Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

This is one I’ve been meaning to see for a long time. As a fan of horror films, I had always been intrigued by the reputation that Henry was a particularly disturbing yet undeniably well-made film. Turns out that’s a fairly accurate description, but I still found the film a little lacking.

The best thing about the movie is Michael Rooker’s performance as Henry, and he does a notably good job of making his character seem real, which adds legitimacy to the whole film. And I really like the way they don’t make him some unkillable force-of-nature Jason Vorhees type, or some sort of larger than life Buffalo Bill-esque weirdo. He’s just some dude who likes to kill, but can pass for relatively normal in social situations. I don’t think it’s a psychologically accurate depiction of this type of person, but it’s still convincing for what it is. Tom Towles, as Henry’s partner in crime, also deserves some props for his acting.

There are also some effective sequences, like when Henry and his buddy watch a video of themselvesbreaking into a house and murdering the family inside. The tape itself is harsh enough and feels very real, and then the whole scene gets an extra layer of psychological creepiness by the way they enjoy watching the tape, then rewind it to watch it in slow motion. Ick.

Oh, and it has a pitch-perfect, cynical ending that I think shows the filmmakers were treating the material seriously. And it leaves you feeling kinda depressed, which is my buddy Patrick’s litmus test for a good horror movie.

So what didn’t I like about it? I think a lot of it stems form the obvious low budget. I can forgive this to a degree, but it does dull the film’s impact. Besides the two leads, the rest of the acting isn’t very good, and a lot of the characters have to spit out bad dialogue or engage in not very convincing behavior. I think the director got his brother or somebody to do the score, and it tries so hard to be dark and disturbing that it comes off a cheesy.

The directing itself is a mixed bag. John McNaughton does some things effectively as director, like the above mentioned videotape scenes. But I really don’t like the way he keeps showing the aftermath of the murders, with the camera slowly spinning around the victims while you hear their screams faintly on the soundtrack. And, again due to the budget, the movie just looks bad. I don’t know if they shot on tape or what, but it looks like a very bland TV movie. A little more grit could have gone a long way.

I’m glad I saw it, and even have a certain admiration for how seriously it treats the material. But it just wasn’t effective enough. Films like, say, Wolf Creek or the remake of The Hills Have Eyes may not have the ambition or conviction that Henry has, but they are a lot more effective at getting under your skin. I guess that makes Henry better art, but it is still a less successful movie.