ada the leading man is my tpye

Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Prolabas Deeper than the descriptions

Sameir Ali When the plans to shoot a documentary dropped out, the producers start thinking about a Horror Feature film. The film turned out be a huge success, beyond the expectations of the producers.The film starts with some dead body of females. The sound shows how they were killed. Then the serial killer Henry's life is shown. At around 30 minutes, the reason for his psychic behavior is explained to the audience. Yet, we are curious to know what happens next.The film is loosely based on real incidents. But, it's really hard to learn that real Henry's activities were more dangerous.Terrific acting and great making. An amazing Indie flick. A must watch movie. #KiduMovie

Predrag "Henry" has a well deserved cult reputation. The films ability to shock and numb audiences is spoken in tones every time its talked about. The film centres on a loner called Henry,who has murderous impulses. He lives with former prison mate, Otis, who sells drugs to young boys. Otis brings his sister, Becky, as she has left her abusive husband. This makes things complicated ans Otis feels neglected as he thinks Henry and her are getting close. Near the end, everything comes to a head and i wont give away the ending. This is loosely based on a real life killer named Henry Lee Lucas, who claimed to have killed 300 people. Despite its grim subject, this is essential yet disturbing viewing. Killers in other films like Hannibal Lecter are portrayed as anti heroic and quite comic at times.The writers of this film made sure that the tense moments were very effective. And strange thing is that some of the most tense moments have nothing to do with the actual murders being committed. I found the most tense moments were those between Otis and Henrys different personalities clashing or just the fact that you know that these two guys are certified lunatics so you know that any given situation can turn into a real bloodbath, every moment in this movie is just right there on the verge of going completely ballistic. So the intensity levels are high here thanks to some great performances and a solid script. I think it is a masterpiece and creates feelings in the audience that go well beyond any that the huge Hollywood blockbusters could hope to get near to. It is I would say, the most disturbing film I have ever seen (and I've watched many, many horror films) because it works on an entirely different level - these are people you in the street, that live near to you. McNaughton offers no explanation as to why the things we watch on the screen happen, they just do - which ultimately makes this more terrifying. I still find this one of the most disturbing, unsettling movies ever made. You haven't seen a really scary movie until you see this movie.Overall rating: 9 out of 10.

Leofwine_draca HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER is one of the most notorious serial killer movies ever shot, a notoriety helped by the fact that the BBFC banned it back in the early 1990s. Thankfully in these more enlightened times they've now seen fit to release it uncut, giving me the opportunity of finding out what all the fuss was about.This is one of those movies whose low budget origins actually adds to the appeal, because it turns out to be one of the most grimly realistic movies ever made. There are no frills here, no Hollywood gloss, just a director getting down to business with his depiction of the ordinary life of a man with a compunction to kill. And very good it is too: the lack of trappings allows the writer to really get into the psychology of his characters.One of the things that most surprised me about this film is that Henry is actually quite a likable protagonist. Part of that is because Michael Rooker is a very good and sympathetic actor - his supposed villain Merle Dixon in the TV series THE WALKING DEAD was another guy who it was hard to hate - but it's also due to the quality of the writing. In reality, the real villain of the piece is Otis, played to the sleazy hilt by Tom Towles.Yes, the film contains a string of disturbing murder sequences, particularly an early excursion into the found footage genre with the slaughter of a family caught on camera. But while time has diminished the impact of the deaths, it has done nothing to diminish the impact of the film itself; this is strong, compelling film-making for the ages and one of the most gutsy serial killer movies ever made.

Dalbert Pringle *Spoiler Alert!* If this film was really supposed to be an example of an in-depth character study of a serial killer, then, as that study, it was utterly worthless 'cause Henry literally had no character to study. Nope. He sure didn't. He was completely void of any "character".And, with that in mind, just because Henry had a sick and diseased mind, did that have to mean that he had to be portrayed in such a way as to make him out to be a completely colourless, humourless and one-dimensional non-entity? Surely (just like everyone else) serial killers also have some notable character dynamics that could be called a "personality" (or a reasonable facsimile there of). But this wasn't the case with Henry. His personality was nil.I also found it rather puzzling that the approach in which Henry took to killing people was like that of one performing a totally hated job. I got the clear impression that killing someone was the most unfulfilling thing in the world for him, instead of it being the other way around.I cannot figure out why this serial-killer business seemed to be such a drudgery for Henry (and for me, as the viewer, as well). If killing people was Henry's "thing", his lust, his ion (and this seemed to be the case), then, why didn't this lust & ion show in his murderous actions? I would think that after each adrenaline rush of a fresh kill, Henry would have been absolutely elated like someone who's flying high on a powerful drug. But throughout the entire course of this film, Henry came across as being a complete and utter dullard who was not worth paying the least bit of attention to.And, to me, this whole argument about the insufferable dreariness of Henry and his murderous actions was this film's biggest and most damaging downfalls. It ultimately rendered this ugly, vicious and nasty film to the level of being one of the s-h-i-t-tiest "portraits" of anyone that I've ever seen.And, on top of all of the above, here are a number of other points about this pointless story that just about killed me to pieces - (1) Henry (who had already spent time in jail) wasn't in the least bit concerned about leaving tell-tale fingerprints, here, there, and everywhere, around each site of every single murder he committed. (Sheesh!) (2) Henry's amazingly deadly ability to snap a person's neck (thus instantly killing them) by applying the same effortless force that one might use to simply snap their fingers.(3) Never once, in the entirety of the story, was there any involvement, whatsoever, of a police alert and/or an investigation into this rash of sadistic murders. (Ho-hum!) (4) The clear fact that Henry was completely repulsed by sex yet a number of his female victims were found to be nude as though they had been raped.I certainly realize that Henry was no dummy (he managed to continue with his murderous activities indefinitely without any concern about being caught) - Yet, time and again, he behaved in such a blatantly stupid fashion which defied logic and common sense. Henry's actions, for the most part, defied the basic instinct for self-survival.All-in-all - This decidedly unpleasant movie about a brain-dead serial killer and his brain-dead friends and his brain-dead life (none of which I cared one bit about) gave me a serious case of brain-freeze right from the very first moment I was shown the first of Henry's many victims lying dead and naked (and seemingly posed just so) near a pond in some remote woods.On top of all of its stifled dialogue, its annoyingly wooden performances, and its recklessly seedy production values, Henry: Portrait Of a Serial Killer was nothing but a predictable paint-by-numbers picture whose intended shock-value completely missed its mark and inevitably failed to deliver much of a worthwhile jolt. It only aggravated and bored this viewer to pieces.So, there!