User Reviews

A flat disturbing film, almost documentary in scope which trawls the depths of the human condition. 'Henry' is not surprisingly often slated as a violent exploitation film, bundled together at Film Fairs with the Italian cannibal flicks of the 70's.

Make no mistake though, this is a highly commendable piece of movie-making, which tackles the subject of serial killers with the same no-holds-barred approach which 'M' did way back in 1931. By referencing the early Fritz Lang classic, I am intentionally comparing 'Henry' favourably with it. I would also say that Henry Rooker's performance is on a par with Peter Lorre's.

The film develops like a three-handed play, revolving around Henry's flat which he shares with former prison-mate, Otis. The trio is made up by Becky, the sister of Otis, who comes to visit.

We are introduced to Henry immediately as a killer and the story does exactly what it says it will in the film's title. We simply follow Henry throughout his daily routine. No mention is given to any police enquiries and Henry is oblivious to any notion of avoiding capture or covering his tracks. Much of the film's power comes from this nonchalant approach, whereby if a person doesn't register that something he is doing is wrong, then it quickly becomes almost acceptable.

Rooker, in the title role, is totally convincing and gives a chilling performance, free from the mannerism clichés which detract from more famous serial killer characters like Hannibal Lector and Norman Bates. I can only think of Kevin Spacey in 'Seven' (1995) giving a similar level of performance for this character-type.

Despite a couple of scenes whose violent content borders on the gratuitous, for the most part 'Henry' succeeds by relying on a suffocating atmosphere and it's down-beat characters.

Anyone without a sense of desolation at the end of the film must be devoid of their senses.

BEST SCENE - Henry and Otis enjoying a night in on the sofa, watching their recent home-video recordings, is one of the most disturbing scenes I can remember watching.

The real Henry Lee Lucas had one of the worst childhoods that I have ever had the misfortune of reading about. Growing up in Texas, he lived with a family that was totally dysfunctional. He grew up in a shack, that had nothing more than a dirt floor. The father being a legless alcoholic, literally as well as figuratively. The mother worked as a prostitute. Henry was also forced into sexual activity with her clients. They forced him to dress as a girl and then would proceed to have sex with him. He was a child that grew up being raped.

He then grew up with such an intense rage that he became a serial killer. Are we surprised? Now, I am not trying to justify his behaviour. Rather, I am pointing out the fact that these people do not just fall out of the sky. There is no such thing as an inexplicable evil. That is, the person is just evil because they are. Yes, there seems to be some genetic evidence for psychopaths. However the majority do not become killers. The ones who become killers are made. If you are truly interested in what makes a psychopath, I suggest you read, 'Not Guilty by reason of Insanity ' by Dorothy Otnow Lewis. Serial killers are often portrayed as being like Hannibal Lecter. Smart and talented creatures that have suddenly lost their moral code. The truth is most are a psychological mess. Losers that are full of conflicting emotions. There is also strong evidence to suggest that these people are made by a specific form of brain damage. Basically when you combine trauma in childhood and frontal lobe brain damage, you end up with Henry.

This movie is what happens when people are treated in an utterly horrific way. Michael Rooker is excellent as a psychopath who seems normal but deep down harbours a psychotic rage against society. He and Otis travel around killing. Why? Why not? The pointlessness of their lives is perfectly captured. People complain about the lack of plot. I think it perfectly captures the plot. It shows the emptiness of these characters. In fact Henry and Otis feel nothing unless they are killing. The emotional side of the characters has been like killed off by previous abuses against them. They are not unlike the living dead. Even when Otis's sister shows some affection towards Henry he cannot reciprocate. He can't relate to people, he can only get off on torture and death. Yeah, this is shocking. But it is also incredibly sad.

Here in New Zealand there are many shocking drunk driving ads that they play to try and get people to stop this behaviour. I feel that this movie is like that. The movie is an ad for psychopaths, who they are and the dysfunctional psychological world that they inhabit. It is a film that honestly looks at these kinds of people. This certainly does not glorify these people, which is a criticism that has been levelled at the 'Silence of the Lambs' series. This is why I think it shocks people. The serial killer kills for visceral, physical pleasure. As Ted Bundy stated, 'I killed because I wanted to.' Maybe, this is where the film falls down. That the characters motivations are not explained well enough. But either way the viewer is given a shockingly realistic interpretation of a serial killers world.

