Henry, portrait d'un serial killer

I went to see this film when it was released. I found it to be a difficult watch and nearly walked out at one point. This movie can never be considered entertainment but it is a genuinely disturbing portrayal of the banality of murder.

Although disturbing, "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" takes you through the mind of a serial killer, and it is interesting.

Plot: 8/10 Music: 9/10 Originality: 7/10 Ending: 7/10 Acting: 10/10 Casting: 10/10 Creativity: 8/10 Pace: 9/10 Cinematography: 7/10 Dialogue: 8/10 Suspense: 9/10 Special Effects: 8/10 Setting: 7/10 Entertainment Value: 8/10.

In 1960, Michael Powell committed professional suicide by directing and producing "Peeping Tom," a thriller in which a psychopathic murderer photographs his victims at the moment of death. Denounced as sick and without redeeming social value, "Peeping Tom" vanished from theaters, while its director, also denounced as sick, went on to make only two more films in the next eight years. Powell's film has gone on to attract an avid cult following and, if it hasn't done so already, so will "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer."

Loosely based on the real life exploits of Henry Lee Lucas, a leering, low IQ sicko who became a media star after claiming to have murdered several dozen people (some believe Henry was bragging), this film takes a gritty, realistic approach that creates the impression that we are watching real life unfold. Director John McNaughton exploits the discomfort the viewer is inclined to feel by presenting a scene in which Henry and his equally vicious former cellmate, Otis, videotape the rape and murder of one of their victims, then play it back for further amusement. This shocking episode effectively makes the point that those who seek second hand thrills through violent "entertainment" are almost as guilty as the perpetrators of such deeds. By casting anonymous non-stars in the leading roles (not that he had a choice considering the budget and the repellent subject matter), and focusing entirely on the exploits of the killers (there are no scenes of police investigating the crimes or peeks into the lives of the victims), McNaughton has created a brutal, amoral horror film that makes the bloodiest gorefest look benign. Although the real Henry was apprehended, his cinematic counterpart is never even suspected of his crimes, and gets off scot-free.

Is "Henry" a film to acclaim or condemn? It's a difficult question to answer, and I, for one cannot make a decision. It is so expertly made that I think McNaughton deserves a round of applause and maybe an Oscar. But, at the end of the video tape of the film that I watched, there was a commercial hawking "Henry" T-shirts ($14.98) and posters ($7.98). Both were available through "Henry Merchandising," and this attempt to turn this all too real murderer into a cult figure deserving of a fan club is despicable.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer will make the typical teenage fan of Freddy or Jason s*** their pants. Or maybe not. Maybe this might actually, when it's not ratcheting up the precisely random violence and kills, bore some of the younger audience looking for stupid characters doing stupid things and getting killed by a bogeyman. Henry, based on real life serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, wasn't a bogeyman. He was more like your friend who is usually bored every other night and goes out to do something. But that something, instead of like going to a bar or a movie or a show, is killing people, whomever, as long as it's not too obvious (never using a gun twice, and proper disposal of bodies, is some advice given by Henry), with a hapless dumb-ass, Otis, usually in tow.

What makes it so unnerving is how McNaughton chooses to just show his protagonist doing these things, without passing any judgment exactly. Perhaps some did think judgment was passed somehow, or that the controversy came from just showing a killer as is, and without proper law and order about (a cop car shows up literally once, for a goof). It's a downright sad and vicious bastard of a movie, showing the primitive horrorshow of, say, the massacre of the wife, husband and child, as seen through the staggering hand-held vision of the camcorder that Henry is operating while he and Otis do the slaughter. And yet for all the horrible things they do- and, arguably, Otis does worse ultimately, if only by way of Becky- they're never shown as caricatures, or as supernatural creatures. They're just killers, doing it for the hell of it, or, perhaps as reason Henry gives, 'do it before they do it to you' (this also goes for defenseless hookers).

It might not be entirely a great movie - it's shot roughly and some of the editing is crude and the use of music and sound effects (yes, sound effects) is cheesy and a little laughable, not to mention the shoe-string special effects and make-up - but it's got great things about it, memorable notes to take. Tom Towles is excellent as a downright creep of a human being, while Michael Rooker does perfectly as a tortured soul who, as Henry, just does what he does, though at the same time was, at one point, a victim himself from his mother (who, apparently, he also killed). Some vulnerability is found with the Becky character, though Arnold' performance is just passable.

What makes the movie for me is Rooker's hold on the character, so dark and deep and scary that you can feel your skin crawl knowing he could just snap at any moment (albeit not as awful as Otis, in a weird way), and McNaughton's lack of easy answers - certainly not with the ending, which is equally bizarre and chilling. A minor cult item to take note of: it's the kind of movie I always saw on the video shelf in the horror section as a kid, looking dangerous with Rooker leering at the mirror and a warning on the video box. Now I know why.

A flat disturbing film, almost documentary in scope which trawls the depths of the human condition. 'Henry' is not surprisingly often slated as a violent exploitation film, bundled together at Film Fairs with the Italian cannibal flicks of the 70's.

Make no mistake though, this is a highly commendable piece of movie-making, which tackles the subject of serial killers with the same no-holds-barred approach which 'M' did way back in 1931. By referencing the early Fritz Lang classic, I am intentionally comparing 'Henry' favourably with it. I would also say that Henry Rooker's performance is on a par with Peter Lorre's.

The film develops like a three-handed play, revolving around Henry's flat which he shares with former prison-mate, Otis. The trio is made up by Becky, the sister of Otis, who comes to visit.

We are introduced to Henry immediately as a killer and the story does exactly what it says it will in the film's title. We simply follow Henry throughout his daily routine. No mention is given to any police enquiries and Henry is oblivious to any notion of avoiding capture or covering his tracks. Much of the film's power comes from this nonchalant approach, whereby if a person doesn't register that something he is doing is wrong, then it quickly becomes almost acceptable.

Rooker, in the title role, is totally convincing and gives a chilling performance, free from the mannerism clichés which detract from more famous serial killer characters like Hannibal Lector and Norman Bates. I can only think of Kevin Spacey in 'Seven' (1995) giving a similar level of performance for this character-type.

Despite a couple of scenes whose violent content borders on the gratuitous, for the most part 'Henry' succeeds by relying on a suffocating atmosphere and it's down-beat characters.

Anyone without a sense of desolation at the end of the film must be devoid of their senses.

BEST SCENE - Henry and Otis enjoying a night in on the sofa, watching their recent home-video recordings, is one of the most disturbing scenes I can remember watching.