Rating: 
Summary: it was so dope
Review: this movie was so dope it gets in your head and then scares the hell out of you. it isn't the best horror film but it is very cool.
Rating: 
Summary: Total waste of time
Review: This film is the most over hyped load of sick, disgusting rubbish I have ever seen! When I heard of the documentary stlye I thought that the characters would in some way be intereacting with the camera man etc. But this was not the case. The film is campy and I wouldn't consider it a serious effort for psychological thriller/horror. The director probably intended the violence to be serious and shocking but it ended up cheesier than the texas chainsaw massacre (which actually benefitted form being so campy). To sum up this film, TOTAL PANTS! If you want an intense psychological scare get 'THE EXORCIST', if you want cheesy, slasher escapism get the 'TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE'. Forget this film, it's utter rubbish!
Rating:
Summary: a masterpiece...
Review: One of the most frightening, intense psychological thrillers ever made, "Henry..." was the target of the MPAA in early '86. By initially applying the X rating on this profoundly disturbing film, it forced the filmakers to release the film unrated and into fewer theatres than they intended. As it was, audiences across America were shocked at the documentery style film, with its callous disregard of humanity, and its willingness to wallow in the deepest, darkest emotions any person can experience. As Henry, Michael Rooker gives a cold, complex and in some ways, strangely sympathetic performance. His emotional state is very well expressed on his face and his deep internal torment is always apparent. I think the film would not have worked as well without Mr. Rooker's brave, intense performance. While not explicitly gory, the film features graphic violence and has the ability to scar you psychologically. Be aware of this before buying or renting this film. A landmark in independant film making and in psychological terror. A maverick vision of unrelenting bleakness and alienation.
Rating:
Summary: without question one of the best docu-horrors ever made.
Review: A well-deserved cult classic and my personal horror fave of all time, this chillingly real flick is the perfect anecdote for those of you who are tired of having your intelligence insulted by Generation X movies like "Scream" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer".
Rating:
Summary: Gripping hybrid of horror and drama.
Review: This new edition ("Director's edition") is actually identical to the ones you could find in a video store. The copy I'd seen before was exactly the same as this (I went through the movie and found no new shots, scenes, or cuts). The documentary with John McNaughton looks rushed and incomplete -- nothing about the production history of the movie, the involvement of Tom Towles and Tracy Arnold, or the music. It does feature McNaughton's funny description of his first meeting with Michael Rooker, which is good for Henry fanatics like me.Though the "extras" are a little disappointing as a whole, that doesn't change the fact that this is one of the most intense films of the past two decades. Lodge Kerrigan's Clean, Shaven is the only one that pops to my mind right now with the same amount of tension. Henry triumphs on the strength of a dedicated cast (even making use of Tom Towles' annoying habit of overacting his creep roles), great writing, and McNaughton's cinematic sense. Two movies were made around the same time that were based on Henry Lee Lucas: This one, and 1987's Confessions of a Serial Killer. Just go with Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Chilling and emotive, engrossing and shocking, this is one of the rare occasions in cinema where a horror film has achieved true dignity.
Rating:
Summary: An awesome horror flick
Review: This movie is great! It just is really a cheap movie, but it was written so well it seems like a big budget movie.It is based on Texas serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. For a little trivia,in a scene where the main charecters, Otis and Henry rape a housewife, the actor who played the wife went into shock after the film was released. So if you like a good scary movie, pick up this one!
Rating: 
Summary: Graphic, Gore, but not Factual!
Review: While the story and gore were shocking, if you take the time to read about the crime you would know that this video is far from the truth. Henry lost an eye at a young age, Otis died in prison, the list goes on and on. This is a great gore movie, but having done some research on Henry I found this story to be far removed from the actual events that took place.
