Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

Rating:
Summary: Unspeakably brilliant.
Review: Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (John McNaughton, 1986)

Whoa. It really is that good.

John McNaughton (Homicide: Life on the Street) really ripped it up with his first fictional feature film. His previous offering, a documentary, put him in the perfect frame of mind to direct this rather loose biopic, and the documentary quality of the photography is one of the many, many things about this movie that works on every possible level.

The casting of the film is absolutely perfect. Henry Lee Lucas is played my Michael Rooker in his big screen debut; eighteen years later, Rooker (nominated for Best Actor by three different film societies for his portrayal of Lucas) is a household name in Hollywood and has filled bills for many of the A-list directors. Ottis Toole is played by Tom Towles (who sounds more articulate than the real Toole ever did, a benefit to the film, to be sure), making his second big screen appearance. Towles has also gone on to a modicum of big-screen success, mostly in horror films (House of 1000 Corpses, the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead). Toole's fourteen-year-old cousin Becky is made a twenty-five-year-old sister, possibly to stop from alienating both the audience and the MPAA, and is similarly well-played by Tracy Arnold, who then all but vanished from Hollywood. The three of them, living together in a small apartment, interact in the most ominous of ways throughout the movie, as McNaughton delves into the character of his somewhat fictionalized serial killer.

And what a character it is. Henry is the ultimate sociopath, a man who leads his life for the sole purpose of depriving other living things of theirs. Simply put, killing, for Henry, is fun. As the movie opens, he is living with Toole (a former cellmate), and we are treated to a montage of some of Henry's former victims. Toole has not yet progressed to killing, but is nothing more than a keg of dynamite with a very short fuse Henry is itching to light. Then Becky moves out of her house and into Toole's, and the whole situation explodes.

Those expecting your standard horror film are not going to get it. Despite the movie's original X rating (which was surrendered the year after its release, and the film is now listed as unrated), don't expect the gore factor of the films that usually make it to America unrated (Fulci, Lenzi, you know the drill). The MPAA rated Henry X in no small part because of the disturbing nature of the subject matter and the way in which that subject matter is presented; you can't make a film about a guy who hates women and spends his free time killing them without being a tad politically incorrect, of course. That the viewer comes to identify with Henry, thanks to Rooker's brilliant portrayal, makes this all the more disturbing. (And makes the movie's last scene, despite its complete absence of gore, the movie's biggest and most emotional sucker punch.) Simply put, this is a supremely disturbing film; as close to onscreen poetry as one is likely to find. I cannot recommend it highly enough; it made my all-time 100 best films list in very short order. **** ½

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: Hmmmm...
Review: Well, a certain "viewer" from Seattle seems to think this is a message board, and has decided to single me out for his flaming. Okay...fine. I have no problem with that. To address his/her/its points:

Movies don't scare me because they aren't frightening. Yes, I can suspend disbelief and immerse myself in the manufactured reality of a film, if the film is good enough. But how am I really supposed to get immersed in the faux reality of movies that don't even pretend to take place in reality? Movies like the Friday the 13th series are self-parody. So are most other horror movies...even if the film-makers don't intend it, the movies still become unintentional self-parodies. There are a few horror movies that manage to escape that stigma. TCM is one of those rare films...The Exorcist is another...Blair Witch was a more recent example. But none of those movies scared me, either...or disturbed me, for that matter.

Henry, on the other hand, disturbed me because it's very close to reality. The cinematic style is minimalist and very naturalistic, as are all of the performances. The dialogue never lapses from conversational into that awful realm of stiffness. There is no central plot...no interconnected series of events that all mount to some inevitable denouement. Essentially, it's just a bunch of things that happened...kind of like real life.

And the subject matter is closer to real life than just about any horror movie you can name. You want to talk about The Exorcist? Find the number of documented cases of so-called demon possession in America in the past 25 years. Then compare it to the number of serial murder cases in America in the past 25 years. If you're walking alone in the city at night...deserted streets...no chance of rescue should something happen...do you think that you're more likely to become the victim of a serial killer, or of demonic possession? I think we both know the answer...and whatever is most likely to happen to you is, by its nature, scarier.

