Sinopses(1)
HENRY PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, loosely based on the case of Henry Lee Lucas, a confessed serial killer, is a terrifyingly intimate journey into the twisted life of a murderous psychotic. As the blank-eyed Henry (Michael Rooker) drifts from place to place, he selects victims at random, slaughters them, and captures the brutality on videotape. When he is joined by his deranged roommate, a loudmouthed ex-convict named Otis (Tom Towles), the almost unfathomably malevolent acts multiply. (texto oficial do distribuidor)
(mais)Críticas (6)
Este filme é como um pedaço de carne crua deitada sobre uma mesa de talho ensanguentada e gordurosa. Mas a carne é de um touro de qualidade, biologicamente sã, e se fosse bem preparada, daria um bife de luxo. Só que John McNaughton é autor de filmes B, ele não cozinha bifes e serve-os crus. Henry é um shocker psicológico de baixo orçamento, concentrando-se nos diálogos à mesa da cozinha, em torno da qual se sentam três perdedores totais: um deles é uma rapariga sem abrigo, o segundo é um redneck repulsivo e mentalmente fraco da primeira vista, com uma cerveja na mão, e o terceiro é um tipo introvertido com uma infância lixada (o estreante Michael Rooker) que apimenta a sua vida com homicídios em (ou após) os quais não sente nenhuma emoção ou remorso. De alguma forma, este filme não muito familiar funciona, atraindo a atenção do espetador, despertando a curiosidade e fazendo-o querer compreender os personagens e as suas ações. E faz de um realizador de filmes B barato um realizador de underground de qualidade. Se está psicologicamente fascinado pela violência bruta nos filmes e irrita-lhe que em todos aqueles nasty slashers italianos, espanhóis e todos outros é-lhe servida de forma parva, Henry será o filme da sua vida. Todo o filme Brincadeiras Perigosas de Haneke está aqui comprimido numa única cena de vários minutos, e é por isso que o filme teve dificuldades em ser lançado e certificado como acessível. E não me surpreende, é na verdade forte.
()
An interesting spin on the thriller – we follow the killer himself with elements of documentary – but unlike other users, I don’t see a very deep psychological portrait. This is something that any talented screenwriter could put together if they’d paid attention to psychology in secondary school. The aura that surrounds this film is, in my opinion, much stronger than the film itself, which doesn’t alter the fact that it’s very well made, and bleak.
()
An amoral protagonist who we understand and in a sense sympathize with, as well as dead people at every turn. And yet the killing spree takes up only a fraction of the film's runtime. It is a purely atmospheric affair that is steadied by the director and perfect acting performances but it’s definitely not going to put you in a good mood when it’s over. Michael Rooker is scarier than any murderous "redneck" from horror movies, and yet you meet hundreds of similar (seemingly) nice guys every day. It’s unpleasant, raw, authentic, and great!
()
Rightly a cult picture with a powerful atmosphere, several perfect scenes that will remain in your mind for long after and three flawless acting performances. The filming is very low-key, but at the same time so raw to the point of being unbearable. Depression in its purest, “unembellished" movie form. Henry is definitely not a “feelgood" movie and you will carry its mood away with you after the movie ends... and that’s good.
()
When it came out, I would have probably admired this film and would have needed to return to it, but now, after more than thirty years, it can no longer deliver the required viewer’s experience. Its aloofness is the inevitable result of the fact that we are watching the repudiation of a valuable human creature with whom we would never like to share the same room. Henry is just a guy who makes a living and in his free time, instead of going to the pub, goes to the slaughterhouse. And although the impersonal approach and the concentrated violence that can detonate at any moment hide an undeniable impact and cinematic intent, the film held me at bay so much that I repeatedly lost interest. Maybe it was because the touted horrendous scenes of violence didn’t feel particularly controversial from today’s perspective. The next time I watch it, I won’t expect something that should justify the film’s cult status, but will enjoy the concept as a whole. For the time being, 65%.
()
Traditionally too 80s for me, but it was passable. What irritated me more was the lack of any attempt to explain why Henry was what he was. Some of the family strife is outlined, but not in a way that allows any reasonable explanation to be discerned. I’m not criticizing the absence of any authorities such as the police, the landlord, etc, as I assume that was the artistic intention. In fact, the whole film went for two stars with me, mainly helped by the utterly disgusting character of Otis, and only pulled up to three by the pretty rough ending.
()
Publicidade