Rating:
Summary: Don't miss out on this one - tight, powerful and brilliant
Review: This is one of those films where less means more. Just picture the improbable following: a wealthy studio, in some flight of fancy, suddenly decided to produce this film. The violence would have been sugar-coated, there would have been some embarrassingly inadequate comic relief and there would have been a happy end, curtsy of the super-agent on duty. Since it was made with a largely (at the time) unknown cast and practically non-existent budget, John McNaughton, the director, made it tight, powerful and brilliant. One of the best things in this film is that it defies Hollywood conventionality by placing amoral characters at the centre of the action. In most films, characters are never adequately fleshed-out because film-makers live under the sadly true impression that most people will not like a film if they don't have someone they can root for. Personally, I don't give two hoots about rooting for the characters. What I like in a film is fully-rounded characters and depth, and this over-looked gem of a film is full of both. So at the center of the action stands a serial killer called Henry. We see his victims, the banality of his daily life depicted against the run-down slums of Chicago. Unlike many psycho-come-lately films, there is no explanation for his actions. In a way, this is the closest a film has come to pinning down the mentality of such a killer: murder is an end in itself. We see raw depictions of Henry's "exploits" with his friend Ottis, and there is brilliance once more in the shocking scenes of their killings, because violence is shown as it is, not as the flip commercial worry that sidelines so many Hollywood films. The acting is also powerful, especially because there are no A-list stars in the film - there is a disturbing feeling of normalcy to the characters. Summing up, a masterpice that shows serial killers with a "slice-of-life" approach. No gimmicks, no gloss, no self-conscious style. Just what good fiction purports itself to do: achieve the blinding power of monotonous reality. Note: Although this film is based on the real-life characters of Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Elwood Toole, it is quite different from their real story. This is fiction, not a documentary.
Rating: 
Summary: CULT MOVIES 28
Review: 28. HENRY: portrait of a serial killer (horror-thriller, 1992) Henry (Michael Rooker) lives with his ex-prison buddy Otis whose sister Becky moves in with them. Despite his shy nature Henry and Becky are attracted to each other. One night Otis and Henry go out with 2 prostitutes. In a fit of rage Henry kills one of them and with Otis' help kills the other. At first having second thoughts Otis gets a taste for killing and they set out on a murder spree. Otis first shoots down a passing motorist. They then break into a house and slaughter a whole family (dog and all). They record everything on tape. Otis begins to lose control as his perverse sexual urges lead him to rape his own sister. When Henry finds out things take a turn for the worst. Critique: This graphic, low-budget venture was made in 1986 but due to the material was released 6 years later. The story is based on the confessions of serial killer Henry Lukas (who allegedly confessed to more than 500 murders). Since the plot eschews from any reference of real events the theme is poorly presented. Writer-director John McNaughton concentrates more on the nature of killing and the people that commit them. The only sure thing we know as being Henry's murderous excuse was that his prostitute mother beat him up, and sometimes forced him to watch her have sex with clients. Besides that the scary thing is that we don't really get to understand his (or anyone else's) motives for killing. As is the case with most low-budget films the use of grainy stock footage and cheap props prove very realistic. McNaughton shows flair by the use of hand-held cameras (particularly in the disturbing 'family slaughter') and good use of cinematography (invoking a visionary paranoia and suspense). The ending further distances us from the nature of evil. QUOTES: pawnbroker: "Of course it's black and white. What do you expect for 50 bucks? ****** 3-D for God's sake?"
Rating:
Summary: It's horrifying because it's all too real...
Review: Let me start by saying that I love horror films and I have seen hundreds in my forty plus years of life. Out of those, perhaps a dozen or so truly scared or disturbed me. This one did. To classify "Henry" as a merely a horror film, sells it short. The casual horror fan who maybe expecting another "slasher film" will be disappointed --it is not a gore fest of special effects with bogey men jumping from shadows (in fact, some of the few special effects in "Henry" look somewhat amateurish compared to a great many slasher films). It's disturbing because the filmakers do not give the audience an easy out in terms of rationalizing Henry's lifestyle (emphasis on "lifestyle", not just homicidal behavior). And this film has the most chilling anti-climatic ending in the history of horror. This is a must see for true fans of horror or fans of independent film making.
|
