Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer **

[Scott]

This is a disturbing film, no doubt. It says that no one under 17 should allowed to see this film. I'm not sure people need to see this, but at the same time it kinda keeps you on you toe's when around strangers. The film is well done, but because of the overall content I can only give it acouple stars **. People get killed all the time in films, but this film makes it feel different.

Entertaining 0 (should we be entertained by this?)
Impact 4

** out of 5

[Flangepart]

Sounds like it would fit Mofo Riseing's Different tone post. Just what i've heard about this thing makes me want to steer clear.

[Josh Leman]

Even if you don't like it, Henry is a really important film.  So many movies glorify serial killers and make them into cartoonish evil geniuses who leave all kinds of stylized clues for the police to find as a part of some big plot.  As good as Seven and the Hannibal Lecter movies are, they have nothing to do with the very real concept of serial murder.

I think Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is simply an attempt to show viewers that reality.  You're not really supposed to enjoy watching it, but I think you are supposed to learn something from it.  As such, I would probably call it one of the best horror movies ever made.  

But I have strange tastes.

[Brian Ringler]

I second Josh's comment about it being one of the best horror movies

[Matt]

They filmed most of that movie around Chicago, the scene where they kill the guy helping them in the tunnel is Lower Wacker Drive - not the place you would want your car to break down.

[Zombie Keeper]

I didn't think it was nearly as disturbing as some people had lead me to beleive. But it does have its moments thats for sure!

Zombie Keeper - http://www.zombiekeeper.com/

[Skaboi18]

I actually like this film.  Not because of how disturbing it is, but because it is based on a true story.  I recently saw a hour show about Henry on the History channel(atleast I believe it was).  It completely drove everything home.  Henry was seriously disturbed.  He felt no real remorse for the things that he did.......
I find the film extremely disturbing as well.  Remember the scene where he kills the family??? The woman portraying the mother actually passed out after the scene was over.  
***News***
The director of Henry2 is directing Ed Gein....such similar people, don't you think?

[Allhallowsday]

HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER is on IFC tonight at Midnight (12am EST).  I found this ancient thread and revived it in case anyone is interested in catching this powerful film.  I will also post a notice in OFF TOPIC forum.  If you don't know what this film is, it is not nice, be forewarned.  You may be disturbed. 

HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER tonight on IFC 12 midnight EST

[Neville]

Can you believe I haven't seen it yet? 

I need to watch it one of these days. The funny thing is that I've seen some of the wrok of both director John McNaughton and Michael Rooker and I like it.

[Allhallowsday]

HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER is on IFC tonight at 9:30 pm EST. 

[RCMerchant]

HENREY is one of the best horror films of the 80's. It does what most so-called 'horror' films fail to do...it horrifies.
Because ,to paraphrase a line from DRACULA-"-such things DO exsist."

[Menard]

HENREY is one of the best horror films of the 80's. It does what most so-called 'horror' films fail to do...it horrifies.
Because ,to paraphrase a line from DRACULA-"-such things DO exsist."

I frankly think the movie is one of the biggest pieces of s**t ever made.

Its killing scenes are laughable; especially the poke to Otis' eye.

What's the worst part of it, though, is that it is exploitation at its worst. It takes the first names of Henry Lee Lucas, Otis Toole, and Becky Powell (the real life trio), then fabricates a jackass story in the guise of a real one.

They basically took an actual tragedy just to profit from it.

Had they based it on the real life Henry Lee Lucas, rather than just using the name and pretending it was, it would have been an actual portrait of a serial killer and not the piece of s**t sympathetic treatment it is. Of course, the one downside is that nobody really wants to see a real life portrayal of Lucas; if they are familiar with the case.

Perhaps this might be watchable without knowledge of Lucas and company.

[RCMerchant]

Actually....a closer to the truth movie WAS made...it was 1985's CONFESSIONS of a SERIAL KILLER starring Robert A. Burns.
Burns was the set designer for the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.  It's perhaps even more horrifiing then HENRY.

I found a clip on youtube. It's dubbed into Spainish. Still scary as hell.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kTWznKYXssI

I've seen documentaries on the real Lucas....and read a number of books about him as well. One sick pup.

[Allhallowsday]

HENREY is one of the best horror films of the 80's. It does what most so-called 'horror' films fail to do...it horrifies.
Because ,to paraphrase a line from DRACULA-"-such things DO exsist."

I frankly think the movie is one of the biggest pieces of s**t ever made.

Its killing scenes are laughable; especially the poke to Otis' eye.

What's the worst part of it, though, is that it is exploitation at its worst. It takes the first names of Henry Lee Lucas, Otis Toole, and Becky Powell (the real life trio), then fabricates a jackass story in the guise of a real one.

They basically took an actual tragedy just to profit from it.

Had they based it on the real life Henry Lee Lucas, rather than just using the name and pretending it was, it would have been an actual portrait of a serial killer and not the piece of s**t sympathetic treatment it is. Of course, the one downside is that nobody really wants to see a real life portrayal of Lucas; if they are familiar with the case.

Perhaps this might be watchable without knowledge of Lucas and company.

You are obviously inured to real Horror, which is not always about forensic exactness.  It should be noted that only the killings of a family, seen in videotape, and of Otis, are seen in this film.  All others are shown in their gory, and haunting, aftermath.   
I think this film works very well towards expressing a particularly horrific reality.  The fictionalization informs the film as a work of art rather than a document. 

[Menard]

You are obviously inured to real Horror, which is not always about forensic exactness.  It should be noted that only the killings of a family, seen in videotape, and of Otis, are seen in this film.  All others are shown in their gory, and haunting, aftermath.   
I think this film works very well towards expressing a particularly horrific reality.  The fictionalization informs the film as a work of art rather than a document. 

You forget about the neck snapping of the two women in the car; which is also laughable in its representation.

The filmmakers should have either chosen to document the reality of the story from which they took the characters, or they should have created characters for their work of fiction.

Taking the names and other elements (though few) from the real life trio, but wrapping it in a complete work of fiction having nothing to do with that trio is exploitive. The story that is represented is not a very effective portrait of a serial killer; being that 'portrait' is not only a part of the title, but is also what they promise to deliver, I would expect that, and they failed.

IMO