Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer - Will's Review

I am fascinated by serial killers. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be one, or meet one, and in an ideal world they wouldn't exist; but as they do exist, I may as well admit that I find them fascinating, and read about them... So I do.

Henry Lee Lucas isn't as well represented in serial killer literature and documentaries as most of his contemporaries, mostly because little about his crimes is actually known; most of his confessions were debunked, and his death sentence was commuted to a life sentence when it turned out he was probably in the wrong state to have committed the murder he was sentenced for (scumbag or not, a life sentence for a crime you were hundreds of miles away from seems a bit much to me).

What we do know about Lucas, is that he had a male lover, Ottis, whom he met at a soup kitchen, and that he had an affair with Ottis' 12 year old daughter, Becky.

It tells us all we need to know about the accuracy of this movie that Ottis is present as a flatmate that he knew from prison, and Becky is here as Ottis' adult sister. This movie isn't so much 'based on a true story' as 'based on a trio of actual first names'. But that's fine; what we are left with is a gritty, almost exploitative, piece about a realistic, though fictional, serial killer.

Or, more accurately, pair of serial killers; as is believed to be the case in real life, Ottis joins Henry on part of his rampage.

Whereas the real Ottis was probably a serial killer in his own right, here it is Henry who desensitises him to murder, and teaches him the 'art' of serial killing; specifically, Henry is a fan of the 'no MO' MO - shoot one victim, strangle the next, dismember one, dump one in an alley whole - no pattern makes you harder to catch!

One of the movies most effective scenes is also the one that gave me greatest pause from a story point of view; having established that Henry is all about not being caught and leaving a trail (he dissuades Ottis from killing a college kid he sells drugs to, on the grounds that killing so robe you have a connection to is a big no-no) the pair use a camcorder to film a home-invasion they stage. While the invasion is disturbing and effective, I don't buy that someone so familiar with the serial killer no-noes would create such a piece of evidence.

Ottis at one point tries to forcibly kiss his sister (squick!) for "a joke"; Henry does not take kindly to this, forcing Ottis to apologise, it's one of two time that Henry shows any kind of morals as you and I might understand them (the other relates to a postmortem sexual assault). Theses moments work to set up a line that even he will not cross, but do nothing to redeem him as a human being, as such I found them interesting; usually these things are set up as some kind of redemption of a killer turned hero-killer.... This is SO not that kind of movie. 

From the technical side, this movie was made for around $100,000 in 10 days, leaving neither the time nor budget for effects and reshoots; The director has used this entirely to his advantage, bringing us a low-key movie which adds to the realism. Performances are solid, but a special mention must go to  Michael Rooker (The Walking Dead's Merl) who is almost too believable in the title role.

With enough differences between the this movie and the truth of the case, it would be wrong to claim this movie is, in any meaningful sense, a true story; but it is at least realistic. As such, it's probably one of the best realistic serial killer movies I've seen ('true' or otherwise), but it's not for everyone; it's gritty, nasty, and uncomfortable, there are no punch-the-air moments, or 'creative' kills, no twisted justice, or victims that 'had it coming' (well, one, but even that isn't framed as a cathartic moment for the viewer), it truly is a great movie... Not that's not to say it's an enjoyable one.

Recommended, but proceed with caution if you're not hardened to this kind of thing.