Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

Rating:
Summary: Henry is worthwhile
Review: "Henry: Portriat of a Serial Killer" is one of the most controversial films of all-time. This film deals with Henry (played with such calibur by Michael Rooker) who goes on a pointless killing spree (him and his partner in crime Otis). The brutal murders are shown in explicit detail. Not for the squemish or the weak hearted. Also starring: Tracy Arnold & Tom Towles. Not Rated (originally Rated X) Contains: graphic violence, gore, nudity, rape/incest, suggested sex, drug use and profanity. Directed by: John McNaughton.

Rating:
Summary: AN OVERRATED MOVIE
Review: I'm sure you've kown that situation in your movie lover life : - all your friends have seen a movie you haven't seen yet and they keep telling you it's the best movie of the year and they can't understand why you're the last one of the whole wide world who is still resisting. And you feel a little bit ashamed. Oh, just a little bit but painfully ashamed ! That has happened to me with HENRY. So, eight years later, spread the news, folks, I have bought the DVD ! Yesterday, I sat in my sofa, put the DVD in the player and watched. ... 90 minutes later, I have watched it, I was still in my sofa and I felt terrible. How TIME Magazine could put that movie in its list of the ten best of 1990 ? HENRY is a kind of clinical film ; it depicts the life of a serial killer living with an ex-con and his sister. John McNaughton chose to show us the pure facts without any critical point of view and, in fact, without any linear story. So, we see Henry kill, eat, laugh and drive and we don't know, at the end of the movie, the motivations which lead him to kill. Because Henry always lies even when he seems to make a confidence. It's OK for me if the director had the purpose to present a documentary but if he wanted to present a movie, he failed. For me, I have another word to qualify this kind of stuff : A BOOK. Without pictures. A DVD for the butchers, a corporation I admire very much.

Rating:
Summary: 130min running time is deceptive
Review: There are two things which prevents this film from receiving the 5 stars that the contents merit. The first and main reason is that the 130 minute running time listed gives the impression that, since this is the directors cut, there are 47 minutes more than in the original VHS release. This isn't the case. The running time for the film is totaled along with the time for the suplemental materials. There is no additional material in the body of the film that I could discern (But the VHS screening copy I own may be different from the general release copy in the video stores). The second gripe that I have involves the lack of letterbox. But then again, they may not even have a letterbox version since the original intention for this movie was not to be shown theatrically, but on home video.

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.

Rating:
Summary: Wow
Review: Being intrigued by the serial killer genre I have seen this movie thrown around numerous times by Amazon. I decided to rent it and I was blown away. I won't go into extreme detail because it's not my place to spoil this movie for you. This movie is not based on a true story and it is a low budget flick...

This movie begins and ends with the suberb acting of Michael Rooker, the main character "Henry"... he does an absolute amazing job of depicting the heartlessness of many of these killers. Everything you hear associated with a killer is touched in this film. With most killers you'll hear about no sense of remorse for their victims and that is exactly the personality of the main character. One quote that I won't forget is towards the end when Henry says, "I guess I love you too," in reply to Otis' sisters "I love you Henry."

I won't spoil anymore. If you have any doubts on picking this movie up,don't it is worth it. Do youself a favor and watch it. As always it's not for everyone and some may be offended and disgusted by some of the content but overall it is very clean w/out gore which I appreciated.

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: a MASTERPIECE !
Review: John McNaughton's "HENRY:portrait of a serial killer" is a classic! a prime example of useing reallity to make the viewer's spine tingle. like "TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE" & "MANIAC" this horror movie has that documentary feel to it,its kinda like your a hidden camera watching this very real & scary mess unfold in front of your eye's & your so damn sucked in by the whole thing that you almost want to jump through the tv screen to help some how but you can't. the very uneasy,raw,hopeless,helpless,careless,ice cold,dreadful,nothingness atmosphere that fills this movie is what makes it one of the scariest films ever made,simpley because of the(it could happen to you or me in real life FACTOR). McNaughton reminds us all that reallity is much scarier than fantasy,he reminds us that we are crossing paths with screwballs like HENRY & OTIS everyday & how lucky MOST of us are to make it through everyday life without becoming a victim! this movie is a REAL HORROR MOVIE & i mean REAL! this is truly the type of movie that makes you not want to let your loved ones go anywhere by themselves if you know what i mean! anyway if your a collector like myself then your horror collection is not complete if you don't have this flick! & if your just looking to watch a good scary disturbing horror movie then go rent this one. enjoy!

Rating:
Summary: Not fun, for sure, but worth seeing
Review: Personally, I don't find this film to be nearly as disturbing as lots of other viewers, but it's definitely a disquieting film, It also earns points for being different and for doing what it does remarkably well, particularly considering how little budget they had.

