Henry and Otis, having recently acquired a camcorder and a colour television, record themselves massacring an entire family and later watch back the results.
The entire sequence is shown with uncut blunt force realism via their television set. The scene, that the BBFC cut down to a fleeting few seconds, is the film at its most powerful and uncompromising.
By framing this intense brutality through a television set, the film confronts us, the audience, with our motives for watching. For all of the cannibalism, severed heads and skin suits in The Silence of the Lambs, nothing in it penetrates your skin quite like these screams for mercy and snapping of necks.
There is no flair or stylisation to shield you from the bleak reality of a sadistic home invasion. While much horror trivialises murder this scene unflinchingly confronts it. Our role as voyeurs of violence and sexual assault is made explicit and uncomfortable. It establishes Henry as both an exceptional entry to the horror canon and a chilling commentary on it.
In portraying this man, unadorned, unemotional, cold and callous, the violence on screen retains a brutal purity that shocks and repulses. What the critics and censors saw in is the rare power of raw sadism on screen, made all the more terrifying by its mundane familiarity.
Licorice Pizza review — Silky-smooth filmmaking perfection. Little White Lies was established in as a bi-monthly print magazine committed to championing great movies and the talented people who make them.
Share this. Sign up to our weekly newsletter. Reviews Features Interviews Podcast. He's the same when he's working, eating or killing. He's void of anything while stalking and while cleaning up. Killing is just something he does.
He has a damaged past which determines the type of victims he targets, but that's it. He doesn't try to stop himself, he doesn't get a rush afterward, nothing.
He just is. Otis, on the other hand, got a rush from it all. Otis and Henry were polar opposites in this way. So that's about all I can say without spoiling it. Of course a movie like this can't really be spoiled since it's the visual experience that makes it special. It's a lot like The Poughkeepsie Tapes or Ms. Sounds generic, but it's not. It's a beautiful horror movie that feels like a gut punch, just like Portrait of a Serial Killer. If you like realistic serial killer movies , like almost documentary style, then there's no reason you shouldn't watch this.
Go watch it now, it's as close to a perfect serial killer movie you're gonna get. If you're at all squeamish or if you prefer Hollywood horror movies that offer hope of victim survival, then this might not be for you. It's unhealthy, really.
All Horror - Discover new horror movies, create and share your own horror movie lists and curate watchlists from thousands of titles, new and old.
Would it Kill You to Subscribe? Get horror news, reviews and movie recommendations every Friday! We respect your email privacy. Seriously, signup for our newsletter or Freddy will hunt you in your dreams.
Horror News. Horror Reviews. Toggle navigation. The shocking true story of Henry Lee Lucas. Yo Adrian. We don't actually see Henry murder anyway until halfway through--and it's more than a little disturbing. His violent rages come out of nowhere and he shows no mercy to his victims. The murders and ferocity increase and leads to a home invasion about an hour in that's virtually unwatchable.
This is one of the few movies where the violence and murders truly horrify you. The acting is excellent across the board--Rooker is superb as Henry.
It reaches the point we're you're almost expecting him to kill people. You never know when he's going to explode. It keeps the viewer tense and off key. This movie rightfully got Rooker recognized. Also the direction is assured and the music score is just perfect for the tone of the film.
It has a truly horrific and depressing ending. This is obviously not for everyone but it's shattering and disturbing and recommended for those who like to be challenged by a movie--and have strong stomaches.
Recommended for horror fans especially. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer tells the story of Henry Michael Rooker who is a serial killer living in Chicago with his ex inmate Otis Tom Towles , Henry introduces the pleasures of killing another human being for no reason whatsoever to Otis when he kills two prostitutes they are having sex with.
Now this sort of thing obviously excites some as Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is a well regarded film although I was throughly bored. At least it's short. Director McNaughton was obviously working on a low budget so that's the reason it looks horrible, there are a few dead bodies on show, someone gets the end of a comb! The acting is alright with Michael Rooker standing out. Good but not great. For these type of serial killer movies you never need a budget worth millions of dollars to let it work out.
Often a shoe-string budget work out the best for this type its movies, because it contributes to the movie its unpleasant atmosphere. You can say that in these type of movies the amateurism and simplicity all adds to the creativity and overall effectiveness of the movie.
This movie is far less known and also isn't blessed with such a great title. The title of this movie somewhat sounds something like a based on true-events TV movie, without any graphic images. But don't be fooled, for "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is filled with graphic violence and other disturbing moments.
The movie feels and breaths an '70's atmosphere. Also the overall style of the movie is very '70's like, in a gritty, dark and very straightforward type of way. It isn't a movie that has a true beginning or ending, in terms of having a conclusion that puts an end to things. It has instead now got one of the best possible endings thinkable, that is shocking, unexpected and satisfying even though it doesn't put a definitive end to things. The real story of Henry Lee Lucas is even more shocking and disturbing but also a lot longer and more complicated of course.
