Henry says that if you use a pistol, you can use it again, but change the weapon, don't use the same gun.īoth Otis and Henry are psychopaths, in that they don't feel the pain of their victims. Otherwise, they just follow the blood from the deer, they expect their wanted man to strangle again, or use the same gun. The antihero shares a flat with Otis, who will listen to the lessons given by the experienced killer, who says that the police look for a pattern and thus it is better to change method. He kills victims that he apparently selects randomly, albeit he has a rudimentary strategy, which he would explain later to the novice who learns how to murder from him. Michael Rooker is very effective as Henry, unless of course, you share the view of the Washington Post chronicler, who is actually correct in his assessment, at least in part. Henry has a bizarre atmosphere, strange characters and a plot that is also outre, notwithstanding the fact that it is based on real events. The Washington Post on the other hand is rather dismissive of a 'half art film, half schlock-horror movie'. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer have both given it a maximum 100 out of 100, while Rolling Stone and others have been very appreciative. This drama has an impressive average, Metascore of 80, which means that most critics have been more than pleased. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, written by Richard Fire and John McNaughton, directed by the latter Kimber's revealing account of the film's production and its fortunes in the marketplace provides a fascinating case study of film censorship in action, and offers a sustained and wide ranging analysis of what remains one of the most disturbing films ever made. Today Henry enjoys the reputation and status of a key film within the horror genre, the history of censorship, and the study of film violence. It also considers McNaughton's usage of the codes associated with documentary and realism, 'exploitation' approaches to publicity and marketing, and the polarisation of responses to the movie. Taking full account of the views of audiences, critics and academics, both at the time the film was released and in the years since, this illuminating study also looks at the changing political, social and economic contexts within which the film was produced and has subsequently been circulated and consumed. Shaun Kimber's examination of the controversies surrounding Henry considers the history and implications of censors' decisions about the film on both sides of the Atlantic, revealing a wide range of cultural meanings and social fears relating to film violence. The film proved immensely controversial, notably in the UK, where it confounded the British Board of Film Classification, which at one point during the film's tangled censorship history went so far as to re-edit substantially a crucial scene, in addition to cutting others. Director John McNaughton presents an unflinching portrayal of the semi-fictional Henry's crimes, which include serial murder and the slaughter of a family captured and replayed on videotape by Henry and his accomplice Otis. The Honeymoon Killers is another film that I regret seeing.Portrait of a Serial Killer (1985) is precisely a cold-eyed character study based on the crimes of Henry Lee Lucas, who was convicted of eleven murders in the 1980s. This speaks well of the directors skill at scaring movie-goers, but approach with caution please. This film was so powerfully unsettling for me, that I feel a need to warn others of the emotional impact. Some things are so emotionally damaging, that perhaps they should be left alone. I was sorry that I had seen the film, but it was too late to retract the terror that, even today, still remains in my memory. I was really shaken by the horrific realism of this cinematic event. Leaving the theater that day, I honestly felt as though I had actually witnessed several murders. It is possible to "see too much" in this life, and once seen, some sights remain trapped in your head FOREVER short of getting a lobotomy, or being hypnotized. I can count on one hand the films that I have found to be so deeply disturbing, that I later regretted seeing them.This film is among them. I am not easily frightened or upset by movies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |