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.

Threads - Will's Review

Originally released in 1984, when nuclear war looked frighteningly possible, even likely, Threads is a docu-drama by the BBC, detailing the possible effects of a nuclear strike, on Britain generally, and on 2 families in particular.

I vaguely remember this causing a bit of a fuss when it was shown on TV, and I seem to recall a big deal being made when it was repeated in the early 90's too; I finally saw it for the first time about 8 years ago, and again for this review. It isn't particularly a film that benefits from a second viewing, as much of its impact comes from the shock of the severity of the situation; but fear not, imaginary reader, as my memory of the firt time around is still clear 9 years later (truth be told, I could probably have 'cheated' and done this without a rewatch!).

It starts of reasonably soap-opera-ish, with our main characters deciding to marry because of an unplanned pregnancy, while their respective families deal with their versions feuds and problems. One thing that you don't normally here or see in dips though, are reports about the mounting difficulties between the west (specifically the US), and The Soviet Union.

Now, bear in mind that this was 1983. The world was locked in a Cold War that always seemed dangerously close to turning hot; in real life people had actually been sent the government produced booklets featured in the film, detailing what to do during nuclear attack (you were supposed to use the three minute warning to, amongst other things, remove most if your doors and use then to build a makeshift shelter).

As uncomfortable as this movie is to watch now, watching it then must have been almost too much to bear, and must have cost many people more than just the one night's sleep.

You see, in the movie we eventually take a detour from the soap style (and, thankfully, from real life) as the news reports become more prominent on the story, and more urgent in nature; This cumulates when the bomb hits.

If the initial strike is horrific, then I do not have words for the shockwave.

For all of the horrific images, for all of the human suffering, one of the most powerful images in the movie is that of a glass milk bottle on a doorstep, meal ring as the wave hits. (if you don't know why an empty milk bottle would be on your doorstep, ask your dad, you whippersnapper you.)

From there of course, it only gets worse; those killed in the blast are the lucky ones, as the movie goes into great detail about the breakdown if society, to radiation sickness, to nuclear winter. If anything, I suppose this is an apocalypse movie; but not the 'triumphant outpost of humanity' affair you're used to, where a group of heroes make the best of a bad situation; this is bleak, and realistic, and horrid; this is you or me, stuck in hell, watching everything we know fall apart.

The bleak realism of the movie is fairly typical of the British approach to the threat of nuclear war; while our US counterparts were taught to 'duck and cover' and that everything would be okay, the TV information films produced, but thankfully never aired for real (although they appear in the movie), instead told you to wrap your dead in plastic, and store them in a separate room until the fallout has calendar down enough to drag them outside and dig them a shallow grave.

The movie details further and further into the future and, for me, this is where it falls down. Everything up to the '2 years later' mark seems fair enough; but thereafter I can't help but feel they got carried away. By the '13 years later' segment, anyone born post-strike can't even talk properly, blurting out ill-formed words of broken English ("babby now!" For instance, means "I think the baby is coming"). While I get that education would be limited, I refuse to accept that children would no longer naturally learn to pick up the language from those around them.

Despite it's flawed ending though, it is a highly unpleasant, depressing, horrific, and very important movie; one which I strongly recommend that you watch (and one that should be mandatory viewing for anyone joining a political or military career path.)

Murder Set Pieces - Wills Review

I'm not one for multiple drafts*, but I do like to spend a while thinking about what kind of thing I want to say in a review long before I put fingers to keyboard**; I'll walk around the house, constructing paragraphs in my head, thinking about if I should mention this bit, and how I can segue from one point to another. This week; I have struggled to find things to say.

The reason for my struggle is the plot, which is unbelievably thin: A photographer / neo-nazi, captures, then rapes and kills a whole bunch of women with fake breasts.

And that's it.



There is what threatens to be a plot; the photographer has a girlfriend, and the girlfriends little sister is suspicious of him, but it goes nowhere.

There are a couple of other go-nowhere scenes that act as though they are about to introduce a plot, but which really exist to put in some horror-icon cameos; Gunner 'Leatherface' Hanson plays a redneck who pimps out his daughter to the photographer, an Tony 'Candyman' Todd plays a video store clerk who the photographer first saves from a hold-up, an then kills.

The gore is well done, and the murders and rapes look real enough, but the acting is atrocious.

Oh, and one more thing; if you are ever planning on killing a couple of women, and you convince them to have a threesome with you, once you're all naked and on the bed, it seems to me that you may as well have your ménage à trois... You can still kill them later. Not this idiot though! He kills them just as things are getting interesting.

Realistic gore is not enough to rescue a movie; for acting, (lack of) plot, and the idiocy of the main character: Avoid!


*Which shoes.
** Which Doesn't