Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

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.

How it got a 7.1, I'll never know. The facts were SO WRONG. Henry didn't kill Ottis Toole's sister, it was his NIECE. Becky was Ottis' niece, why would they portray her as his sister? Henry did NOT kill Ottis Toole, he died in prison! I mean, they portray it as Henry killed and dismembered Ottis, when none of that even happened. The acting in this movie was CRAP. There was so many important points they could have made in this movie, that they left out. Like the fact that Henry and Ottis were lovers, why did they leave that out? This movie is a 1, and that's at it's best. Don't bother watching this movie! Don't bother watching this

As you probably know, this film is partly based on the confessions of the real Henry Lee Lucas. If you know that and see this movie, you can ask some serious question about how disturbing some of our fellow humans are. This man shows no emotions what so ever. Contact with other people is nearly impossible, no mercy, not wondering whether his victims have a family or how old they are...no nothing. You wonder if he even IS a human, no living creature can be so awful. So, if you ask yourself all this during this movie, and I assure you will, you could say it's an excellent film. The mission of the movie itself has succeeded. The ideal atmosphere is achieved in the movie. Dark, melancholic, depressing...Director McNaughton really creates world you don't want to live in. Michael Rooker plays the role of his life and puts down one of the best acting performances ever. Sure, he's never honored with an Oscar or any other important price for his performance, but everyone who sees this movie knows it's true. Actually, when I first saw this film at the age of 9 ( Too young, I know) I thought this actor was in fact a real-life psycho. Henry talks with the same, aggressive tone of voice during the whole movie, his eyes seem to shoot fireballs when the camera looks like in them and his appearance makes you want to puke. Actually this film is pure genius for mainly one reason : you don't have sympathy for any of the characters. Most film, even is the whole cast play villains, there's always one you like. One character you create a sort of band with. In Henry: Portrait of a serial Killer you can only feel hate. Hate and disgust for Henry and for his companion Otis. Heck, you even start to hate the girl... For being so naive that is. Although many persons are killed and many violence occurs, Henry certainly ain't a gore or bloody film. Many things are suggested but not shown, and in this case it's actually more or at least as scary as showing the actual murders. That's a quality you don't see in movies very much. Only the old horror movies from the 30's and 40's could do that. And now also Henry can. I advise everyone to see this movie, if they haven't already. Not just if you're a fan of horror or thrillers, but also if you appreciate good movies in general. Even the most critic movie buffs can only find this film terrific. It was on many many levels a very important film.

I watched this and turned it off half way through. I was so sickened by what I saw. Regretfully curiosity got the better of me and I watched the rest of it which was just as sick, perverse, cruel and ghastly as the first part, and made me feel annoyed at myself for foolishly believing it might redeem itself in the second half somehow - hard to say how it would have done that but there you go. It's a revolting film, I really hate it. It stays with you, for all the wrong reasons. There is nothing good to say about it. It should never have been made. I'm quite a hardened horror fan but this was too much for me. Do not waste any time in even considering to watch it and I dread to think what sort of audience it is aimed for, not one in a civilised society that is for sure.

*Spoiler Alert!* If this film was really supposed to be an example of an in-depth character study of a serial killer, then, as that study, it was utterly worthless 'cause Henry literally had no character to study. Nope. He sure didn't. He was completely void of any "character". And, with that in mind, just because Henry had a sick and diseased mind, did that have to mean that he had to be portrayed in such a way as to make him out to be a completely colourless, humourless and one-dimensional non-entity? Surely (just like everyone else) serial killers also have some notable character dynamics that could be called a "personality" (or a reasonable facsimile there of). But this wasn't the case with Henry. His personality was nil. I also found it rather puzzling that the approach in which Henry took to killing people was like that of one performing a totally hated job. I got the clear impression that killing someone was the most unfulfilling thing in the world for him, instead of it being the other way around. I cannot figure out why this serial-killer business seemed to be such a drudgery for Henry (and for me, as the viewer, as well). If killing people was Henry's "thing", his lust, his passion (and this seemed to be the case), then, why didn't this lust & passion show in his murderous actions? I would think that after each adrenaline rush of a fresh kill, Henry would have been absolutely elated like someone who's flying high on a powerful drug. But throughout the entire course of this film, Henry came across as being a complete and utter dullard who was not worth paying the least bit of attention to. And, to me, this whole argument about the insufferable dreariness of Henry and his murderous actions was this film's biggest and most damaging downfalls. It ultimately rendered this ugly, vicious and nasty film to the level of being one of the s-h-i-t-tiest "portraits" of anyone that I've ever seen. And, on top of all of the above, here are a number of other points about this pointless story that just about killed me to pieces - (1) Henry (who had already spent time in jail) wasn't in the least bit concerned about leaving tell-tale fingerprints, here, there, and everywhere, around each site of every single murder he committed. (Sheesh!) (2) Henry's amazingly deadly ability to snap a person's neck (thus instantly killing them) by applying the same effortless force that one might use to simply snap their fingers. (3) Never once, in the entirety of the story, was there any involvement, whatsoever, of a police alert and/or an investigation into this rash of sadistic murders. (Ho-hum!) (4) The clear fact that Henry was completely repulsed by sex yet a number of his female victims were found to be * as though they had been raped. I certainly realize that Henry was no dummy (he managed to continue with his murderous activities indefinitely without any concern about being caught) - Yet, time and again, he behaved in such a blatantly stupid fashion which defied logic and common sense. Henry's actions, for the most part, defied the basic instinct for self-survival. All-in-all - This decidedly unpleasant movie about a brain-dead serial killer and his brain-dead friends and his brain-dead life (none of which I cared one bit about) gave me a serious case of brain-freeze right from the very first moment I was shown the first of Henry's many victims lying dead and naked (and seemingly posed just so) near a pond in some remote woods. On top of all of its stifled dialogue, its annoyingly wooden performances, and its recklessly seedy production values, Henry: Portrait Of a Serial Killer was nothing but a predictable paint-by-numbers picture whose intended shock-value completely missed its mark and inevitably failed to deliver much of a worthwhile jolt. It only aggravated and bored this viewer to pieces. So, there!

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.

source: Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

Trailer—Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

The characters of Henry and Otis are based on real life serial killers Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole n it makes this film even more terrifying. In the beginning we r introduced to offscreen grisly murders committed by Henry (Michael Rooker in his debut film). Harry shares an apartment with his prison buddy Otis. The home invasion scene involving the kid's death made me squirm. The eyeball horror scene may satisfy fans of Fulci horror. The facial n eye expressions of Otis when Henry snaps the neck of the prostitute is truly that of wtf. I first saw this in the 90s on a vhs. Revisited it recently.