Obviously this is a film that was made on a budget! But this just adds to the bleakness. In fact Chicago looks dirty, grimy and not like somewhere that you would visit. The performances of the rest of the cast are pretty average if not bad. So the film has some definite flaws. The exploitation factor is there. But then I think of films like Baise Moi and this film has nothing on that!

Overall I think this is an objective look at a world that those of us who come from normal backgrounds will find horrific. A world that we prefer would never exist, but however does exist. Maybe one day, as our society matures these people will cease to exist. Stories like these will become completely fictional. I really hope for that day. 7 out of 10.

In 1960, Michael Powell committed professional suicide by directing and producing "Peeping Tom," a thriller in which a psychopathic murderer photographs his victims at the moment of death. Denounced as sick and without redeeming social value, "Peeping Tom" vanished from theaters, while its director, also denounced as sick, went on to make only two more films in the next eight years. Powell's film has gone on to attract an avid cult following and, if it hasn't done so already, so will "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer."

Loosely based on the real life exploits of Henry Lee Lucas, a leering, low IQ sicko who became a media star after claiming to have murdered several dozen people (some believe Henry was bragging), this film takes a gritty, realistic approach that creates the impression that we are watching real life unfold. Director John McNaughton exploits the discomfort the viewer is inclined to feel by presenting a scene in which Henry and his equally vicious former cellmate, Otis, videotape the rape and murder of one of their victims, then play it back for further amusement. This shocking episode effectively makes the point that those who seek second hand thrills through violent "entertainment" are almost as guilty as the perpetrators of such deeds. By casting anonymous non-stars in the leading roles (not that he had a choice considering the budget and the repellent subject matter), and focusing entirely on the exploits of the killers (there are no scenes of police investigating the crimes or peeks into the lives of the victims), McNaughton has created a brutal, amoral horror film that makes the bloodiest gorefest look benign. Although the real Henry was apprehended, his cinematic counterpart is never even suspected of his crimes, and gets off scot-free.

Is "Henry" a film to acclaim or condemn? It's a difficult question to answer, and I, for one cannot make a decision. It is so expertly made that I think McNaughton deserves a round of applause and maybe an Oscar. But, at the end of the video tape of the film that I watched, there was a commercial hawking "Henry" T-shirts ($14.98) and posters ($7.98). Both were available through "Henry Merchandising," and this attempt to turn this all too real murderer into a cult figure deserving of a fan club is despicable.

I really wish that there were more movies like "Henry" out there. Most people still don't realize just HOW controversial this film was when it was made. The MPAA wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. McNaughton fought for 4 years to get an R rating, but no dice. And since he didn't want the X, and there was no NC-17 rating at the time, it was finally released, with no rating, in 1990. And why? I've seen films with MORE violence in them...Romero's "Day of the Dead" leaps to mind. But it's not the violence in this film that makes it so disturbing. It's the way the material is handled. And this is what the film's detractors obviously can't appreciate.

"Henry" doesn't bother with any type of morality...it neither glorifies nor denounces Henry's actions. It simply observes. It places those actions before us and says "there it is...you deal with it...you sort it out." People who don't like this film often say that there's "no character development...no discernible plot line...etc., etc." Those people should stop throwing around film school terms. This is one movie that doesn't present events in a "movie reality"...it shows us things as they are in the real world. Character development means showing you enough of the characters in 90-120 minutes to make you feel as if you've known them forever. How often do you spend 90 minutes with a real person and know that much about them...or feel that you can seriously identify with them? It's just a conceit of film-making. Same with plot lines. Does life have a plot line? Not at all. Life is an endless succession of things happening. Some seem important and/or entertaining...some don't. "Henry," in its attempt to realistically portray the life of a serial killer, does not need a plot line...in fact, it benefits from having only a very loose plot line. Much like a homicidal version of "The Catcher in the Rye," this film seems much like a lot of things that happened, as opposed to a carefully constructed fictitious story...which make it seems all the more real...and all the more disturbing.

