough, at the same Black Nights fest, M. Night Shyamalan's UNBREAKABLE was showing, and I think that that film is probably a good Hollywood equivalent to HARRY. The similarity between these two films is not so obvious, but it there is some passing resemblance. The way the films get to where they're going is quite different, but the destination seems to be the same.
***POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD***
Extremely well acted by the two leads, Sergi Lopez and Laurent Lucas, the film paints a wonderful portrait of a highly creative man trapped in a humdrum life half-rescued by an entity that's all will and no conscience. The interpretation expressed by other viewers commenting here that Harry is but a figment of Michel's imagination is intriguing to me, and seems to fit. It does play around with some of the themes that can be found in FIGHT CLUB (which I also like, by the way,) but it's a lot less bombastic.
As a thirtysomething who caught the writing bug long ago, but hasn't been all around "successful" at it and a bit browbeaten by "everyday" life, I can relate very well to Michel. He's actually quite a likeable and sane character, even if Harry seems like a pathological manifestation of his frustrations.
I suppose then that this is one of those films that "isn't for everybody." No film really is for every damn body, but some films are an acquired taste. If you're tuned into the film's concerns somewhat like I surmise myself to be, you'll dig it. If not, it is likely to be somewhat of a bore.
I don't recall all of the finer plot points, but I do remember that the film goes much deeper than the "thriller" context into which a lot of people commenting on this site keep wanting to pigeonhole it. To me it was about the often losing struggle to find balance between one's creative impulses and the realities of one's life. It's really about finding one's place in one's own life, and I find it to be quite inspiring. I even agree somewhat with the criticisms that it wasn't exciting enough - it wasn't meant to be. In my mind, this film is not really a thriller and IS a psychological drama of the highest order.
Curiously enough, at the same Black Nights fest, M. Night Shyamalan's UNBREAKABLE was showing, and I think that that film is probably a good Hollywood equivalent to HARRY. The similarity between these two films is not so obvious, but it there is some passing resemblance. The way the films get to where they're going is quite different, but the destination seems to be the same.
***POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD***
Extremely well acted by the two leads, Sergi Lopez and Laurent Lucas, the film paints a wonderful portrait of a highly creative man trapped in a humdrum life half-rescued by an entity that's all will and no conscience. The interpretation expressed by other viewers commenting here that Harry is but a figment of Michel's imagination is intriguing to me, and seems to fit. It does play around with some of the themes that can be found in FIGHT CLUB (which I also like, by the way,) but it's a lot less bombastic.
As a thirtysomething who caught the writing bug long ago, but hasn't been all around "successful" at it and a bit browbeaten by "everyday" life, I can relate very well to Michel. He's actually quite a likeable and sane character, even if Harry seems like a pathological manifestation of his frustrations.
I suppose then that this is one of those films that "isn't for everybody." No film really is for every damn body, but some films are an acquired taste. If you're tuned into the film's concerns somewhat like I surmise myself to be, you'll dig it. If not, it is likely to be somewhat of a bore.