Rating: 
Summary: henry IS a horror movie
Review: this movie is soo sweet, an' im not playin' stabbin cuttin stranglin, then he kills the girl after he tells her he loves her how sweet!!!! whatta great movie only few flaws but easy to look past to ht great story and nifty effects
Rating:
Summary: an alternative to the flashy fun of "smart serial killers"
Review: In the 1990s there was a flood of "smart" serial killer movies, madmen who toyed with the cops and left clues for the detectives in charge to solve or else they were as much to blame for the deaths as the killer himself. These movies such as SEVEN and BONE COLLECTOR are good films, inviting you to play along, but the sad truth is the real reason most killers don't get caught is more like the reasons in HENRY...which makes the film all the more brilliant than the "smart" killer films. HENRY chooses to sink its teeth into the reality of a serial killer's life: here we have Henry, a low-class illiterate sexually repressed drifter who has numerous qualities that'd make you love the guy, but there is that nuisance of a tendency he has to just go out and butcher whoever he happens to come across first. Hell, he even helps his friend Otis kill someone just because Otis wa angry about something else! The film is essentially plotless, the camera drifting (just like Henry) across scenes of whitetrash melodrama and ruthless home invasions. The murder scenes here are far from the FRIDAY THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN style of flashy fun. In fact the only death scene that will make anyone cheer is when Henry smashes a TV set over the head of an annoying fat [person] selling hot electronic equipment out of what looks to be his garage. All in all, a shocking dose of reality that is an antidote to all those goofy slasher flicks that flood the American market. Course everyone is so burnt out on all the dopey FRIDAY knockoffs, who knows if they'll be able to appreciate the real deal?
Rating: 
Summary: Realistic but sick
Review: The acting in HENRY is very natural, but the subject material is a bit sick. There is one scene especially which was disturbing for me, and that was a house invasion where a family is wiped out in a realistic slaughter. I usually am not disturbed by gore, but the way it was presented was upsetting to me. The acting in the movie was realistic and exceptionally well done. It doesn't seem to have a moral to the story, because the killer does not get caught and goes on to murder again in Henry II, although I felt this actor did a much better job. Another thing which disturbed me was the running time, which is shown as 130 minutes, but ran just a bit over 80 minutes. The DVD company must have included the interviews by the director and the previews in the time.
Rating:
Summary: Henry: The True Face of Horror
Review: Most horror films are like roller coaster rides--we get thrills and chills, but we also laugh; we know we're safe. It's only an illusion of fear, not fear itself. John McNaughton's Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is fear itself. We cannot laugh after this movie, cannot recount its most famous scenes with pleasure, because this film stands as one of the bleakest, most relentless depictions of a murderer ever put to celluloid. It's practically a documentary. I rank it with "Psycho" as one of the greatest of all-time horror films. This film is light years from Hollywood treatments of serial killers. Sure, Se7en was really good, but come ON people, when did you EVER hear of a murderer with such an apocalyptic, clever, and convenient M.O.? Henry, as played by Michael Rooker, is an emotional blank, a human cipher. He's not sympathetic at all--no wisecracks, no catch-phrases, nothing that we can latch on to to understand him. Therein lies the power of the movie. If Henry revelled in his bloodshed, we could despise him. If he suffered crippling feelings of guilt afterwards, we could pity him. But you can't do either. You just kind of watch him, hoping he won't go too far... that he'll stop soon... that some tough detective would track him down... But none of these things happen. "It's always the same, and it's always different," Henry tells his friend Otis (Tom Towles), who eventually ventures out with Henry on his killing sprees. Why? Because he's stupid, restless, filled with unfocused loathing. What more of an explanation do you need? "It's either you or them, one way or another." That's all the rationale you'll get for Henry's compulsion, and it's as good an explanation as any. The plot, such as it is, takes a twist for the worst when Otis' sister Becky (Tracy Arnold) comes to stay with him and Henry in Chicago. Lonely and destitute after the break-up of her marriage, she finds Henry someone she can talk to because he's not "judgmental." Read: he's a blank slate upon whom she can project whatever she wants, and right now she wants someone to understand her. In one subtly chilling scene, she tells Henry how she had been beaten and raped repeatedly by her father as a teen. Henry says to her in his deadend rasp, "Didn't get along with your Daddy, huh?" Henry's normally placid demeanor dissolves only when he talks about his abusive mother. I like how he misremembers how he murdered her. That strikes me as really true and accurate; serial killers are like THIS. "It ain't what she done," he says, "it's how she done it." We see how brutality breeds brutality, how violence and despair and rage are almost a genetic code. But the director, John McNaughton, isn't making a message movie--you gotta pick up on this stuff yourself. Go watch an Oliver Stone movie if you want socially redeemable violence (which is an oxymoron). While certain watchdogs of morality in film howl that the realistic depiction of violence in movies ultimately desensitizes the viewer, nothing could be further from the truth in Henry. Can anyone watch the videotape sequence herein, where Henry and Otis slaughter an entirely family and not be left feeling disturbed, violated, empty? The murders are virtually bloodless, and yet it may be the most unsettling screen violence I have ever seen (well, up until I saw Mr. Orange's torture bit in 1992). I wanted it to... go away... But then, real violence makes you feel that way. That's what makes Henry brilliant--no cheap thrills. McNaughton is playing for real. Like many people, I cringe when I see violence in a film, but unlike many, I can't turn away. We need films this raw and immediate and rough to explore such foul things--you can't expect Hollywood to do it. "But if you strangle one, and stab another, and one you cut up and one you don't, then the police don't know what to," Henry explains. And there's the moral center of this movie. Sorry. This is not about good and evil, because there is no such thing in the serial killer's world. Don't pretend that there is. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is a horror film in which the truly horrified is not the character on the screen, as it too often is, but the audience itself. This is not an enjoyable film, but it is one you must see.