"Henry" is disturbing on many levels. Firstly, it feels very real. Too real, perhaps. Nothing is slicked up...nothing seems counterfeit or contrived. The entire thing is so utterly plausible that it chills you to the bone. Secondly, the complete lack of police involvement is equally disturbing. The only time you see a police car in this film, it's driving past in the background as Henry is cruising the streets. It drives past...and that's it. And Henry isn't scared...nor is he even aware, apparently. He has nothing to hide. He knows the police won't connect his crimes to one another...and they certainly won't connect them to him. So what has he to fear?

And finally, the setting of Chicago makes the film more disturbing for me, as I'm somewhat familiar with that city and can spot some locales in the film that I recognize. In fact, a friend of mine who lives in Chicago told me that the first time he watched "Henry," he and a friend rented it and sat down in his friend's apartment to watch it. It was about halfway through that they realized that the apartment they were sitting in was the same one used as Henry's apartment in the film. All I can say is...I'd never use that bath tub again.

All in all, I truly wish that more directors had the guts to make films like "Henry." Honestly, I can't think of one film that's comparable. There simply aren't any films out there that are anything like this. This is truly one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. After seeing "Happiness," I guess that "Henry" probably got knocked down to Number Two on that list. But "Second Most Disturbing Film Of All-Time" is still a damn fine achievement, in my opinion.

If you want to see an accurate and appallingly realistic portrayal of what the life of a serial killer must be like, definitely give "Henry" a viewing. Make up your own mind from there.

Oh, and a final note...one reviewer stated concretely that his biggest problem with the film was that "serial killers work alone." This is, of course, not always the case. The real life counterparts to Henry and Otis (Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole) DID kill together, as did Bianchi and Buono, the infamous Hillside Stranglers. Those are not the only such instances...but they're certainly the best-known. Therefore, the overly broad generalization that serial killers "work alone" is no real attack on the realism of this film.

I went to see this film when it was released. I found it to be a difficult watch and nearly walked out at one point. This movie can never be considered entertainment but it is a genuinely disturbing portrayal of the banality of murder.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer will make the typical teenage fan of Freddy or Jason s*** their pants. Or maybe not. Maybe this might actually, when it's not ratcheting up the precisely random violence and kills, bore some of the younger audience looking for stupid characters doing stupid things and getting killed by a bogeyman. Henry, based on real life serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, wasn't a bogeyman. He was more like your friend who is usually bored every other night and goes out to do something. But that something, instead of like going to a bar or a movie or a show, is killing people, whomever, as long as it's not too obvious (never using a gun twice, and proper disposal of bodies, is some advice given by Henry), with a hapless dumb-ass, Otis, usually in tow.

What makes it so unnerving is how McNaughton chooses to just show his protagonist doing these things, without passing any judgment exactly. Perhaps some did think judgment was passed somehow, or that the controversy came from just showing a killer as is, and without proper law and order about (a cop car shows up literally once, for a goof). It's a downright sad and vicious bastard of a movie, showing the primitive horrorshow of, say, the massacre of the wife, husband and child, as seen through the staggering hand-held vision of the camcorder that Henry is operating while he and Otis do the slaughter. And yet for all the horrible things they do- and, arguably, Otis does worse ultimately, if only by way of Becky- they're never shown as caricatures, or as supernatural creatures. They're just killers, doing it for the hell of it, or, perhaps as reason Henry gives, 'do it before they do it to you' (this also goes for defenseless hookers).

It might not be entirely a great movie - it's shot roughly and some of the editing is crude and the use of music and sound effects (yes, sound effects) is cheesy and a little laughable, not to mention the shoe-string special effects and make-up - but it's got great things about it, memorable notes to take. Tom Towles is excellent as a downright creep of a human being, while Michael Rooker does perfectly as a tortured soul who, as Henry, just does what he does, though at the same time was, at one point, a victim himself from his mother (who, apparently, he also killed). Some vulnerability is found with the Becky character, though Arnold' performance is just passable.

What makes the movie for me is Rooker's hold on the character, so dark and deep and scary that you can feel your skin crawl knowing he could just snap at any moment (albeit not as awful as Otis, in a weird way), and McNaughton's lack of easy answers - certainly not with the ending, which is equally bizarre and chilling. A minor cult item to take note of: it's the kind of movie I always saw on the video shelf in the horror section as a kid, looking dangerous with Rooker leering at the mirror and a warning on the video box. Now I know why.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) is a film that is loosely based upon the exploits of notorious white trash serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. This man claimed to have killed hundreds of people, mostly women. But the director takes us down the path of a man who is in many ways similar to the real deal.