It's okay if you don't like the movie. Some people don't get it and they never will. I understand that...and I really don't care. But if you want to give the movie a bad review...in the future, leave my name and personal insults against me out of it. If Henry isn't your taste, then go watch Freddy Vs. Jason or some other piece of cinematic tripe spewed out by the Hollywood Horror Bilge Machine. I couldn't care less.

Rating:
Summary: Better Than "Silence of the Lambs" or "Natural Born Killers"
Review: Yes...this is another movie review by PR...but please don't delete and move on until you've read this.

I just finished watching a film I never knew existed until my demented camera film processor guy once again suggested I see a film that would knock my socks off.

He's done it again!

This one, entitled "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer", makes "Natural Born Killers" look like a baby. This thriller has it all...and the title tells all.

Hannibal Lechter was frightening and sometimes unreal...HENRY IS REAL!!!!! AND SO FRIGHTENING you may not survive the first 5 minutes. If you do, then fasten those seat belts and get ready for one of the most chilling crime thrillers you have ever seen.

And figure this. Most chillers, thrillers and killers involve the cops. Not once during this 2-hour film do you see a cop trying to find this maniac. This is, definitely, a "portrait" of a maniacal killer...and there are scenes that are so real, you may wanna add an extra bolt to your door, look more often into your rear view mirror, and never see another chiller again.

Henry is portrayed by little known Michael Rooker. He is the spitten image of Woody Harrelson in "Natural Born Killers", but much more believable. This guy is totally in tune with being insane...and he's great in this insane role.

Then there's Tom Towles as "Otis", just as deranged, and even more so a total pervert. He is the brother of love interest "Becky", played by Tracy Arnold.

This one is a solid "10" for crime buffs. If you loved "Silence of the Lambs" and "Natural Born Killers", ya gotta see "Henry".

Each of you needs to have a buddy like I have at the local camera shop. This guy is even more deranged than me. He loves the same flicks that I do...and he has been an invaluable resource.

In the crime thriller...deranged serial killer...totally insane murder flick genre', "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is a top notch TEN....10...10...10. Don't miss this one!

Rating:
Summary: Chilling portrait of a sociopath
Review: This critically acclaimed, low budget film has gained somewhat of a cult following and though it is definitely not for all tastes or weak stomachs it is undeniably compelling viewing and a haunting experience.
Based in part on the real life crimes of Henry Lee Lucas, this follows a disturbed man, Henry(convincingly played by Michael Rooker) as he embarks on a crime spree aided by his perverted sidekick Otis. Otis' dysfunctional younger sister complicates things when she iniates a love affair with Henry,
The director was obviously trying to make a not so subtle point about the fascination of North American moviegoers with onscreen violence. Essentially, by watching this film which is almost shot entirely from the perspective of the criminals the viewer is made an accomplice to the onscreen mayhem.
It should be pointed out that though this film contains its share of horrific moments, it is far removed from the usual horror and slasher fare, emphasizing character development over the usual anonymous, dumb psycho killer in the woods formula. It would be more appropriate perhaps to refer to this as a true crime drama.
Viewers looking for a gritty, thought provoking film will not be disapointed. The DVD is also quite nice featuring trailers and an extensive interview with the director. One small note: even though the running time on the DVD cover is listed at 130 mins, the actual running time of the film is about 80 minutes, so do not be misled into believing this is an extended version of the film.

Rating:
Summary: The most disturbing film ever made?
Review: In the early 1980s, a group of guys wanted to make a new kind of horror film. Due to a very limited budget and time constraints, they knew they couldn't make one involving complex special effects and hideous-looking monsters - gore was not really an option. John McNaughton, first time Director, decided on a film about the everyday life a serial killer, set in modern day America. Much of the shoot would be on location, so no flashy soundstages or huge sets to eat up the budget. They cast an unknown in the lead and kept the cast and crew minimal. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer was born.

The effect of watching this film will flood you with many emotions as you go through it - anger, fear, empathy, sympathy, disgust to name but a few. It's very simple plot - a serial killer moves in with his ex-con cellmate and sister, then goes round killing people, is disturbingly simple. Absolutely everything about this picture works - the shoddy locations, the precision character acting (easily Michael Rooker's best film and his most intense performance) and matter-of-fact manner in which the murders happen, make this one of the most disturbing films ever made.

