"Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is, not only because of its realism or its interesting main character, a very good movie.
With this movie, I discovered an actor that never really attracted me, maybe because of SOME of his more recent projects: Michael Rooker. I know, he played in "Replicant" with Jean-Claude Van Damme, but except for that, I was pretty impressed by his filmography. Mr.Rooker is far away from being a bad actor, really. And this film, along with other productions, proves it. It was his first film, and definitely a great role to start. Many actors started their path through glory with a bad guy role. But Henry is more than a simple bad guy...
The film, in 1986, had brought a strong wave of controversy. I have to admit that it's pretty violent (not SO much, but I can understand why it was censored in the 80's). I saw a 81 minute version, which is not the whole runtime, and sometimes it was obvious that some murders had been cut. But too bad, it's true to say that the sadism and brutality of the violence brings something really intense and somehow disgusting in the film, but even with the 81 minutes version I felt its effect completely. (SPOILERS) Many murders are atrocious to see because of the graphic aspect, others are gratuitous, and others are disgustingly brutal. The graphic aspect makes it a sometimes pretty gory film, like the guy that gets his head smashed with a TV, or the guy that is stabbed in the eye and then gets his head cut off. These murders bring a sense of strong disgust to the viewer. The gratuitous murders, like when Henry gives a gun to Otis and tells him to kill anyone to see how it feels to kill someone, are probably the ones that show how sick Henry (and Otis) are. The brutal ones, without pretending that they are not ALL brutal, are the worse to watch. If you've seen Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange", you'll understand. There is a very disturbing rape scene in "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer". But it's not only the rape that is SO disturbing, it's also the fact that they are filming everything, and Otis just can't stop watching it later. Those who found "Deliverance"'s rape scene shocking, don't see this, really, because "Deliverance"'s scene was very soft and had NOTHING brutal compared to "Henry"'s.
But, the most important point, the realism. The setting is very common. Henry, Otis and his sister live in a very small house, have very normal jobs, are not wearing some Versace clothes, and are simply looking like anybody you could meet on the street. There's a scene where Henry cleans the floor with a broom, you know, all these things you have to do in every day life, but that are never shown in movies. Movies usually show the extremes: either very rich people or poor people. But the middle-class environment is so well delivered. But we still have to understand that this is a low budget film, so even if they had wanted to make a richer environment, I doubt they could have done so. But believe me, it's a very good element of the film. The characters are also very affected (in a good way) by a near setting. The way the speak, their accent, vocabular, their jobs, their clothes, everything.
It appears that the character of Henry is an interpretation of the not THAT renowned killer Henry Lee Lucas. It's an interesting concept to make a movie about a killer that is not known as THE MOST DANGEROUS killer off all times. They could have made a movie about Charles Manson's life, but they decided to make it on someone a little less known's life. And that's good. It's like the film "Sweet and Lowdown", with Sean Penn, who plays the SECOND best guitarist of all times. It's good to see that they give second places a chance.
The characters are not so important, except for Otis and of course, Henry. Henry plays some kind of teacher (in mass murdering) to Otis, but he has more personality than that. He's a man full of contradictions, a man that has a very hard choice to make in the end of the movie, a man that has is full of nuances, but that still consists into a very dangerous serial killer. We have many hints of his past life, and it somehow justifies all of his horrible acts. Otis is different. He discovers a passion in murder and rape, but doesn't control himself, "exaggerates" too much. And Henry is aware of that. The character of Otis becomes slowly something totally different than what it was before. At first, he's a pretty normal man, with a minor violent behavior, but discovers suddenly a way to express his rage. To me, Otis seemed like a stupid junkie while Henry seemed like an experimented and cautious addict of killing people. Otis' sister, Becky,is important, but not for her evolution. She falls in love with Henry, who simply doesn't know how to react to somebody's feelings. Becky doesn't have a very important role, but her character becomes useful for one thing, and only one: love. And that's the point where Henry will be full of contradictions. And that's the most important thing, because it tops Henry's deranged mind. Henry is a nice character to analyze.
But, even with all that said, you'll never know how brilliant the ending is if you don't see it. So, overall, the urban yet middle-class setting makes this film very realistic, the complex characters make it twisted, the brutality makes it shocking and intense, and the music, directing and atmosphere are a huge contribution to this movie, that is, for sure, not the most interesting to watch, because you somehow stay pretty distant to the characters and atmosphere, but the whole thing has lots of qualities. Pretty enjoyable, and terrifying enough. "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is a great movie. It's a different approach to a serial killer's life, way more original than movies such as "Strangeland", "Resurrection", and other thrillers that are not bad, but do not focus enough on the killer's mind...and in "Henry", they did not make that mistake.
I give it 7/10, but it's really close to an 8.
And, by the way, I just couldn't believe they made a sequel to this film. Really, this fact deceived me (though I haven't seen the second film), because the ending of the first one was perfect, and a sequel simply ruins all of its meaning.