Michael Rooker stars as Henry, a demented man living in a twisted world who lives with a scummy roommate Otis (based also on Henry Lee Lucas' running buddy/lover Ottis Toole). Otis' kid sister Becky (loosely based upon the very young sister of Ottis) comes to live with her older brother after a falling out back home. She decides to head out to the big city to find a new life.

The film follows the murderous trail of Henry who's pent of rage and sexual frustrations fuel the madness that's locked deep within his psyche. Those that are around him soon feel his madness and it's brutal and fatal consequences. The director follows these three individuals with a pseudo-documentary feel. The rape and murder scenes are graphic and brutal as they should be. This is no mere exploitation film because there is nothing exploitative about it, as it should be.

I have to recommended this film. It's a sick, twisted but honest look at the life of a serial killer. He's no movie magic monster because unlike those, he's for real. Co-starring future B-Movie thug Tom Towles as Otis.

You'll never see a film like this again.

Although disturbing, "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" takes you through the mind of a serial killer, and it is interesting.

Plot: 8/10 Music: 9/10 Originality: 7/10 Ending: 7/10 Acting: 10/10 Casting: 10/10 Creativity: 8/10 Pace: 9/10 Cinematography: 7/10 Dialogue: 8/10 Suspense: 9/10 Special Effects: 8/10 Setting: 7/10 Entertainment Value: 8/10.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, while not, as it is often described, among the most disturbing movies ever made (compare with Eraserhead, Pi, and the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari), takes an approach to the biopic genre which was both novel at the time (grainy film stock, hand-held camera-work, no Hollywood plot resolution, a style echoed in Morris' The Thin Blue Line two years later), and frighteningly effective--even today, when audiences have been thoroughly exposed to Anthony Hopkins (and Brian Cox) and the psychological gore films of Se7en and Saw.

By stripping down the production and putting the viewer face to face with the empty eyes of Michael Rooker as Henry Lee Lucas, H:PoaSK makes the viewer wonder whether to sympathize with him and believe his sad story of his childhood, or see him as a killer with no hope of redemption. Furthermore, by keeping the camera close to the action, one has no choice but to feel thrust into Henry's world, and feel like an accomplice to the killings.

That said, however, there are a few significant problems with the film. Character development is wanting, with some characters--most noticeably Becky--almost a blank slate. The killings, while a few are rather novel and disturbing, get repetitive. And, as has been noted, the lack of police action or justice is glaring.

One last point, however: H:PoaSK's use of sound is nothing short of remarkable. The use of mickeymousing (which, for those unfamiliar with the term, is when an action on screen is matched by a similar sound effect: Mickey Mouse falls down the stairs, and the sound effects man slides his hand across a piano) is fairly rare in modern cinema, appearing in the occasional Bond film when a villain appears, or in the Kill Bill movies, but out of fashion, generally; however, H:PoaSK uses mickeymousing to heighten the impact of Henry's murders in a truly startling way--almost as startling as in Lynch's Eraserhead, when the Fats Waller soundtrack cuts to silence, then to an orchestral sting, then to silence. Certain scenes in H:PoaSK are worth revisiting (for those who can stomach them), just to see how well the sound works in them.

This movie is certainly not for everyone, but is, at least, a fairly powerful experience. Seven stars out of ten.

Supposedly based on the true life serial killer, Henry Lee Lucas (played by a turbulent Michael Rooker), but in fact is framed on tall stories of the largest fabler in American crime history (made even taller by director / scriptwriter John McNaughton, who adds his own two cents to the mythology). Henry Lee Lucas admitted to over 600 murders, whilst in fact, together with his comrade in mayhem Otis (Tom Towles) are probably culpable but for a fraction of those events. Inspired by the prefabricated musings of a trickster conspiring with police 'to clean up the books' John McNaughton supposedly presents us a portrait of a psychotic mind, but essentially remains underwhelmingly vacuous.

