Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer
Review by Peter Syslo

HENRY(1986) is a behind-the-killer film which is really a tale of the tiger being unable to change his stripes. It is based upon the real-life killer, Henry Lee Lucas, and you can feel the reality basis of it, mainly by the gritty yet strangely cozy atmosphere that the film creates. It is like a lot of other films of this type, where the charm and normalcy of the killer really lull you into a state of suspended belief - until someone is brutally killed. Like THE DEVIL’S REJECTS or GOODFELLAS, HENRY almost has you rooting for the criminal and hoping that things turn out OK for the deviants, in the end.

HENRY is directed by John McNaughton and is co-written by Richard Fire and McNaughton. The film stars Michael Rooker (Henry), Tracy Arnold (Becky), and Tom Towles (Otis).

The film is about Henry, who was recently released from prison and is living with a friend/former convict, Otis. Becky, Otis’ sister, comes to stay with them because she just got out of a bad relationship/marriage and needs to sort things out. Henry and Becky seem to hit it off, right from the start and Henry actually opens up to her about killing his mother. On the other hand, Otis is just trouble and is the catalyst for chaos – he makes passes at his own sister, he is into drugs, and he sexually harasses high school boys. One thing leads to another and Henry and Otis begin killing people and videotaping it. But, the “party” only lasts for a short time, Henry quickly sees that he has to leave town or get caught, and a series of events happen which really affirm that he is a killer at heart.

HENRY is a disturbing film, for that time period; it foreshadows much of the grittier independent stuff that has come out in the past 7 or 8 years. It is that mixture of violence and disturbing content (Otis’ perversions) that really make a sick but likeable film. Like I said previously, it is not necessarily a glorification of their lifestyle, but there is something that makes you root for them - at least for Henry and Becky. Maybe it is the freedom and fearlessness of the characters that is compelling. Also, you do see a little bit a simple “goodness” in Henry; you do get the feeling that he wants to do the right thing, for the people that are close to him. In the beginning of the film, you get the feeling that Henry is trying to go straight and be good, but he quickly falls back into his murderous tendencies – you are strangely d isappointed in him; you want him and Becky to be OK.

The film is shot with that urban “darkness”/grit like a Lustig film and I think that it was ahead of its time, with the whole videotaping aspect of the story (one kill scene is much like August Underground material – but not as gory). The three actors (Rooker, Arnold, Towles) create a paradoxical normal/crazy household which has a distinct chemistry to it and it is directly a result of their great acting. Michael Rooker is awesome as Henry; he brings a controlled fury to the part, where you are never quite sure what he is going to do or how he is going to react. Rooker is actually one of those actors, like Willem Dafoe or Christopher Walken, who is just naturally creepy – he doesn’t have to try to be an ominous presence, he simply is.

Cutting to the chase: HENRY is an interesting and likeable film about a guy who you are not supposed to like. I don’t know what it is, but the film leaves you wanting to see more – the ending is actually tragic, you wish that it didn’t have to be that way. If you like behind-the-killer films, forensic horror, independent horror, or anti-hero films then you may like it. If you are uneasy about hyper-realism in films or if you are easily offended, it may really bother you and you may not be into it. But when all is said and done, HENRY is one of the best behind-the-killer films, to date – it’s definitely worth seeing if you are interested in that area of the horror genre.