I think it is a masterpiece and creates feelings in the audience that go well beyond any that the huge Hollywood blockbusters could hope to get near to. It is I would say, the most disturbing film I have ever seen (and I've watched many, many horror films) because it works on an entirely different level - these are people you pass in the street, that live near to you. McNaughton offers no explanation as to why the things we watch on the screen happen, they just do - which ultimately makes this more terrifying. Thus, we are left with an almost flawless character study of a serial killer in his prime, no hope for redemption, Henry kills because he enjoys it, no other reason and we, as the audience are implicated into that, by our fascination with evil deeds and violence (otherwise why in the first place, would you even want to watch a film like this?).

Perhaps the most interesting element of the entire film is right at the beginning before it starts - a warning is displayed, giving the audience a taster of just what they're going to experience. McNaughton has oft claimed that anyone who sits through the whole film needs it, that those who leave early or don't watch it, don't need it. We are left with a film that makes you feel depressed about enjoying onscreen violence, forcing you to question just why you'd want to see people being killed and surely this can only be a good thing?

The DVD is fully uncut and includes insights by McNaughton which are interesting and add to the general feeling of the film - it's certainly worth getting this version if any, but be warned - this is a one-off - no ghosts, ghouls or buckets of gore, nothing so easy I'm afraid.

Rating:
Summary: Watch this and see how safe you feel...
Review: I don't know if these days, this movie is that great of an idea to watch. If you're already freaked out by the news, and too scared to do much, you might want to hold off. But if you feel nice and safe when you are somewhere alone....and want to really feel something cold slowly move up your spine...

As far as non-supernatural horror goes, this movie and Last House on the Left are the scariest movies I've ever seen.

I saw this at a film festival and the audience was very, very quiet (except when they screamed or gasped). My friend and I just sat there quietly cowering most of the time. It's just way too realistic. The opening and closing are probably the most frightening, and we don't even see Henry killing anyone, just the bodies of his victims and their terrified screams in the background, echoing. It will give you chills down your spine.

The stuff in the movie that scared me wasn't any big "jumps" or gore, just very disturbing, creepy moments (especially if you knew someone who was been the victim of a homicide, as I do). My friend I saw it with worked at the city prosecutors office and heard about plenty of local murder cases and said it rang very, very true to life. One of the most chilling scenes is early on, when Henry goes to a mall and just sits patiently in the parking lot, scanning. The camera looks coldly and calculatedly at different women in the parking lot from Henry's point of view. There are so many shots you almost start to wonder what the point of the scene is until it hits you: they are ALL potential victims, this is how he looks at women. I have always been careful as a woman whenever I am alone but after seeing the film, to this DAY I do not walk to my car alone at the mall without my mace in my hand, and I look all around me and never turn my back on anyone. The movie also does not glamorize the killing or violence against women at all. Also, it's a good primer on home and personal safety. (a good rule- Do not EVER let a stranger into your house when you are home alone if you were not expecting him. Think I'm paranoid? Watch this movie and see how safe you feel).

The plot sounds simple but it's not boring. The movie follows the exploits of Henry, a young man who is practically a textbook case of a serial killer (male, white, 30's, drifter, soft-spoken, shy). Conflict comes when his disgusting nasty inbred cousin Otis Toole stays with him, along with his pathetic sister. One night Otis and Henry pick up a couple of prostitutes and are having sex with them in the car. Henry kills both of them sort of offhandedly, with no more emotion than you would swat a fly. Otis starts joining him on his exploits. Henry is more sympathetic than Otis, however, because while Henry does these things because he is sick and doesn't have a choice, Otis seems to get off on them, and also should know better. Things sorta go downhill from there, and the sister complicates things because she is so desperately lonely that Henry starts to look good to her. It culminates in one of the most chilling, downbeat endings of all time. I still find this one of the most disturbing, unsettling movies ever made. You haven't seen a really scary movie until you see this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Hmmmm...
Review: Well, a certain "viewer" from Seattle seems to think this is a message board, and has decided to single me out for his flaming. Okay...fine. I have no problem with that. To address his/her/its points:

Movies don't scare me because they aren't frightening. Yes, I can suspend disbelief and immerse myself in the manufactured reality of a film, if the film is good enough. But how am I really supposed to get immersed in the faux reality of movies that don't even pretend to take place in reality? Movies like the Friday the 13th series are self-parody. So are most other horror movies...even if the film-makers don't intend it, the movies still become unintentional self-parodies. There are a few horror movies that manage to escape that stigma. TCM is one of those rare films...The Exorcist is another...Blair Witch was a more recent example. But none of those movies scared me, either...or disturbed me, for that matter.