The hyperbole of Lucas's life story is taken at face value giving a terrifying vision of a pair of two morally incapacitated individuals, albeit Henry himself finds a soft spot for Otis's cousin Becky (Tracy Arnold). The trio of off-beat uneducated drifters clinch viewer attention with idle chit-chat coupled with pending violence boiling just below the surface. Unlike Hannibal-like eroticism the serial killers are hollow, dead and pitiful, which allow for a certain level of affinity with the characters, though thankfully never creating a need for compassion. Suitably events are portrayed pretty matter of fact (thankfully) without the ulterior intellectually deviant underpinnings so predominant in serial killer movies - this murderer isn't a deranged genius, just a murderous lost soul.

Low key direction with unassuming choreography keeps attention focused on Rooker and Towles, which make a oddly disturbing couple, believable, but at the same time unreal. Rooker especially has a tentative quality of lingering anger and dead eyes, which slowly rescinds during contact with the awkwardly naive Arnold. Gifted with the best lines Rooker excels at his portrayal painting an appalling picture of a psycho, albeit one that is doubly fictitious, hellbent on murder, but conscious enough to avoid having a modus operandi.

McNaughton does also have some nice touches, which add undeniable dread, especially with the opening act, where murders are not shown, but heard menacingly dubbed over pictures of corpses. The strongest point of the movie (in true "Funny Games" style), when a tellingly graphic murder of a family is presented as a video tape being watched by the serial killers, drawing comparisons between them and viewing watching such gruesome pictures. Disturbing and drastic hard to recommend as anything other than exploitative horror, one so vividly criticised by Haneke in "Funny Games". Roughly shot and essentially pointless and thoughtless, not even having the decency to entertain a story more based on fact and less on delusions. Maybe beforehand knowledge about the actual Henry Lee Lucs detracts away from viewing pleasure, as the true life story of his incarceration makes just a much more enticing talking point, than the on-screen imaginings presented by the director.

When I had the chance to see HENRY 2, I wasn't really sure if I had seen the first one, because so much time has passed since its release and the commotion it caused back in '86. Now having had the chance to see the 20th Anniversary Edition from Dark Sky Films, I'm not so sure that I didn't remember it, as much as I didn't WANT to remember...

John McNaughton presented the indie world with his calling card via this film, and simultaneously raised the bar for what "realism" is in these kinds of horror movies. And where the true horror lies is the way in which it deconstructs and de-glamorizes the image that Hollywood has created for serial killers. This is not a chronicle of a super-intelligent monster like Hannibal Lecter, or even the "channeled" virtuosity of a "noble" murderer like Dexter Morgan.

This could be anybody you walked past down the street yesterday, or saw at the stop light on the way home from work. And make no mistake about it...he works at a job, pays rent and buys groceries like anybody else. And if you happen to catch yourself alone with him at the wrong time, the next time anyone will ever see you again is at the morgue. Count on it.

Based loosely on the exploits of multiple murderer Henry Lee Lucas, HENRY was the breakout role for Michael Rooker (SLITHER), and together with co-stars Tom Towles as his dim-witted sidekick, Otis and Tracy Arnold as Otis' emotionally blasted sister, Becky, they paint a documentary-style picture under McNaughton's guidance, of how some people living on the fringes of society behave. This doesn't necessarily mean that they're wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth-crazy, and therein lies the scariest part of all. These are the kind of blue-collar, salt-of-the-earth types that you might dismiss without giving a second thought...but the time might come when you do so at your own peril.

From the opening frames of the movie, you know you're in territory that's far removed from the usual slasher film. Henry is seen doing mundane, everyday things - buying cigarettes, finishing lunch at a local diner - and juxtaposed with those scenes are absolutely horrific shots of dead, mutilated bodies, as the sounds of how they died careen and crash underneath the discordant music along the soundtrack. Sorry, kids, but this isn't THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE. In that picture, as within this one, a time and place is firmly established. But if you don't live in Texas, part of you can sort of remove yourself from the horror that wants to seep into your subconscious and stay there.

With HENRY, it becomes obvious that the locale is somewhere in metropolitan Chicago, but the urban landscape is familiar enough that it could be Atlanta, Detroit, Boston, New York, anywhere. It could be the city where YOU live now.

And by writing the characters and the events they're involved in with a totally detached, non-judgmental eye, McNaughton and writing partner Richard Fire reveal a horror more numbing and penetrating than a thousand Freddy Kruegers or Michael Myers. There are people in the world who actually do these kinds of things, and they're out there NOW...and it's only by the grace of providence or some cosmic lottery that we've won, that we don't ever run into these people...or that some of us unfortunately do.

