Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

Too much of everything

The Worst Film Ever

Strong and Moving!

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Granted it is definitely a b-movie, but my god, it is slow. It was kinda rip off a Clockwork Orange. Just reminded of it in some parts, like when they are video taping the family thing. The music was so over the top too. The end? Really? No neighbor heard anything? Really?Totally over rated and i've heard about it for long time, but it was a let down.

An absolute must see for fans of serial killer films. This is one of the best, inspired by an actual killer and his accomplice, it's a very unrestrained look at an artist who's particular talents are expressed with graphically realistic violence. The direction and action are top notch for the minuscule budget it was made on. One of those rare horror films that sits with you well after it's over. Check it out.

After much hype how "Henry" is high grade horror movie, I finally managed to find it on DVD and watch it.... and it's a huge letdown.I really hate bashing movies, and my tolerance for ****** movies is rather high, but I really have no idea why movie like "Henry" was ever made in the first place. It's not entertaining, it just a vampire of a movie - it will drain your life slowly for the next 80+ minutes. There's a unwritten rule that if movie doesn't "suck you in" within the first 10-15 minutes, you should probably stop watching it, and I was wrong not to heed that advice. From the first few minutes of "Henry" I never really got the sense of what movie wants to be. While there's a solid structure of the movie, scenes felt so random. It wants to be horror, yet it's not, it wants to be drama, yet it's not too dramatic, it's wants to be shocking, but it really isn't that much, even some of the more "shocking" scenes were rather tame. The only real "shock" scene is family massacre scene, but it's rather tame compared to shock scenes of modern movies. We rarely ever see something happening within Henry so it's not even a good character study like "Maniac" or "Psycho" (I should note, Michael Rooker was pretty good in this one, but bad character is still a bad character), and his buddy Otis is even worse, and you can easily tell what the ending of the movie is going to be.I should also mention that I found it rather boring, by the end I was already looking at the clock. Note, I really don't have problem with slow burner movies that take it's time to build scenes, but payoff to "Henry" was not worth the wait, because as I said, climax is rather predictable (hint: two of three characters are serial killers, go figure out what's going to happen?). No real suspense, no real character development, no real shock, just "morons with cameras" killing bunch of people for no real reason that further glorifies "legend" of yet another real-life serial killer that this movie was based upon, and then we ask ourselves why so many of those lunatics are running around in this world. You can never "buy" anything from either Henry or Otis, because well, they are serial killers.Technically it's bit inept movie, but I won't judge it too much on that, because from what I understand it was shot on really tight budget.So far, I've seen few John McNaughton's movies: "The Borrower", which had some good ideas and some good black humor, but terrible pace and quite boring at most of the scenes (same as Henry), his Masters of Horror episode was also quite dull. The only mildly enjoyable movie was Wild Things because of erotic scenes, but overall, goodbye John McNaughton, you're definitively not a director of my taste.

HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER is one of the most notorious serial killer movies ever shot, a notoriety helped by the fact that the BBFC banned it back in the early 1990s. Thankfully in these more enlightened times they've now seen fit to release it uncut, giving me the opportunity of finding out what all the fuss was about.This is one of those movies whose low budget origins actually adds to the appeal, because it turns out to be one of the most grimly realistic movies ever made. There are no frills here, no Hollywood gloss, just a director getting down to business with his depiction of the ordinary life of a man with a compunction to kill. And very good it is too: the lack of trappings allows the writer to really get into the psychology of his characters.One of the things that most surprised me about this film is that Henry is actually quite a likable protagonist. Part of that is because Michael Rooker is a very good and sympathetic actor - his supposed villain Merle Dixon in the TV series THE WALKING DEAD was another guy who it was hard to hate - but it's also due to the quality of the writing. In reality, the real villain of the piece is Otis, played to the sleazy hilt by Tom Towles.Yes, the film contains a string of disturbing murder sequences, particularly an early excursion into the found footage genre with the slaughter of a family caught on camera. But while time has diminished the impact of the deaths, it has done nothing to diminish the impact of the film itself; this is strong, compelling film-making for the ages and one of the most gutsy serial killer movies ever made.