It's far too much to put in a movie and then prevent it from getting ever overlong or starts repeating itself and remain original. This movie obviously had to make some choices and even decided to not only exclude a lot but also to change and add certain elements, which all strengthens the story in this case. The story might seem very simple at first sight now but is's perhaps the very same simplicity that makes the movie so great- and let things work out in it so effectively.
It makes some great choices with its story and build up, that seem simple but are all thought out and constructed cleverly. The movie features the then still unknown Michael Rooker in one of his earliest roles. None of the actors are that impressive within this movie, which gives Michael Rooker all the more room to shine in his role. He plays a great two faced character, that can be both kind and sort of shy as well as ruthless.
He does this very convincingly within the movie. But it are the graphic killings within the movie that makes this a really watchable one. It doesn't show all the killings how they happened but only just a few, which makes the impact of them work out all the more and adds to the reason why this movie is regarded by many as one of the most shocking one's. A great and effectively shocking movie within its genre. What portrait did we get? Henry Michael Rooker was a serial killer who really was just making a brief stop in Illinois before continuing on to greener pastures.
In his stopover in Illinois he made time to kill a few people and recruit Otis Tom Towles to the serial killer club. The movie didn't show many of the killings just the corpses. We never really found out how Henry's mind worked except that he switched things up to stay ahead of police by not establishing a pattern.
Was he choosing different victims because he liked variety or because he didn't want to establish a pattern? We never find out. If anything, the biggest thing we find out is that a serial killer can be the most normal and even cordial guy you meet. Henry was very normal looking and even gentlemanly in his behavior.
That's the best portrait we got and perhaps the scariest. Being that this is based on a notorious American serial killer, I couldn't help but wonder if it was any good; I can't say how many serial killer pieces I've found and wondered about just the last couple of weeks Gacy, Bundy, etc. My interest in psychology and the human psyche has convinced me to see each of them, good or bad, just to enjoy and embrace the psychological aspects of them.
So earlier today, I bought this, The Mangler, and Jackie Brown each of them being films that I've wanted to see for a while. Not long after reading up on the three films, I quickly found out that this was, most likely, going to be the one that I would enjoy the most. Jackie Brown looks like the typical Tarantino-flick, which can be enjoyable, but is a little too often less than great.
The Mangler looks like a cheap, low-budget B-movie, which I also enjoy, but rarely on the same level as a good, psychological movie. So I put this on, sat down, and almost immediately, I realized the genius and talent involved in the film.
From one of the very first frames, the film sends a powerful chill down your spine. This film redefined what "disturbing" can be. The pure level of disturbing, chilling and directly disgusting violence and gore in this film is definitely horrifying in itself. The main character, his actions, his reactions, the very look in his eyes is unsettling and disturbing.
Think Hannibal Lecter, but more unpredictable and less, well, annoying, not to mention more terrifying. The cinematography is excellent. I found it terrifying to see the "aftermath" shots, the slow, developing shots of an inanimate person, while we hear sounds in the background, and suddenly, we realize that the person is dead, and what we're hearing is his or her death.
That was quite possibly the best way this could have been handled, as they couldn't, simply because of the budget, show every single killing that was going to be in the movie. The plot is very good; it follows Henry, the serial killer, during a small portion of his life, gives background details, and leaves him pretty much in the same position that it picked him up in, with no direct conclusion. This will probably disappoint some wanting a more in-depth portrayal of Henry's life, and a few who can't accept a movie with no direct, clean-cut ending.
I am not sure if I was disappointed with the end; I do not belong to any of the two aforementioned groups, as I saw this mainly for the psychological aspects, rather than a portrayal of Henry's entire life, or a standard Hollywood mainstream piece.
Also, as the director, John McNaughton, explains in the interview also on the DVD, they were breaking rules with the film. They didn't want it to be like every other horror movie. The characters are well-written and credible. The acting is great; Michael Rooker is fantastic, very chilling. I doubt I'll ever be able to look directly at a picture of him and not think of his psychotic gaze as Henry.
The special effects are very good, for a low-budget late 80's horror film. Actually, when I was watching it, I didn't realize that it was low-budget. None of it seemed like it had been forced down to a lower scale, nothing seemed like it was there in place of what should have been there. It really feels like the director put pretty much everything he wanted in the movie, into the movie. It never felt, for one moment of one scene, that there was a single detail where the director, if you mentioned it to him, would go, "yeah, we couldn't really get that to work properly".
It's obvious that the director knew exactly what to do, and did it. This proves that he really has talent, not something I would have thought of someone who directed the confused mess that Wild Things was. A great piece of film. The only things that keep this film from a perfect score of ten, is the pace and the various unresolved issues of the film, one of those being the ending which, admittedly, does leave a bit of a sour taste in the viewers mouth, and leaves him feeling a tiny bit unsatisfied.