Enough has already been written about the remarkable performances of all the actors involved, so the only thing I can add is that if you've never seen HENRY, you need to watch it all the way through at least once. I can safely say that you will see why horror is the way it is today, and how so many filmmakers have misinterpreted what director McNaughton was saying with HENRY.

With the searing images still fresh in my mind, I can only say this...I feel like I need to take about a hundred hot showers, and none of it will ever wash away how nasty and horrible it made me feel. Which I believe is exactly what the makers of this film were trying to accomplish.

I sincerely hope that once you've seen this, you would feel the same. And I would be really worried about anybody who doesn't, or worse, who said they "enjoyed" it.

maybe i'm just desensitized from years of horror movies, but i just don't see what the big deal was. after hearing so much about this one, i was expecting to be in for something a little better than this. the pacing is very slow, and i found myself trying not to fall asleep through half of the movie. i kept waiting for all the disturbing scary parts to happen-to no avail. lots of driving around and boring dialog though. there is basically no gore, except for the bathtub scene, which was the ONE scene in the movie that i found truly effective. i found rooker to be fairly decent in the role of henry, although he didn't have too much to say. the supporting roles of becky and otis were played very poorly. otis was especially bad. not horrible, but definitely highly overrated imo.

I am 57 years old. I've seen many films in my lifetime. I am not easily frightened or upset by movies. I am partial to drama and documentaries. I can count on one hand the films that I have found to be so deeply disturbing, that I later regretted seeing them.This film is among them. It is possible to "see too much" in this life, and once seen, some sights remain trapped in your head FOREVER short of getting a lobotomy, or being

hypnotized. Leaving the theater that day, I honestly felt as though I had actually witnessed several murders. I was really shaken by the horrific realism of this cinematic event. I was sorry that I had seen the film, but it was too late to retract the terror that, even today, still remains in my memory. Some things are so

emotionally damaging, that perhaps they should be left alone. This film was so powerfully unsettling for me, that I feel a need to warn others of the emotional impact. This speaks well of the directors skill at scaring movie-goers, but

approach with caution please. This is a very heavy movie. The Honeymoon

Killers is another film that I regret seeing. Would that I could forget that

nightmare!

This movie feels very realistic. The life of this serial killer is portrait without much glamourization (no lively red spreading everywhere). Many of the killing scenes are not shown. There isn't much space for victims being tortured, screaming for help. The lack of shenanigans makes the movie very creepy. It makes the movie quite immersive. Also, the characters are quite broken people with very tough and sad stories. That gives the movie another note of complexity. I definetely recomend it.

Don't get me wrong... as serial killer films go, this one is very good. It is good, though, because of the gritty realism that permeates every aspect of the film. Unlike the glamorized, slick killers of _The Silence of the Lambs_ or _Seven_, Henry is a rather boring, unremarkable individual. He is only smart in that he manages to elude capture, and even then it is only in the most rudimentary fashion. Aside from the character of Henry, the entire film feels very true to life, almost like a documentary. Of course, this clinical approach tends to be even more chilling than a traditional Hollywood film.

That said, the plot in this film is minimal; don't look for any major revelations there. The strength in this film is in cinematic and storytelling technique, yet the story itself is rather disorganized and raw.

Kudos to "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" for taking its subject seriously and not resorting to schlock effects. Prepare yourself for an unrelentingly grim film that will leave you feeling awful (it did me, anyway). It's well acted and fairly well written, but for all that it still didn't really leave much of an impression on me. It's certainly not one of the scariest movies ever made, as many people attest.

I guess I was disappointed in the film maker's choice of a subject. I'm fascinated by the psyches of serial killers, but Henry wasn't the kind of serial killer that most interests me. I prefer to read about the more ritualistic killers who kill to fulfill a basic need. Henry killed more as a way to cope with challenging emotions, and there was no pattern to his actions. He wasn't a serial killer in the conventional sense we've come to associate with serial killers.

