Uncompromising. It might be a little too Hill-billy for some, but McNaughton's insistence on dwelling on the scenes of murder, discovering their own strange aesthetic appeal makes this what art should be: Dangerously seductive and thus very thought provoking.

Henry is a chilling and fascinating serial killer. This movie disturbed me a lot more than most horror films, probably because camera is there for the planning, execution and aftermath of the sprees. Henry is oddly charming, without being manic like most screen killers.

there are some scenes in this movie that really creep me out..this movie is really a good character study and the story and mood is so unpredictable,,,,this movie is a must but be warned its kinda unsettling

(2nd viewing) An ending that felt arbitrary at first, sent chills down my spine the 2nd time around. This film truly defines the character study: contrasting Henry's casual way of life with his pent-up sociopathic nature reinforced his chilling chameleonic presence. Otis' laid-back, redneck appearance did annoy me at times but McNaughton presents a horrific cycle of events that captured my attention from its graphic first frame. Really good.

crazy

"As an emotional map, Henry is decidedly raw, personal, and unrelenting." - Jeremiah Kipp

The acting isn't always good, but the movie gave me a really uneasy feeling. Also the killing on camera scene is extremely nauseating. The ending is quite sick too

Genuinely disturbing film. Small budget works as an advantage here. Everything feels authentic. Rooker gives a near perfect performance. Highly recommended.

The ending is pretty effective in a creepy way, but everything else just seemed pointless.

An uneven film. There's a few genuinely creepy moments and a convincing sense of gloom, but there's also bad writing and acting.

#898

"Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" isn't made for "gore-hounds." It's as if the director looked at all of the kills of slasher movies and decided to slap us in the face with the reality of murder. It's not glamorous, it's not impressive, and it's not sensational. Henry doesn't look like a decaying corpse like Jason Voorhees; Henry doesn't crack jokes like Freddy Krueger. Henry is just a man like you and me. He could be the guy down the street. He is not a horror icon: he is a man.

I can see why it is acclaimed...but that still didn't help me enjoy it. The movie was a tad too long, and often quite boring. The randomness of the killings (and non-killings) becomes grating...but then again, I suppose that's why it's so disturbing to some.

the acting is impressively awful

I'm always glad to know that I can still be disturbed or upset by something I see in a movie; makes me feel healthy. Anyways, this is some heavy stuff and there's nothing to comfort the viewer, even though there's a fair amount of humor in it, but I think that helps create a different kind of discomfort.

Michael Rooker is good, but it's not a movie I'll ever want to watch again. The writing is piss poor and everyone not named Rooker is a below average actor. Just a lot of scenes where either awful stuff happens or making you dread the awful things that are going to happen.

Rooker delivers an excellent performance as Henry, but I think the direction lacks the charisma necessary to make the narrative seem more authentic and cohesive. It's correct to refer to the film as a portrait because it's disjointed and never builds on the raw momentum of a serial killer on a rampage. Ultimately I think think the sections where Otis and Henry do some team killing is where the film really drags, especially since it's so prominent.

He kind of just travels around killing people. Innovative.

This widely acclaimed docu-drama doesn't quite live up to the hype, but it compels nonetheless. Michael Rooker is strong as Henry, powerfully contrasting his vicious killings with an almost gentle nature. Fine script and direction; the film looks and sounds pretty good given the tiny budget. The music is dated and a bit overdone, however, and the film sometimes feels like a TV production; even the infamous violence isn't all that horrific. But as a look at unlovely lives and times, it works.

I'm glad someone made it, and they made it well, but I really really REALLY wish I hadn't seen it.

79.500

The low budget feel only adds to the film's incredibly disturbing atmosphere created by creative editing and a creepy lead performance. The rest of the acting is under par, though. A very unique experience, though not one I'm much interested in re-experiencing.

Hasn't aged well at all. First off, the acting is horrendous. I mean, really really awful. But ultimately this film just has no point or purpose and had no message or no clue what to say about it's main character. It's obviously supposed to shock you (cue the creepy soundtrack during the killings!) but it just made me feel numb and distant. If that's what they were going for good job, I guess. But I've honestly seen it done way better before and so have you.

seri katil, psikopat katil, ensest, cesedi parcalamak (Annesi hayat kadini olan Henry annesini öldürüp cezaevine girmis ve arkadasi Otis ile birlikte kalmaktadir. Otis'in kiz kardesi de onlarla beraber kalmaya baslar. Bu arada Henry ve Otis psikopatca cinayetler islerler. Bu cinayetleri de video kameraya kayit ederler. SP finalde kiz kardesine tecavüze yeltenen Otis Henry tarafindan öldürülür. Henry Kizla kacar, Fakat sonunda kizi da öldürür.) Cok agir bir film üstelik bogucu...