Henry, on the other hand, disturbed me because it's very close to reality. The cinematic style is minimalist and very naturalistic, as are all of the performances. The dialogue never lapses from conversational into that awful realm of stiffness. There is no central plot...no interconnected series of events that all mount to some inevitable denouement. Essentially, it's just a bunch of things that happened...kind of like real life.

And the subject matter is closer to real life than just about any horror movie you can name. You want to talk about The Exorcist? Find the number of documented cases of so-called demon possession in America in the past 25 years. Then compare it to the number of serial murder cases in America in the past 25 years. If you're walking alone in the city at night...deserted streets...no chance of rescue should something happen...do you think that you're more likely to become the victim of a serial killer, or of demonic possession? I think we both know the answer...and whatever is most likely to happen to you is, by its nature, scarier.

It's okay if you don't like the movie. Some people don't get it and they never will. I understand that...and I really don't care. But if you want to give the movie a bad review...in the future, leave my name and personal insults against me out of it. If Henry isn't your taste, then go watch Freddy Vs. Jason or some other piece of cinematic tripe spewed out by the Hollywood Horror Bilge Machine. I couldn't care less.

Rating:
Summary: Most disturbing film ever made?.........yeah right
Review: I dont mean to be hatin on this movie but this IS THE MOVIE
THAT EVERY ONE RECOMENDS I SEE CAUSE ITS THE SCARIEST MOST DISTURBING FILM EVER MADE! Give me a breake. The only part I found explicit was the part were they are taping otis raping the young mother and the child walks in and gets a beating.

I dont get it. THERE IS NO PLOT. Just a guy killing people that he comes across. I kept hearing how the ending was so brilliant and stuff and it wasnt as I expected to be.
I cant believe this movie got an UNrated rate. It wasnt that
bad. If you wanna see worse violent films go see Freddy vs jason and see what gore is or go see other old school horror films cause I still dont get what was so disturbing and scary about the film. The part were otis is getting pumled to death and stabbed in the eye was funny for me cause it was so damn cheesy.
I dont mean to be so mean about this film but c'mon!
THIS IS THE FILM EVERY ONE IS SAYING IS THE MOST DISTURBING FILM EVER MADE! Go see Red to kill and youll know disturbing.
Are you sure HENRY is the movie that is being viewed as the scariest film ever made?
HENRY:The sick mind of a man who go's around randomly killing
random people. The same movie were you see Otis raping a woman and henry killing the son by snapping his neck. YEAH RIGHT.
I cant believe this is the film. I give it credit cause the actors were all right. I liked the character developement
but all over all its an average movie.
I thought the begining was gonna be extreamly scary but noooo all you see is lame cheezy bodies.
Over all its an average ok movie for me but If you wanna try it out go ahead and you might like it....and you might not.
I cant believe this was an X rated film. I thought passion of the crist should have bin NC-17 but it was for moral reasons I think.

OVER ALL Give this movie a try if you want but for me its just a rental....

Rating:
Summary: Gorey, But No Plot or Character Development
Review: If you're easily scared or grossed out by gorey images, this is an ok movie to watch; however, there isn't much else to see other than that! The characters are lame and without ANY depth at all. You could try to describe their personalities and be left wondering if they even have one. The plot is almost nonexistant. There are very few changes of scenery, and I'm so sorry for the guy who gave up his 100,000 to the producer to make the movie (that's per the interview shown after the film). So, if all it takes is gore for you, watch it. If you like to get inside a character's mind, don't! I'll add that because this is supposed to be a "portrait" of Henry Lucas, this film is almost a complete failure.