I've read a lot of comments about the film and how it's so hard for people to believe that it is a sequel to Henry Fool, and even though it technically is, I think that Fay Grim needs to be looked at as an entirely different film. Just because it is the sequel doesn't mean that it has to be a direct continuation of the first, and I enjoyed that so much about it. The whole point of the film was to change direction from the first, which makes sense because the movie isn't called Henry Fool 2, it's Fay Grim. All that aside, the film, I thought, was so well made and thought out that it actually surprised me. I was expecting to rent another nearly-released-straight-to-video film and have to endure 2 hours of bad editing and an almost hard to follow story-line (aka parker's last direct to video feature the Oh in Ohio) but this was so surprisingly well focused that it almost doesn't seem so, which I absolutely loved. There are so many nuances in the film making and writing that I crave to see in films, but never do. The cinematography was brilliant due to it's simplicity and truly making the film seem 'Grim' throughout - in terms of setting. The writing was so well put together as well, whoever said this movie isn't as witty as Henry Fool needs to watch again and actually listen; I almost can't even begin to explain how actually hilarious it was, and pertinent. And well, Parker Posey, who could complain? The scene in which Fool and Jalal were talking in the dark was so captivating and emotional. And I thought the spy-ness throughout the film was just so hilarious and spot on (in hindsight because i do agree that at times during you kind of felt lost). The main thing that struck me so powerfully about the film, and i believe the point of the film, was Parker's love and naivety about Fool, which was so endearing and turned, yes very quickly, from denial to outright passion. The last five minutes of the film were perfect. Obviously there were things that weren't excellent, but nothing is perfect; some of the acting was poor, and at times I did think that some of the new back story and dialogue about terrorism got a little hard to follow and out of hand, but in the end you got it and didn't even mind that at the time it may have slipped from your comprehension. (This may also have to do with Goldblum's tendency to talk extremely fast) On the whole I would say that it was probably one of the best films I've seen this year; stylistically pleasing, clever and witty writing, performances that were so impressive I now have gained new respect for some of the actors, and a truly touching film, and don't forget, a complete departure from Fool. Which was the point.

Robert Taylor definitely showed himself to be a fine dramatic actor in his role as a gun-slinging buffalo hunter in this 1956 western. It was one of the few times that Taylor would play a heavy in a film. Nonetheless, this picture was far from great as shortly after this, Taylor fled to television with the successful series The Detectives.
Stuart Granger hid his British accent and turned in a formidable performance as Taylor's partner.
Taylor is a bigot here and his hatred for the Indians really shows.
Another very good performance here was by veteran actor Lloyd Nolan as an aged, drinking old-timer who joined in the hunt for buffalo as well. In his early scenes, Nolan was really doing an excellent take-off of Walter Huston in his Oscar-winning role in The Treasure of the Sierre Madre in 1948. Note the appearance of Russ Tamblyn in the film. The following year Tamblyn and Nolan would join in the phenomenal Peyton Place.
The writing in the film is stiff at best. By the film's end, it's the elements of nature that did Taylor in. How about the elements of the writing here?