Rating: 
Summary: Portrait of a human monster...
Review: This controversial film is widely regarded as one of the scariest films of all time. It isn't a conventional horror film with special effects, demons, ghosts, monsters, etc. It relies on shocking realism to scare the audience, and it is very effective. Michael Rooker gives an incredibly chilling performance as Henry Lee Lucas, a cold-blooded serial killer who roamed the country for years randomly killing people (mainly women). Besides Michael Rooker, Tom Towles & Tracy Arnold are also perfectly cast. The music is creepy but not over-the-top & works very well with the movie. As a realistic portrayal of a serial killer, this movie is not for the squeamish or very young viewers. After watching the movie, read "Henry Lee Lucas: the Shocking True Story of America's Most Notorious Serial Killer" by Joel Norris. Trust me, it's even more shocking than the film!
Rating: 
Summary: Please consider before you see
Review: I have seen many films that will stay with you long after the viewing of them. I rented this film because so many people on this website felt that this movie was so disturbing. Well, it's really not. I'm not saying this simply because I have a high tolerance for violence in films. But I'm saying it because this film is as scary as watching the "Nightmare on Elm Street" or "Friday the 13th" for the first time today. It may scare some but for those of you who find the uneasiness of films like "Irreversible" more to your taste, it would be wise to pass this one up.
Rating:
Summary: dear god, kill all hicks before they get any ideas
Review: i have spent my life searching out the most disturbing and perverted movies to watch and share with my (apprehensive) friends. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is the most disturbing video i have ever witnessed, and several years after watching the movie i still can not forget the murder of the suburban family that has been described in other reviews here. It is possibly the most horrifying filmed scene ever witnessed. And this is from a guy who thought A Clockwork Orange was a comedy.
Rating:
Summary: Scary as hell
Review: This is the only movie that actually scared me so bad that I couldnt sleep. The murder of the family is more terrorfying than the dinner scene in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This is not to be missed by a true horror fan.
Rating: 
Summary: Brutally Candid Horror..
Review: Body after body is depicted together with murdering agonizing screams as a background sound. This is the beginning of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, which instills a nightmarish vision of the mind of a serial killer. The film is loosely based on Henry Lee Lucas who was emotionally, physically, and sexually abused as child by his mother while living with his handicapped father who had lost his legs in an train accident. Henry had been forced to wear dresses and watch his mother having sex with strangers, which has created internal enraged emotions toward women. In addition, Henry shows an emotional numbness whenever he has killed someone as if he had just finished the last of his coffee.The story takes place in the Chicago area where Henry lives with Otis and Becky. Otis spent time in jail with Henry where the two became friends. His sister Becky has recently escaped an abusive relationship while Henry goes about trying to find odd jobs and killing women in random ways as it will not leave a trail back to him. However, when living in close quarters with others it is does not take long before Otis finds out about Henry's secret, but instead of going to the police they partner up. Henry teaches him the secret of killing for pleasure and together they begin to find ways of sharing these grotesque moments with each other. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer has some interesting cinematic moments where a camera is use for the main point-of-view, which later is transferred into the living room. This brings a morbidly surreal experience to the audience as the fetish of the disturbed characters is brought to the eyes of the audience in a revolting manner. Yet, it is a subtle transition, which most people have experienced through their own home video moments. The story is filmed with highly grained film stock, which enhances the realistic acuity of the environment as it brings further horror to the minds of the audience. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is a highly disturbing film that experiments with audience participation in the film in a most clever way, which leaves the audience with a truly horrific cinematic experience.
Rating:
Summary: Now THIS is a truly scary horror flick
Review: After watching the entire run of `Nightmare on Elm Street' and a few of the `Friday the 13th' flicks, I found myself rather unimpressed by the whole slasher-horror deal. I was given a couple starts here `n' there, and was occasionally grodied-out by a few of the more gratuitous scenes of gore, but overall I didn't find any of the flicks particularly scary or disturbing. Thanks to these movies I was about to give up on the horror scene, seein' as how I wasn't actually scared, shocked, or all that disturbed by what I had witnessed. That's when `Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' came to the rescue. Now, THIS film really is quite disturbing, and is very scary at times. It's most likely due to the fact that it's loosely based on the exploits of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, and was set in the real world where there aren't any Christmas-sweatered burn victims killing you in your dreams, nor a seven-foot-tall hockey-masked machete-wielder aimin' to hack you to bits. The whole this-could-actually-be-happening-right-now-somewhere angle helped fill me with a good sense of dread, and gave me more of a scare than any ghost-&-goblin fare could ever hope to. I couldn't believe the pleasure the titular character and his buddy, a near-`tard of a killer-in-training, took in the murder of a motorist and an abusive fence (stolen goods dealer). Then there's the home invasion that they video taped for posterity, which I understand caused some viewers to walk outta the theater at a few of the film festivals this played in. The eye-stabbing scene was pretty hard to witness, even though it was a rather brief cut, and it was apparent that the head that received the eyeball-stab was a dummy head made up to sorta look like the character who suffers the injury. Topping things off is the utterly strange `romance' that develops between Henry and Otis' sister, which culminates in one of the saddest most eff'd-up endings I've ever witnessed. Put these all together and combine `em with Henry's deceptive façade of harmlessness, and you've got a horror movie that's truly horrible. I'd finally found what I was lookin' for... Included with the DVD edition of the movie is a half-hour-long interview with writer-director John McNaughton, who discusses his filmmaking background, what inspired him to create `Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer', and a few of the difficulties he encountered making the movie and keeping it within its low budget. Also thrown in are brief text production notes, English subtitles, and trailers for `Henry' 1 and 2. Although I haven't heard too many good things about Part 2, the trailer to it looked promising. Methinks I know what I'll be checkin' out, next time I hit the local Blockbuster... `Late
