Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer -A Retro Review

Finally, after all these years I got around to seeing this film! It kinda flew under my radar but was mentioned by people who knew I was into horror films. Not exclusively of course, just so we're clear! Anyway, I got my hands on an unrated copy and had at it. After a little research while deciding if it was worth my time I gave it a go. It was made in 1986 on a budget of $125,000. Modest, even in the '80's. It's a frank look at the horror genre in a time when loads of blood and sensationalism was the formula. 'Henry' is an in your face, almost documentary-like look at a remorseless murderer and a very short period in his life. Although some adverts call it a film "based on the crimes of Henry Lee Lucas" -a man who confessed to hundreds of murders and was actually convicted of 11- the filmmakers claim it's based on some of the more fantastical claims he made, and therefore not a strict retelling of his actual life, tho there are similarities. Henry was inspired by his real-life counterpart, and he lived with a man whom he met in prison, but thats where the similarities take a holiday.

Not to say the man wasn't a horrible serial killer; that much is true, but the crimes depicted in the film may or may not have happened as portrayed.

Here's the poop:

Henry is a serial killer. He has no motive. He kills for fun, or out of boredom. It isn't clear but he kills. A lot. He lives with Otis, a perverted ex-con, and his sister, Becky, a young stripper who falls in love with Henry.

Out of some kind've implied homosexual crush on Henry Otis is drawn into the killing and they wreak havoc on many people, including an unfortunate family in which they videotape the massacre and molestation. It's a disturbing scene in which Otis takes especial glee in molesting, murdering, and then molesting again the mother. It's difficult stuff to watch at times. Then circumstances find Henry and Becky running off together and as abruptly as it starts, the film ends.

I liked the first two-thirds of the film. I thought it was well done on all levels, drawing me in and really keeping me interested. I wanted to see what would happen next. The final act was a bit of a letdown, but the final act is so short that I guess it was mitigated. At any rate it didn't sustain, and as much as I would recommend this film to horror buffs as an example of when horror got real, I wouldn't suggest the passive horror fan watch it. Yes, a lot of the imagery was brutal, and the pretty sheen of the 80's was taken off killing in film when lots of blood was enough to suggest brutality, but this film, though actually brutal and in your face, fell short in storytelling in the end. I'm glad I watched it, I'm glad I marked the milestone in horror cinema, but ultimately it was, in the end when it came undone, a passable entry in the genre.

Available on DVD. Check out the wikipedia page for this one; interesting release history due to controversy.