Obviously, the film makers wanted their audience to be freaked out at the prospect of killers like this walking among us all the time, checking us out in parking lots, riding next to us on subways, exacting their own brand of revenge on a world that has treated them ill. However, for a more complex and satisfying look into the internal mind of someone teetering on the brink of madness, rent "Taxi Driver." Grade: B-

Henry (Michael Rooker), a character based on serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, hooks up with his prison friend Otis (Tom Towles) and his sister Becky (Tracy Arnold). Henry teaches Otis how to be a bloodthirsty killer, but things go awry when Otis fails to have Henry's level of control and turns his sights on to his own sister.

Director John McNaughton was a delivery man for executive producers Malik B. Ali and Waleed B. Ali of Maljack Productions, who then had him make some low-budget Chicago-themed documentaries before offering him $110,000 and a 16mm camera to make a horror film (without offering any ideas or limitations).

The story was brought to McNaughton by his friend Gus, who had a videotape of "20/20". McNaughton never heard of Henry before, and was not even familiar with the term "serial killer", but felt this had great potential. He had always loved horror films, especially Roger Corman's work with AIP, and he teamed up with Richard Fire of the Organic Theater (the home base of Stuart Gordon), where they found Tracy Arnold and Tom Towles. Towles, of course, would go on to work with McNaughton many more times.

Along with the cast, McNaughton brought in composer Robert McNaughton (no relation), who does a fine job adding to the creep factor, and the use of samples (such as screams) was quite innovative for its day. We also get some great street scenes, showing Milwaukee Avenue in Chicago (near where director McNaughton lived). One home shot at was at the corner of North and Wood in the Wicker Park neighborhood.

This film is absolutely amazing. Opening with still frame scenes of death, including a murdered hooker who is the most disturbing corpse I have seen since I watched "Four Rooms" (and this precedes that film by a decade). The first scene opens with the unknown victim "Orange Socks", posed just as in the police photograph, only adding to the authenticity.

The camera used was of lesser quality than a normal theatrical movie camera, giving a more realistic or "snuff" feel. I can watch heads explode and all sorts of simulated violence without flinching, but this really put me in a zone of discomfort. With a repeated viewing, this feeling decreases, but the grit of "Henry" is timeless.

Likewise, there is a later scene where a murder is being filmed on a home video recorder. The actors go to such extremes with the violence that it looks completely plausible -- I would be surprised if the victims were not actually injured in the process. This realism is something not often found in horror, and really makes this film stand out as a groundbreaking piece of work.

Michael Rooker, still a novice actor at this point, is amazing. He comes across as somehow dumb yet clever, unable to read but able to get what he needs. This fits the redneck killer profile of his character, and is so convincing you woud think Rooker himself was a little bit dumb or slow if you had not seen him in other roles ("Mallrats", "Days of Thunder").

The use of largely unknown actors, and not very attractive ones at that, again added to the realism. Hollywood would try to make the killers ugly but do so by using beautiful people (I think "Monster" proved this). "Henry" presented us with exactly what we were promised without all the glossy shine. At a screening of "Henry" in Chicago in August 2008 at Portage Theater, director John McNaughton made an appearance but refused to answer questions about the picture. This is a shame, McNaughton. Not only is this the film that made you a name, but it is legitimately a great picture and possibly your best work. Please don't alienate your fans or deny yourself this great achievement.

If you are looking for lots of sex and blood, you are probably looking for "Murder Set Pieces" (which is like this, but different at the same time -- less realism). If you want pure in-your-face brutality, this is more your style. I give it a complete recommendation, and consider it a "must see" for all horror fans of all ages (well, those old enough to handle the intensity, that is).

One last interesting note: after some distribution issues, this film was part of the reason for the MPAA's creation of NC-17 along with Pedro Almodovar's "Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down". So, along with being a great film, it also has historical value.

Another in the series of films I've found on the lists of the most controversial films of all time and another in a series of disappointments. Among the few more films, "Henry" caused the introduction of the NC-17, a rating for a non-pornographic adults-only film. People describe this film as unforgettably traumatic, but I do not even slightly remember it, although I saw it only a few years ago. "Chilling", "a movie to keep you up at night", "one of the scariest movies ever made", "haunting", "really horrifying", "I'm still shaking", are some of the statements that made me watch it again, although the first time I rated it 5/10.

