Review of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) by Archibald T — 09 Oct 2011

Director John McNaughton was given $110,000 to make a 2nd documentary for the Ali brothers. When it was cancelled, John was stuck with that $110,000. He knew of the limitations of a low budget and figured that a horror film with aliens or monsters wasn't going to work. So one day he saw an episode of 20/20 about Henry Lee Lucas and figured that a human being would be more frightening than any made up monster or alien.

Henry's tableau of crimes are presented in a ten minute montage. It's mostly of the aftermath set to the sounds of what went on before their death. When he's not killing women he's usually scouting for his next prey in his beat-up car. He works as a exterminator part time which is good for him because that means people can let him into their home.

Otis and Becky are brother and sister. Becky just got out of a bad relationship and is stuck living with her brother. Henry stays with them and Becky starts to like him. They both share a "connection" in that they both come from bad homes. Henry's mother was a whore and would make him dress up in her dresses and let him watch her have sex. Becky's father would molest her. So basically it's a match made in imaginary heaven.

Otis and Henry are the main focal point of the "story". There isn't much of one other than the character study aspect. Henry gets Otis involved in his killings. It doesn't make Otis a better man, but instead makes him more annoying, obnoxious and dumb. Their friendship gets closer based on their killings. They get a videocamera and they use it alot. One scene in which they videotape themselves killing a family is probably the most gut wrenching of all in the entire film. The mother who was fondled in that scene eventually had to receive therapy for the trauma she felt.

Like I said before there isn't much of a story here. It's a character study or Portrait of a serial killer. It works as a docudrama more than a horror story. It feels real due to it's authentic nature and for the fact it's based on a real serial killer. Most of the real events happened in the film with the exception of a few situations and names changed.

When the film was released it received an X rating. Back in the day I could see why, but nowadays the film is too tame. The level of violence isn't gory, but made to be "realistic". I found the murders, especially the aftermath scenes to be very poor. You can obviously see the women breathing and the death of Otis was a bit silly.

The first time I saw this film was on the IFC channel late at night. My first impression of it was that it kept me up at night. After seeing it a second time it's not as powerful with the exception of Rooker's performance of course.