There isn't that much I can say about this movie, really. It just follows the life and exploits of a serial killer, Henry, and his accomplice, Otis. They pretty much just kill, and sit around their apartment. There ain't a whole lot more to it. The performances are all strong, and Rooker's much praised performance as Henry is worthy of it's reputation. I find the different interpretations of his character interesting, as some think he seems like an ordinary guy who has strange impulses he can't control. Though there's an argument for this position, I take the opposite, and I found him to be chillingly and utterly inhuman. He doesn't seem conflicted at all, and his apparent normalcy and humanity at certain points in the film seem to be nothing but an act. Not an act to deceive people, even, he just seems to be a void, reflecting those around him only because that's just what you do. He acts human because that's how others act, but seems to lack to underlying motivations. Why he kills is a mystery as well. He just does it. Otis is a bit more conventionally human, at least in a number of ways. Initially he seems like a joker, not a smart man or a terribly nice man, but not really fundamentally evil either. He's particularly creepy as this side of him remains, and is assimilated into his new personality as, through the film, he is revealed as a [...] and sadist who quickly takes to Henry's grisly trade. The only other character of significance is Becky, Otis's sister who is apparently attracted to Henry(aware that he has murdered before, but not aware that he's a serial killer) and subject to advances from Otis. She doesn't do that much in particular, just provides for conflict.

The biggest problem in the film is the music. Occasionally it gets too loud and cheesy and detracts from the intensity of the film substantially. Most of the time it's alright, but when it's bad it's really noticeable. This problem is most notable during the murder of the stolen media vender. I think it would be interesting to see the film virtually without music, perhaps never with anything more than the electric hum used sometimes while surveying the victims. The films also has a tiny bit of unintentional humor, specifically at a few points where Henry is explaining the trade to Otis. This is because describing horrific scenes and deeds in such a dispassionate manner is often used in black comedies, and I couldn't help but make the connection. Still, this is only a tiny problem, and I don't think you can really blame the film makers for it.

Since they had no budget, the gore is not remarkable, but they do it professionally enough that it doesn't detract from the film. They wisely decided to keep it to a minimum, as overdoing it with their budget would've been sure to have extremely fake results. Besides, the horror in this film isn't dependent on the grossout, and it probably wouldn't have been very appropriate. Pretty much the whole film has an unpleasant air to it, but the infamous home invasion tape that Otis and Henry make is truly horrific, and definitely one of the most chilling scenes I've ever seen. Not gory, but definitely horrifying. It easily puts the rest of the film to shame, but if the rest of the film had been that unpleasant it would've been unwatchable.

Reviews of disturbing films are usually pretty pointless, as what effects you is extremely personal, and it's pretty tough to gauge what will effect someone else. Still, anyone interested in horror should see this, as well as anyone looking for a contrast to the slick, stylisitically dark serial killer films of the mainstream.(Not to say that those films are completely w/o value, but this is a total different game)

And, in response to complaints that this film is 'totally fake' and that Lucas couldn't have commited these crimes I say, well, no one is claiming this is a docudrama. Maybe the filmakers claimed it was initially, and this is a crass, inappropriate marketing plot if they did, but this doesn't really effect the film. The film is what it is, regardless of whether or not it has a specific, direct connection with reality. And as far the suggestion that this film is somehow sullying Lucas's goodname, and is worthy of a lawsuit, I say that he is in fact a killer, if not necessarily one as the film portrays him, and that anyone who decides to confess to hundreds of murders he didn't actually commit has no right to complain when people suggest that he's a serial killer.(Though I wouldn't know if he's complained personally, just that others have complained for him) In fact, the movie is easier on Lucas in someways, as it DOES mention how cruel and perverse his mother was, and that her murder was actually provoked by an attack from her,(replacing a broom with a whiskey bottle) yet fails to mention that she was 74 years old at the time, and thus perhaps not the greatest threat, and that Lucas was actually an adult, rather than 14 years old, as the film suggests. But yeah, in case anyone out there is actually confused this film is definitely not closely based on the real life of Henry Lee Lucas.

Rating:
Summary: full of crap
Review: There is no way the real Henry could have killed half the people he took credit for. For starters, his second conviction was for killing a girl who showed up in another part of the country later. It was the wrong body. From there it gets even more blury, some of the victoms where sexualy assulted, [...]. Henry was stabbed in the groin while serving a sentence for robbery. This made him impotent.
From there his story gets well quit frankly full of sh-t. But one thing remains consistent. A lack of evidence.
He once tried to take credit for the green river murders.
Him and toole confessed to 600 murders, and they flew them around the country to have him confess.The film Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer was released after Lucas had recanted his confessions, and after Jim Mattox, the Attorney General of Texas, had issued a `Lucas report' exposing the hoax.
And to think the greeks are suing over the movie alexander, becouse they say there is no evidence that alexander the great was [...]. Why did't someone sue these [...]for making this trash.
For christ sake George Bush commutated his death sentence, becouse of overwhelimging questions of his innocence. George Freakin Bush, the man who argued for keeping the death penalty for the mentaly retarded.
Henry was the only one to have his sentence commutated by Bush. And Texas is the number one death penalty state.

P.S. he killed his mother in self defence. She was beating him up, with a broom. He overeacted, but given a computant attorny mansluaghter would have worked. If he had done it earlier in life justified homicide would have sufficed.
Oh and impotent means no beasteality, and a very unhappy wife who wanted to know where he was getting his pleasure from.