After re-watching, I'm reading reviews and I'm wondering who's crazy here. Is it possible that I am totally inured to everything or is this movie, in fact, overrated nonsense? If it was made a few decades earlier, maybe I could understand such reactions, but for mid-eighties, this is totally lame. From the title, I expected a film dealing with the psychological profile of a serial killer, but there is not even a basic characterization of the protagonist here. It fails as a drama, because it does not convey any emotion, and as a thriller, because there is no plot, and as a horror, because there is no tense atmosphere or even bloody scenes. There was nothing to hold my attention. Slow, empty and boring. My rating definitely goes down.

3/10

This low-budget film gets high marks because it's entertaining, despite the perversity of the subject matter. It's only 83 minutes long and it moves very fast. Some will be turned off big-time with the shocking brutality of this film, but that's what it is about - a cold-blooded killer (Michael Rooker, playing real-life killer Henry Lee Lucas) with seemingly no conscience, and a stupid partner (Tom Towles as "Otis Toole"), who is about as bad.

"Chilling" is a good word to describe these guys.

The only part of the movie which was repugnant to me was the scene in with Rooker and Towles break into a house, terrorize a woman and videotape it. Other than that, this is fun to watch in a sick way. This, and the French movie, "Man Bites Dog," are the two movies in my collection I am embarrassed (morally speaking) to say I own and find fascinating to watch.

There are only three main actors in this film: Rooker, Towles (playing fellow killer, Otis Toole, a real dumb-ass trashy character) and his kid sister, "Becky" (Tracy Arnold). All three are extremely interesting.

The rest of the people are all victims of those two guys who go on a killing spree that is almost a daily occurrence for a short time. It's absurd, but that's the story. It caused quite a star when it was released. It was given a rare NC-17 rating. Nowadays, it would be "R" with no fanfare.

This is a very sick story, but it sure is interesting.

This film left me with so many conflicting emotions, I'm unsure how to comment upon it. Whilst it was a powerful, realistic and effective piece of film making it's difficult to enjoy this film. After viewing I experienced feelings of depression and numbness like no other film (except perhaps Scum) has ever come close to evoking. It's raw camera-work, gritty setting and introverted acting suit the documentary style of the film and add to its realism. The cold way in which Henry goes about his life is frightening, he kills without a second thought and feels no remorse afterwards. Michael Rookers performance is to be commended, his portrayal of Henry is more menacing and frightening than any Krueger, Myers or Vorhees caricature will ever be.

This is a most extreme case of evoking emotions that few horror type movies will ever achieve. I would have to put it alongside Chainsaw Massacre and Last House on The Left for its bleakness and ability to disturb.

although the slow pace of the movie i painfully watched it entirely, as the title claimed to be a 'PORTRAIT" of a serial killer. i expected some psychology, some labor of research, but it was a bland exercise in trying to shock the viewers, i believe you get more information and insights on half a page of a popular daily newspaper, you can tell in advance that serial killers are immoral people with affective problems so what is the idea to show their daily inept lives, without trying to get into their minds ? and it does not qualify even as a horror movie (there is no suspense, no emotions, not even blood) nor a controversial, original movie, "I stand alone" is quite impressive for example, and many documentaries have better treated the subject, don't be intrigued by the title, this is not worth spending time watching

With the BWP hype, a lot of talk of going around about "the scariest movie you've ever seen". Probably because I've seen over a thousand horror/fright/suspense/gore movies, I have trouble pinning it down. I can't name the scariest, I can name the top 5. 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. 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. In fact, after I saw this I never open the door when I am home alone and not expecting anyone, period. 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.

After I saw this movie at the festival, I was lucky enough to be there when Michael Rooker, who plays the title character, came out and lectured and did Q & A. When I say lucky, I don't mean lucky that I got to meet a celebrity (though that was neat). I mean lucky that I was able to have proof immediately afterwards that this was just a movie. If the movie had ended and I just had to get up and go home, I probably wouldn't have gotten any sleep for about a week. He was very nice and personable, wore glasses and a blazer, not at all like his character. The thing I remember most clearly is someone asked him what kind of movies he liked and he replied, "I don't like horror movies, really, I like musicals". Everyone laughed for about 5 minutes, partially out of relief. BIG relief. See, it's just a movie, there's the actor right there, and ha-ha, he's actually very shy and charming and harmless, isn't that funny?

Even with all of that, 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.