Rating: 
Summary: Henry - portrait of a bad film !
Review: Warning - this film contains scenes which may be disturbing to some viewers, that's what it says on the front cover, but where are they ? The only thing that's disturbing about this film is that I payed £10 for a film which is the worst I have seen for a long time. I don't recommend this film to anyone. The acting is dreadful, filming is bad and the script is terrible. Do not buy this film.
Rating:
Summary: UGH!
Review: Okay, this may be real. This may be what's really out there. Does that mean it's good?. God no. Some people give praise to awful trash movies like this simply because their true. Because they can and have happened. This is a disturbingly disgusting and vile film that unwatchable from the get go. Even something as awful as "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" seems like Oscar material compared to this.
Rating:
Summary: A Masterpiece From the Windy City
Review: Never has a movie been as shocking as Henry:Portrait of a Serial Killer is, and not been exploitative. This is a movie that knew how to convey it's ideas while doing so without attempting to entertain those who dig gratuitous sex and violence. A serial killer who leaves his victims mangled, slit, and often undressed. It would be sooo easy to turn this into a drive-in stalk-and-slash skin flick. Thank God they saw the possibilities beyond that.
This film is brutally honest and nihilistic. It doesn't sing it's message to you in a sweet voice, it just displays the cruel actions of characters who are too far gone to know exactly what they are doing. Urban isolation, anger management, they kill for all or none of these reasons, the viewer can never really tell. That's what makes this film so great. Often, serial-killers are so diseased mentally that their murders are beyond comprehension. The viewer is forced to watch the film and determine for themselves why these innocent people are killed. This movie was so explicit that it was held without a rating for several years, with the dreaded "X" rating threatened to be applied. It was eventually released un-rated, in uncut form. Do your self a favor and study this movie, the world will never seem quite the same again.
Rating:
Summary: not good
Review: I was really disappointed in this movie. I thought it was at least close to a true crime movie and would be some how correct, but it isn't. I do not recommended it to any true crime fan.
Rating: 
Summary: Scarier Than Hannibal Lector
Review: Hannibal Lector is viewed as one of the most terrifying abominations every created. He is brilliant, sadistic and cooler than James Bond in a tight situation. Yet Henry(wonderfully acted by Michael Rooker), is far scarier because he is sooo real. He could be the guy next door or the maintenance man coming to fix your a/c. He is brutal, without conscience, unpredicatable and deceptively smart. His mind is a cesspool churning with a lust for death. He and his equally deranged friend Otis, kill and kill and kill...never once seeming the least bit remorseful or ashamed. I wouldn't say this movie is as scary as it is disturbing. The graphic scenes of violence are haunting. They stick with you long after the movie is done. The slaughter of a suburban family and random shooting are particularly unsettling. The ending though, tops it off. Visually it is not gory but never has such a simple camera shot sent shivers down my spine. If you want to see a truly horrifying movie then come no further.
Rating:
Summary: Shocking, Chilling, Thrilling, Disturbing
Review: Truly a shocking film, Henry grabs you by the collar, shakes you several times, and then, as if that weren't enough, slaps you a couple of times for good measure. As harrowing as any experience can be, I must say I was truly disturbed after watching this film. Right from the first scene showing the bodies of some of the people Henry's killed, to the very quiet final scene, this film is truly a piece of grisly, yet wonderful Art. Director John McNaughton keeps the suspense running about the fate of the other characters, while he inexorably draws us in, slowly, bit by bit, murder by murder. Tracy Arnold plays a streetwise girl, who is also the sister of Tom Towles in the film. Tom is shown as being a very lecherous character, not sparing cute things, male of female; that aspect makes for some funny (albeit disturbing) scenes. The film undoubtedly belongs to Michael Rooker, who shines blindingly under the able tutelage of John. Some scenes are way too gory to be even DESCRIBED - such is the power and intensity of the film. Some moments are really, really bizarre, especially the ones that include the murders the two lowlives commit, deliberately, slowly, and very cruelly. There is no Police investigation ever, mainly because most of those that die are not THAT prominent...most have sleazy lives, worm-eaten and miserable. But there are also some decent people, living the good life, that fall prey to the two monsters. It's a torturous experience to watch the film, but one cannot deny that the horror and shock are, well, horrific and shocking. Don't miss it, is all I can say.
|