Rating:
Summary: Mean as a junkyard dog
Review: The reputation of John McNaughton's "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is enormous in the realm of independent cinema. Made on a budget of over one hundred thousand dollars back in the 1980s, the movie went on to polarize viewers and critics alike. Some praised McNaughton's unflinching vision, his nihilistic portrayal of two lower class killers with nothing to live for and nothing to lose. The other camp rejected the film outright, deriding it as the worst sort of exploitative trash cinema. I tend to favor the former opinion; I think McNaughton's film is a brilliant look at a microscopic segment of society we all know exists even if it is rarely discussed. Besides, bashing the film as exploitative beggars the question of who it is exploiting. Serial killers? Guys like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Henry Lee Lucas (the killer McNaughton loosely based the film on) could stand to have a bit more mud slung on their already malevolent reputations. I cannot find one scene in the movie that idolizes what these two guys do in their spare time. And, unlike slasher films and sundry other horror films, "Henry" demonstrates that violent acts have serious consequences. "Henry" takes place in the dirty, gray streets and alleyways of Chicago. Henry (Michael Rooker) and his prison pal Otis (Tom Towles) spend their days working low paying jobs, drinking beer, and watching television. Otis toils at a gas station in between trips to his parole officer. Henry works as an insect exterminator (!). Things start looking up when Becky (Tracy Arnold), Otis's sister, moves in with the pair to escape the doldrums of small town life. Although she has some problems back home with a troublesome boyfriend, Becky takes a shine to Henry almost immediately. She pesters her brother for information about the man and is not disturbed in the least when Otis tells her that Henry went to prison for murdering his mother. In fact, she finds this information rather intriguing. Henry comes to like Becky too, so much so that he steps in when Otis treats her in a disturbing manner. The presence of Becky complicates the odd relationship between the two men, a relationship that is soon to take a horrific turn as Otis discovers what Henry does in his spare time. Henry is a serial killer, a despicable murderer who preys on total strangers. He thinks nothing of following a potential victim home from the mall, or picking up strangers in bars and then dispatching them in grisly ways. Henry likes the feeling he gets from his crimes, and he soon involves Otis in his gruesome activities. Why his friend decides to help is a mystery. Perhaps he feels Becky driving a wedge between him and Henry. Otis exhibits many of the behaviors associated with a follower, and Henry is definitely a take-charge sort of guy, so maybe that is the overriding reason. Whatever the case, Otis soon becomes as enthusiastic about murder as Henry. When Otis complains about being angry one evening, his pal helpfully relieves the tension by tricking a passing car into stopping so the two can shoot the driver. A broken television set provides the impetus for a killing at a fence's office. The absolute worst crime involving these two, however, is something we see on videotape as Henry and Otis relive their thrills. Predictably, Becky soon discovers what her brother and his friend do when they aren't at home. The conclusion to the film is a shocker. Any way you cut it (no pun intended), "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is an excruciating experience. The crimes, while not overtly gory, revel in the sheer sadism of the act. If McNaughton was attempting to evoke a sense of outrage on the part of the audience, he succeeded wildly. You cannot even stand to look at these people after awhile, so repulsive are their actions. I found myself praying for a police officer, a security guard, a neighborhood watch guy-anybody in authority to show up and put a stop to these two goons' activities. But as evil in real life often goes unchecked, so do Henry's and Otis's extracurricular activities in Chicago. The film accomplishes what it sets out to do largely because the performances of the two actors playing the principal characters do such a good job. "Henry" was Michael Rooker's first film, and I agree with McNaughton when he says in the interview on the disc that this actor had star written all over him. Rooker plays Henry as a sort of withdrawn, soft-spoken type that probably would appear unthreatening to potential victims. Just as good is Tom Towles as the grubby Otis, who portrays his character as an insufferable extrovert who occasionally sinks into pouty silences. Without these two actors, one wonders whether "Henry" would have become the cult classic it is today. The DVD version of the film is a good one. A lengthy interview with John McNaughton tells the viewer everything they ever wanted to know about the movie. The director explains the long road to finishing the project, his experiences when it finally opened in a theater, and the lengthy battle with the MPAA over the rating for the movie, a battle which saw the censors pushing for extensive cuts to avoid the dreaded 'X' rating while McNaughton fought to keep his vision intact. Considering some of the extreme films floating around out there today, the concerns of the censors seem rather archaic now. Still, the film has lost little of its power to disturb deeply. Fans of offbeat cinema, if they have not done so already, will wish to pick this one up soon.
|