The pace is somewhat slow, bordering on very slow at times. When the dialog wasn't interesting, and there wasn't anything worthwhile going on on-screen, it tends to be a little boring and dull. The film also does feel a little bit unresolved, as the ending doesn't really conclude anything, but merely marks the ending of the film. I don't know if the director didn't think too much of the importance of a good ending and a conclusion to the story, any conclusion, or he just didn't have any good ideas on how to end it, so he just decided to stop it once the final scene was done, without any actual conclusion to the story.
Who knows. Anyway, as I said, these are minor, almost marginal complaints, and don't really take away from the enjoyment of the film, any more than just dragging it down from a ten to an eight.
Nothing more. I recommend this excellent, psychological portrayal of a serial killer to just about anyone interested in the subject, who can stand the violence, which, believe me, will shock and disgust many less than hardened individuals I am what most would define as very hardened, yet I found many scenes more disturbing than I thought was possible.
What is interesting is, that while it was hard to look, it was even harder to look away. Henry is the darkness that exists inside every single human being. Sorry for rambling on like that, but this film really got to me, on a very deep level.
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. Is there an actor in existence that could have embodied the character of 'Henry' any better than Michael Rooker did here?
Before he has even lifted a finger, we can see that he's evil. It's his persona, his atmosphere, he breathes a sense of malice; but yet he's not so detached from reality that he doesn't have a human element about him. During the scene in which he admits to killing his mama, despite what he is saying being evil; he draws you into his character, and although you know that he is a bad man; you can almost feel for him when he tells his story.
And it's this meandering emotion that makes this a great and ultimately shocking film. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is a thoroughly unpleasant film. Many sequences in the movie are uncomfortable and therefore difficult to watch; but that is definitely a good thing for a movie like this. The theme of the movie is unpleasant in itself, so credit where credit is due as the film fully recognises this fact and makes the best use it can of it.
The movie is very shocking in the way that it portrays the murders, however. It's not that they're particularly bloody; some are, a man is stabbed to death, a family is killed together, and there is a scene in which Henry removes someone's head; but a lot of the graphic stuff is left to the imagination. The real shock, however, comes from the way the killer reacts to crimes he has committed. He not only shows no remorse, his reaction is the same as if a sane person has swatted a fly; he ditches the bodies from his car like you would eject rubbish from your house; it's so cold and it's shocking that someone could react to murder in this way.
However, later on we find out that his reaction isn't so cold, which only serves in making it more shocking; murder excites Henry. This is shown with the line in which Henry claims "it's always the same but it's always different" The movie is loosely based on the story of real-life serial killer; Henry Lee Lucas, but other than that basis, it is fiction. The other two central characters in the film; Becky and Otis are mostly fictitious.
The other two characters have very defined roles in the film; Otis is very sick, maybe even sicker than Henry. Henry is a murderer, but he obviously still has some morals shown by his affection for Becky ; Otis, on the other hand has none. Becky is the only character in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer that inspires any affection from the audience, and it through her that Henry gains his humanity and he is made into a more complete person.
The ending doesn't draw the story to a close, but it is as shocking as anything else in the movie. After the audience have seen Henry's more affectionate side, he shocks us one final time by showing us that he really is incapable of love A lot of is left to the audience to decide; the film gives you the picture of a serial killer, and you have to answer the questions yourself. So just maybe Henry isn't human after all.
Two big surprises here for me, one; the realisation that I had never seen it before and two, the discovery of just how well made it is. Inspired by the truths and untruths of the apparent terrible escapades of real life outsiders, Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole, this is a terrifying tale made all the more terrifying by the matter of fact filming.
More or less McNaughton's first film, he was fortunate and intuitive enough to recognise the talent of Michael Rooker when he offered himself at auditions. Rooker with his good looks unlike the original killer and his slightly unworldly combination of awkwardness and worldliness utterly convinces in the central role.
With an overall appearance of being a combination of documentary and new wave verity, we are lulled into accepting as normal the most atrocious activity and into witnessing the most horrific violence.
Ghastly, fascinating, alienating, involving and believable, this is a truly horrific treat. HumanoidOfFlesh 12 January Henry Lee Lucas was the son of a prostitute and a railway worker.
His mother seems to have detested the child and treated him with sadistic cruelty. In January he murdered his mother during the course of a quarrel,slashing at her with a knife. He was sentenced in a forty years in prison,but was recommended for parole after ten years. After that he met another drifter Ottis Toole. When Lucas was arrested he confessed to a total of three hundred and sixty murders many of these admissions proved to be false.
Both-Lucas and Toole-were sentenced to death. Michael Rooker as a psychopathic killer is really believable. The supporting cast is also great. The scene when Lucas and Toole watch themselves murdering a family,who they tie up and kick to death,is very disturbing.
A must see for any fan of the genre. Check it out,you won't be disappointed. An error has occured. Please try again. Create a list ». Favourite Under-rated Movies of the 80s. Horror Classics. Low-budget movies.
0コメント