Rating: 
Summary: What the?
Review: People have been telling me to watch this for years because of my interest in psychopathy and serial murders. I am so glad I did not buy this. It is without a doubt the worst account of a serial murderer I have seen on film. This guy was more of a mass or spree murderer then a serial killer. They touch on his antisocial behaviour for a second and then went completely off track into what appeared to be a mental cognitive disorder. This guy was as dumd as the day is long. That was the frightening part - that society would not attempt to take care of him when he was child with a mental disability. This movie intended to portray a serial killer and it portrayed a spree killer with the common sense of a box of rocks. I'm not questioning the fact that it could not happen -- but the title and purpose they were striving for was completely void.
Rating: 
Summary: Horribly Human
Review: The truly terrible thing about this movie is that it portrays a reality that is neither just gruesome nor abnormal to the human condition. I have only just caught up with this film 18 years late - and am captured by the grainy documentary filming style as well as deeply impressed by the absolute contrast with the "slasher" or "serial killer" movies of the last few years that feature a a fantasy world of mad and usually nightmare killers that send the (usually teenage) audience into an orgasm of shrieks of fright. It doesn't exploit it's subject nor flood us with blood - it is just horribly sad. The director's interview is enlightening (DVD version), but it is probably best to just watch the film and leave it at that for contemplation. The only reason I can't give this more stars is that the attempted rape scene is bound by censorship not to reveal the raper's excited nudity - I don't have any desire to see the male erection, but in this case it would be the only real image to make the scene truly work.
Rating:
Summary: If you are thinking about buying this........
Review: I just finished watching Henry, and I have to say, I am VERY disturbed. Disturbed that I actually spent money on this absolutely ridiculous movie! After watching this "movie" I was left with one nagging question? What is wrong with you people who actually gave this a good rating?? "Scariest movie ever", "disturbing", "well-written"??? How can you come to that conclusion after watching this? I watched this movie at night, by myself (I am female by the way) and found it to be truly laughable. Yes, I was actually laughing. Any adolescent, no correct that, CHILD with a camcorder and a tablespoonful of red paint could have wrote and produced a film in the same caliber as "Henry". It was very slow-moving and for lack of better words, BORING. One scene, for example, involved Otis and Henry driving (and driving and driving...)the car around at night. They finally do stop and pretend that they are having car problems. When a good-samaritan gets out of his car to help them, they shoot him and laugh. You can almost hear the director saying: "Now after you kill him, laugh so that the audience can really get an idea of how evil you are." Oh yes, truly chilling. The other murder scenes (or lack there of) are just as goofy and cheesy (horrible special-effects). I actually fast-forwarded the last 20 min. of the movie just so that I could see the "shocking" ending and not have to put up with the truly pathetic dialogue. All I can say is what a disappointment. To all the TRUE horror fans out there- the ones who not only appreciate gore, but an interesting and creative story as well- save your money! The only thing scary about this movie is the fact that it was ever made!! My copy now resides in the bottom of my garbage can.
Rating:
Summary: naive and comically inept
Review: I've been avoiding this one for years and then I find it's Laurel and Hardy with only marginally more violence. Transcendentally jejune, it stars Micheal Rooker (his screen mum's a hooker) as the eponymous Henry who has a dilemma. "Let me think!" he yells, which not not being his strongest suit, forces him to a previously held conviction, "I am a serial killer" and at the end of the film he rests his case. I said...never mind. Before then, this laughable film had already reached it's nadir with a seduction scene to the accompaniment of a blousey sax.There's some commentary on the film's censorship history, but I couldn't be bothered. The BBFC has finally wised up to the fact that the biggest danger film's of this ilk pose to the public is to their individual IQ's. I don't mind if a film aims high and falls short but when a film aims low and can't even cut it on that level, then it's time to get out the heavy ordnance. Next stop, Oz.
Rating: 
Summary: Disturbing horror movie.....
Review: The one thing that sets this movie apart from the other slasher movies is its tone..It's more realistic than Jason and Freddie(comic book stuff really)and doesn't glorify the violence.A great cast of unknowns(Michael Rooker is more known than the others)help make this more believable than some Hollywood actor..The direction,the pacing and the music blend together perfectly....You wouldn't want to watch this movie in a theater then going home...No Hollywood ending-thank goodness! As far as that "viewer"that wants more sex is missing the point and should stick to Sorority Girl slasher flicks!
