Confissões de um Matador

It is ashame a movie like this falls through the cracks and does not get the attention it fully deserves.

This movie got caught up at the same time as "Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer" and lost. What a mistake. As much as I like Henry, this movie outdoes it. Creepy, slimly, it has it all to make a great horror movie and really shows you how a serial killer would act without the over the top gore or scenes.

A little bit of info-The lead actor was the set designer on 2 famous films in the horror genre. Both the original TCSM and Re-Animator.

I then heard he got stricken with cancer and is no longer with us.

Sucks, such a talented person.

Please get this movie to DVD, as it deserves it!

When HBO hit bottom several years ago, they played bad movies over and over again because it was all their budget could afford. They have since reformed, but at the time they showed this, um, manure so many times a day I actually removed HBO and Cinemax (they were sold as a package then) from my cable subscription.

Everything about this movie, from the "acting", directing and script is the worst you will find outside Manos: the Hands of Fate. The movie is depressing in the extreme; take a repellent character, have him confess to a long list of random murders in "flashbacks" (relayed to stone-faced deputies wearing a little too much makeup), add in lots of helpless victims and sadism, and you have this movie. It almost appears to be a booster film for would-be serial killers; the characters, slack-jawed and stupid though they are, are presented as invincible, getting away with every sadistic killing they commit, with the editing showing the victims *just* missing the chance to escape or scream for help. It's hard to tell who is more sadistic, the characters, the editors, the film-makers, or the agitated viewers who wrote glowing reports over this trash. I thought it was the film-makers until I read these reviews. Scary. There is a 2000 year-old Greek adage which translate to "garbage feeds on garbage." I didn't understand it when younger, but it is starting to make sense to me now.

This movie does not enlighten, it only dehumanizes and desensitizes.

Avoid this movie unless you never go outside, have no normal friends, and enjoy the suffering of others. One star.

This movie isn't kidding. That's why so many comments are hostile to the extreme. The late Robert A. Burns plays the serial killer who's confessing, and he's unforgettable. It's one of those performances that really get you because there's no pretense in his acting. Burns plays a guy who, on the surface, seems pretty ineffectual: polite, soft spoken, and when dealing with the police, always upbeat and gentle. But when the seasoned sheriff starts to interrogate our friend, this soft spoken fellow never breaks a sweat nor raises the tone or timber of his voice as he tells of one murder after another after another. I know of no other actor who has so vividly created this kind of sociopath on the screen before. Burns never plays it up. Rather, the contradictions he seamlessly illustrates in this character continually draw us into his horrible world. That's why all these folks have written negative, hostile comments. Burns gets to you in a way that's profoundly unsettling. You can't take you eyes off him. The film itself takes the approach that the world exists to provide killers like this with toys to play with. It relentlessly positions the viewer in the center of the sociopath's experience, creating a world that defies civilized restraint, tenderness of any kind, and replaces all with a cold and casual cruelty. This is a film that reeks of endgame; God is dead and the beasts rely on instinct and the smell of blood to survive. Not a pleasant film, for sure, but in it's own right a kind of classic because it fulfills its goals without generalizing or in anyway trumping up its dark, relentless vision into something like Jason and Freddy, a faceless cartoon. This movie haunts one because the terror it illustrates comes from a very real and very recognizable human being. Terror is a man. Burns is extraordinary, and so is the film.

This film takes the glamor out of serial killin'. The titular murder is a simple man, and his country-boy manner and affability caused me to like him in the scenes where he was not hacking at women and then copulating with their corpses. The happy-go-lucky sidekick character--an essential element of the Henry Lee Lucas story--is especially sleazy in this film, which is a nice touch, I think. The fact that he is named "Moon" only sweetens the pot. I am a fan of disturbing cinema, and this film definitely disturbs. I found "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" absolutely unwatchable, simply due to its lack of plot, characters, and satisfying gore. This movie, on the other hand, boasts down-home characters, good performances, vile acts of posthumous sodomy, and paints a gritty portrait of what it is like to house an insatiable bloodlust. The other obvious advantage over "Henry" is that the more acclaimed picture lacked the proper plot structure necessary for such a film. This movie, on the other hand, with its flashback setup, is a tasty treat from start to finish. I give it three stars out of five.

This movie is one of the most realistic and scariest movies that I have ever seen. It is about the real life killer named Henry Lee Lucas and his sidekick Otis Toole. When I watched this movie I felt as if I were there because the acting was good and the way that the movie was made it looked very much real. The scenes in this movie were disturbing because these things could actually happen in real life done in these sick ways. It was chilling and being a reader of such serial killers such as this man here made it all the more horrific. I give it an 8.