MovieChat Forums > Horror > Henry: Portrait Of a Serial Killer

Henry: Portrait Of a Serial Killer

posted 8 years ago by NeonManiac0
6 replies | jump to latest

Watched this recently for the first time in years and forgot what an excellent and harrowing film this is. Shot in a way that feels documentary-like and much more realistic which really helps to augment the movie's dark feeling and it has such a nasty, vile tone to it which is appropriate with how it shows the true horror of serial killers. Michael Rooker is positively chilling as the title killer with his subtle and low-key performance which actually helps to make him seem that much more frightening since he comes off as a very realistic, predatory type of killer and not a typical slasher villain. Rooker is excellent as is the late Tom Towles with his performance as one of the all-time most disgusting and loathesome film characters in Otis. While not gratituously gory the violence is nonetheless highly unsettling due to the realistic nature and harsh tone, and scenes like the motorist gunned down for no reason and the infamous murder of the family on-camera are scenes that stay with you long after you've seen the film. Also factor in it's very eerie, haunting score which I think is seriously underrated.

Get past the grisly content and subject matter, and it's a truly excellent movie that pulls no punches in showing real horror. Definitely a favorite of mine though I understand completely it might be too much for some.

[–] TheOldGuyFromHalloween3 8 years ago

yeah but that decapitated head looked so fake

[–] THE_Hills_Have_Eyes991 8 years ago

What makes it's so fantastic is there is nothing fancy about it. It sticks to the raw of meat of the subject. Michael Rooker was an absolute disgusting creep. He played it perfectly. Otis was flat out nasty. What made these characters to horrifying is these two are so easy to believe. This is what two serial killers would act and look like. The dry and gritty look of it made it better. Some times a really simple look is best.

Meet me at the waterfront after the social.

[–] yakko362002 8 years ago

I saw it way back when I was in college and hated it. I knew nothing about it before renting it, and actually thought I was watching a home movie made by a bunch of high school kids who bought a cheap camcorder and decided to try making a horror movie. It didn't scare me or upset me or entertain me in any way. At the time I was just angry that I wasted a dollar renting it and time watching it.

That was a long time ago, and I didn't even know then that it was based on a real serial killer. I often wonder if I'd have the same reaction if I watched it again now.

[–] Seth_Rogue_One 8 years ago

4/10

From what I've understood it seems like it's mostly people who saw it in it's hey-day that truly appreciates it, I saw it for the first time last year and did not

Death to mainstream cinema!

[–] jessicafischerqueen 8 years ago

10/10 Probably the best serial killer study in film history. Unlikely to be surpassed. The sequel is also well worth checking out.

[–] Boutros_Boutros_Sirhan_Sirhan 8 years ago

The look has that same sort of newsreel style that worked so well for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.
Rooker and Towles did an amazing job. I've watched many docu-shows and documentaries on serial killers and spree killers and Rooker played the part to a 't'. The atmosphere of the film is amazing it's bleak and filled with darkness and evil without any effort. That opening with those shots of the dead women with that ominous synth score cutting to Henry just going about his day as normal is haunting.