Rating: 
Summary: Fast forward review
Review: OK, for sex sleaze fans we got two stars, one for the family murder scene, which involves some mostly nude mom in pantyhose molestation, and one for the incest rape from behind while attempting asphyx scene. It would get more, except for not near enough nudity, and not enough sex before the victims get killed, mostly by twisting their necks, which wastes a tremendous amount of sleaze potential (why not at least tie the girls up and take their clothes off, I mean, come on!). It's rather disappointing to make the sicko a prude. I mean, if you're going to make a totally depraved movie that every decent person is going to condemn, why not put more sex in it? Like, you were going to offend someone? Jeesh.
Rating:
Summary: brace yourself
Review: The thing that scares me the most about henry is that these people could be your neibhors, that town could be yours. Henry doesn't kill in creative ways like most horror villians,he doesn't wear a mask, he doesn't joke around.....his voice barley changes tone. Its srt in a slushy,gray setting and in a dirty apartment, nothing is glamorous, the murders are cold and unfiltered. It shows true shocking violence instead of corny decapitation scences like in lots of slasher flicks. This movie is ice cold and uncomprimising, there is no sense of remorse in any of the characters. In the end you won't feel the same I promise you
Rating:
Summary: AVOID THIS DISC AT ALL COSTS!!!
Review: John McNaughton's harrowing character study(as well as his only GOOD film!)is undermined here by a TRULY AWFUL DVD release. The audio is constantly out of sync(just look at the actors lips),and the picture quality falls short of other 16mm transfers(such as William Lustig's inferior,yet far more entertaining cult classic:Maniac).Write MPI and insist they REMASTER and re-release Henry, as well as Chuck Parello's underrated sequel.Or better yet,petition MPI to sub-license the Henry films to a DVD outfit that will do them justice!
Rating: 
Summary: I stand corrected...
Review: I have always called HALLOWEEN the scariest film I'd ever seen. I thought nothing else would ever scare me more than that movie. Well, I stand corrected. Here is a movie that makes Carpenter's classic look almost lackluster in comparison (though not quite; I still and always will love HALLOWEEN). John McNaughton, an interesting and affable guy (check out the excellent, lengthy interview segment), directs the film in a sober, naturalistic style that avoids the melodrama of most Hollywood horror films. Michael Rooker plays the title character, a handsome drifter recently paroled from prison, where he did time supposedly for killing his mother. He comes to Chicago to stay with ex-cellmate Otis (Tom Towles), who also has his sister Becky (Tracy Arnold) in from out of town, trying to escape from her abusive husband. Henry is a habitual killer who manages to stay one step of authorities by avoiding any kind of pattern and never staying in one place for too long. Before long, he has seduced Otis into discovering the pleasures of random murder. The two go on a killing spree, victimizing prostitutes, fellow lowlifes, various innocent bystanders, and, in one terrifying instance, an entire family -- yes, children are killed onscreen in this movie. Meanwhile, Becky feels a strong attraction to Henry. Though he seems uncomfortable with her attentions, he probably feels some of the same feelings. Their relationship is one of the most ironic ever committed to film. I won't reveal how things turn out, but I will say that if you are easily frightened (or if you are a young woman who lives alone), I would certainly not recommend watching this film. It is certainly no cure for insomnia. But unlike garbage such as FRIDAY THE 13TH or NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, Henry is frightening because he could really be lurking in the shadows of your own neighborhood... RIGHT NOW! He could be scoping out your wife, your kids, or even you, trying to decide whether to risk killing you. It's such a frightening film because it's filled with the sort of thing you hear about on the news all the time. The opening montage, where we see the mutilated remains of Henry's handiwork, sets the tone of the film immediately: there are no moments of comic relief here, nor are any of the characters appealing or dynamic in any way. Everything is incredibly true to life (aided to no end by excellent location photography, credited on imdb.com to one Charlie Lieberman). No heroes, no melodrama, no cliches: John McNaughton's HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER is a masterpiece of horror cinema, and of cinema in general, an intelligent, objective, responsible, and ultimately moral statement about violence. Like I said, it's very disturbing, so it's not for the timid or for the squeamish, but you'll get more out of it than simple shock value (the gore is pretty strong, but not at all overdone). See this independent film classic sometime if you haven't already; it blows most films on the same subject out of the water.
Rating:
Summary: Ask yourself why you want to see this film....
Review: First, ask yourself why you'd want to watch a film about a serial killer....
Now that you have that answer...(be honest to yourself now!)this movie does not deliver the goods. If you want to see horrific murders, [and] perversions perpetrated upon innocent victims, etc. This is not the vehicle that gives you what you were looking for. Gore? Some. Violence? not very much. ... Nothing more than the "R" rated slasher film playing at your local drive in.
Save your money...the type of film you were hoping for, hasn't been made since the 1970's!
|