With this movie, I discovered an actor that never really attracted me, maybe because of SOME of his more recent projects: Michael Rooker. I know, he played in "Replicant" with Jean-Claude Van Damme, but except for that, I was pretty impressed by his filmography. Mr.Rooker is far away from being a bad actor, really. And this film, along with other productions, proves it. It was his first film, and definitely a great role to start. Many actors started their path through glory with a bad guy role. But Henry is more than a simple bad guy...
The film, in 1986, had brought a strong wave of controversy. I have to admit that it's pretty violent (not SO much, but I can understand why it was censored in the 80's). I saw a 81 minute version, which is not the whole runtime, and sometimes it was obvious that some murders had been cut. But too bad, it's true to say that the sadism and brutality of the violence brings something really intense and somehow disgusting in the film, but even with the 81 minutes version I felt its effect completely. (SPOILERS) Many murders are atrocious to see because of the graphic aspect, others are gratuitous, and others are disgustingly brutal. The graphic aspect makes it a sometimes pretty gory film, like the guy that gets his head smashed with a TV, or the guy that is stabbed in the eye and then gets his head cut off. These murders bring a sense of strong disgust to the viewer. The gratuitous murders, like when Henry gives a gun to Otis and tells him to kill anyone to see how it feels to kill someone, are probably the ones that show how sick Henry (and Otis) are. The brutal ones, without pretending that they are not ALL brutal, are the worse to watch. If you've seen Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange", you'll understand. There is a very disturbing rape scene in "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer". But it's not only the rape that is SO disturbing, it's also the fact that they are filming everything, and Otis just can't stop watching it later. Those who found "Deliverance"'s rape scene shocking, don't see this, really, because "Deliverance"'s scene was very soft and had NOTHING brutal compared to "Henry"'s.
But, the most important point, the realism. The setting is very common. Henry, Otis and his sister live in a very small house, have very normal jobs, are not wearing some Versace clothes, and are simply looking like anybody you could meet on the street. There's a scene where Henry cleans the floor with a broom, you know, all these things you have to do in every day life, but that are never shown in movies. Movies usually show the extremes: either very rich people or poor people. But the middle-class environment is so well delivered. But we still have to understand that this is a low budget film, so even if they had wanted to make a richer environment, I doubt they could have done so. But believe me, it's a very good element of the film. The characters are also very affected (in a good way) by a near setting. The way the speak, their accent, vocabular, their jobs, their clothes, everything.
It appears that the character of Henry is an interpretation of the not THAT renowned killer Henry Lee Lucas. It's an interesting concept to make a movie about a killer that is not known as THE MOST DANGEROUS killer off all times. They could have made a movie about Charles Manson's life, but they decided to make it on someone a little less known's life. And that's good. It's like the film "Sweet and Lowdown", with Sean Penn, who plays the SECOND best guitarist of all times. It's good to see that they give second places a chance.
The characters are not so important, except for Otis and of course, Henry. Henry plays some kind of teacher (in mass murdering) to Otis, but he has more personality than that. He's a man full of contradictions, a man that has a very hard choice to make in the end of the movie, a man that has is full of nuances, but that still consists into a very dangerous serial killer. We have many hints of his past life, and it somehow justifies all of his horrible acts. Otis is different. He discovers a passion in murder and rape, but doesn't control himself, "exaggerates" too much. And Henry is aware of that. The character of Otis becomes slowly something totally different than what it was before. At first, he's a pretty normal man, with a minor violent behavior, but discovers suddenly a way to express his rage. To me, Otis seemed like a stupid junkie while Henry seemed like an experimented and cautious addict of killing people. Otis' sister, Becky,is important, but not for her evolution. She falls in love with Henry, who simply doesn't know how to react to somebody's feelings. Becky doesn't have a very important role, but her character becomes useful for one thing, and only one: love. And that's the point where Henry will be full of contradictions. And that's the most important thing, because it tops Henry's deranged mind. Henry is a nice character to analyze.
But, even with all that said, you'll never know how brilliant the ending is if you don't see it. So, overall, the urban yet middle-class setting makes this film very realistic, the complex characters make it twisted, the brutality makes it shocking and intense, and the music, directing and atmosphere are a huge contribution to this movie, that is, for sure, not the most interesting to watch, because you somehow stay pretty distant to the characters and atmosphere, but the whole thing has lots of qualities. Pretty enjoyable, and terrifying enough. "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" is a great movie. It's a different approach to a serial killer's life, way more original than movies such as "Strangeland", "Resurrection", and other thrillers that are not bad, but do not focus enough on the killer's mind...and in "Henry", they did not make that mistake.
I give it 7/10, but it's really close to an 8.
And, by the way, I just couldn't believe they made a sequel to this film. Really, this fact deceived me (though I haven't seen the second film), because the ending of the first one was perfect, and a sequel simply ruins all of its meaning.