Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (film) - There's something i'm missing i guess
I have been going down nostalgia road lately looking for things that were great out of the 80's and did a search to try to find movies that I was unfamiliar with to fit into the motif. This movie was on a a list of timeless films and after watcthing it i have to say that well, i disagree with the list.
Perhaps this movie was on the list becuase considering the time that it was made in it was quite graphic and shocking. Perhaps it was on the list because Michael Rooker (who I like) was starring in it. Perhaps it was on the list because the ratings systems in the USA were changing at the point it was released (this film could not achieve an "R" rating back then - which was a death-sentence but the producer refused to budge on this.) However, I can't relate to people that want to say that this film was a defining movie in the 80's because of many things: The main one being that the acting is just horrible in the movie.
the only person in this film that knows how to act
I am normally very intrigued by serial-killer movies and this one is loosely based on facts so to be honest i was expecting more. I think the main reasons why this film got such high marks was based almost entirely on the fact that having a film as graphic as this was quite rare in the 80's. Other than the shock-value of this fact I can't imagine why this is held in such high regard.
The acting is horrible outside of Michael Rooker. I mean really bad. The other people, including and especially the person that plays "Otis" in the movie are just awful.... really awful.
I suppose i can admire the fact that the movie was made for under $120,000 total and it attracted the attention of critics, but in the end I will stand by my stance that this movie is not good at all.
Have a look at the trailer and judge for yourself:
This movie is not good and other than the shock-value of the time-period involved it deserves no praise in my opinion. If you feel differently please do tell me why because I would love to hear it.
After Hitchcock made the quintessential serial killer thriller, Psycho, in 1960, in which he tried to address what might really drive such a person, a wave of serial killer teen movies took over the box office and made a kazillion dollars.
These movies, which track specifically from John Carpenter's "Halloween," through the "Friday the Thirteenth" movies, to "The Nightmare on Elm Street" featured teenage protagonists who encountered invincible serial killer antagonists.
The essence of all these movies was to give audiences a rollercoaster ride of jump scares and horror, to test their fear of dying in the safe space of a cinema, to make them feel alive.
Art movie makers, who essentially hate commercial movies because they are fantasies, designed to entertain, rather than educate, set out to make "important" movies that would set the record straight about what serial killers are really like.
"Henry" is such a direct response, based on the banal real life of Henry Lee Lucas, the real life drifter and mass murderer. It is deliberately boring as eff, made for a pittance by the arty John McNaughton. Instead of focusing on teens, it focuses on the serial killer himself. Instead of making the serial killer an invincible god, he's just a weird horrible man with weird horrible inclinations.
But the cinemas refused to show it, partly because it was too nasty (it eventually got an x rating) but mostly because cinemas know that audiences want fun not facts.
As a result, Henry was beaten to the punch by two much more entertaining serial killer thrillers, that managed to show something real about serial killers, while at the same time providing audience rooting interest. These were the awesome first Hannibal Lector movie, Michael Mann's super-stylish 1986 "Manhunter," and George Sluizer's 1988 Dutch movie "The Vanishing," which pitted the most banal murderer ever seen in movies against a lovable Dutch couple.
But "Henry," in the can since 1985, was more arty than both these, which at least tried to gauge audience rooting interest, in that "Henry" didn't care about entertaining the audience at all. It is like one of those old silent films, where they pointed a camera at a crowd, and put a subtitle that simply said "A Crowd." It points the camera at Henry, and simply shows him do his horrid stuff, and says, that's what these people are like.
And here's the truth, while arty folks said, yeah, people are like that, nobody in the world has ever ENJOYED this movie. Absolutely nobody. Not one.
And when it finally came out in 1990, arty types raved over it's radicalism, and then never watched it again. I myself have never watched this movie a second time. I won't. It's not about entertainment, and the education it gave me was something I kind of already knew, and besides, I wished I didn't know.
The thing is, Hitchcock had this movie beat two and a half decades earlier, when he made a truthful movie about a serial killer that was also suspenseful, entertaining and full of rooting interest.
The banal serial killer trope has been entertainingly revived again in Joe Penhall's new tv show "Mindhunter," which reeanacts the cases of a lot of banal and boring real life serial killers, in the context of an arrogant researcher trying to understand them. It's actually pretty good, not as stylish as Michael Mann or as ground-breaking as Hitchcock, but WAY more entertaining than Henry, and packed with education as well as entertainment. :)
wow, i feel like i just went to film school for a bit there. You know your stuff buddy!
You are like Sherlock Holmes. I did go to Film School lol.
Maybe i'm just desensitized from years of horror movies, but i just don't see what the big deal was. after hearing so much about this one, i was expecting to be in for something a little better than this. the pacing is very slow, and i found myself trying not to fall asleep through half of the movie. i kept waiting for all the disturbing scary parts to happen-to no avail. lots of driving around and boring dialog though. there is basically no gore, except for the bathtub scene, which was the ONE scene in the movie that i found truly effective. i found rooker to be fairly decent in the role of henry, although he didn't have too much to say. the supporting roles of becky and otis were played very poorly. otis was especially bad. not horrible, but definitely highly overrated
i guess this movie just shows how much the times have changed. This movie was released when you couldn't say any swear words on TV at all. There is a home invasion scene in this movie where they kill the entire family that would probably, even by today's standards have the ratings' board a bit upset. Other than that one scene though, this movie isn't particularly gruesome or disturbing.
I felt the same way as you when I watched this – underwhelmed. But, as you say, maybe it was shocking when it first came out. But compared to recent films (ahem...A Serbian Film, Martyrs...) this one wasn't too disturbing.
I haven't see the movie, but I'm very sure that the best of 80s would be nothing but ordinary in our days... Lol
It's strange to see only one actor out of how many that took part in the movie.
Hi goodream. I think you are generous giving it a 3. I can basically remember this film and all for the wrong reasons. Should have gone straight to video/dvd and avoided the circuit.
@gooddream hello 👋 sir This is an extraordinary movie, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. It's pictures of the 80s, it's a killer's role, these pictures, actually these pictures can not understand if you do not go to cinema hall.
Hiii.. Gooddream
Plzzzzzzz... Post how we get upvote from botes.
I also request that give brief reply how we give our steem power to others on rent.
If we give you our 1000 steem power to you, how much money we can earn per month ???
i have never used a bidbot so i don't know the answer to that. You can delegate your SP by using an external service, which I did once but I don't remember how I did it. Sorry that i can't be more help :)
Okkk... Gooddream
Thanks for the reply.
Well I do not know what to tell you, because this is not the kind of movies that I like to watch. Respect your opinion
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
When I hear people say it's better than Silence of the lambs I have to question their taste. It's one of those "shocking" movies that sucks and got its reputation by being extreme, not good