"Portrait of a Serial Killer"
LilLilly1
This film disturbed me. Although I don't remember it as being particulary
bloody or gory, the style in which it was filmed seemed so realistic.
Since we all know that this stuff does happen and that victims are chosen
at random and taken so easily, the fright factor is multiplied by this
film. Opinions ?
jcs
<delurking from the shadows, startling everyone with his appearance>
Absolutely. Although the "classics" (Dracula, Wolfman,etc) certainly
have their value to horror fans, it's often times the threat of the RL
monsters that is the most frightening. Movies like 'Henry', "Texas
Chainsaw" and "Psycho" which if you take a close look at them have
little actual gore but lots of imaginative impact, have more value for
us in the modern age because we are now more aware that REAL monsters
exist, and even the nice guy who bags your groceries might stalk you
later.
But still..you can't just give up on the good old boys either. They
blazed the trails and even to this day continue to show us the way.
PS. What about the great British film "Peeping Tom"? Little gore, lotsa
scare!
<the fog rolls back in (thanks Carpenter) as your host fades back into
the darkness and leaves you with this quote to ponder..>
"They're dead..they're ALL messed up"
Quickcity
LilLilly1 wrote:
>
> This film disturbed me. Although I don't remember it as being particulary
> bloody or gory, the style in which it was filmed seemed so realistic.
> Since we all know that this stuff does happen and that victims are chosen
> at random and taken so easily, the fright factor is multiplied by this
> film. Opinions ?
I agree. A terrifying, disturbing film. Especially the final sequences.
Nick
---------
Nicholas Kaufmann
Quic...@aol.com
PLEASE SEND A COPY OF ALL REPLIES VIA E-MAIL AS WELL!
LthrNCrmsn
>This film disturbed me. Although I don't remember it as being particulary
>bloody or gory, the style in which it was filmed seemed so realistic.
>Since we all know that this stuff does happen and that victims are chosen
>at random and taken so easily, the fright factor is multiplied by this
>film. Opinions ?
>
>
>
>
>
You are totally right. This movie disturbed me so much when I saw it for
the first time. I rented it again and the effect it had on me didn't fade.
I love this movie because of how it made me feel. The old monsters were
cool when I was a little kid, but now it terrifies me that there are
actually Henries and Otises in this world.
Craig
J. QUILES
LthrNCrmsn <lthrn...@aol.com> wrote:
: >This film disturbed me. Although I don't remember it as being particulary
: >bloody or gory, the style in which it was filmed seemed so realistic.
: >Since we all know that this stuff does happen and that victims are chosen
: >at random and taken so easily, the fright factor is multiplied by this
: >film. Opinions ?
I posted about this earlier on a scariest horror film post and got a lot
of negative feedback. I still think that it is one of the scariest horror
films that I have seen if not the one. I feel that way for the same
reasons you mentioned. Chilling.
Jose
Brian C.
I read somewhere John McNaughton
had plans on a part 2.
Can anyone confirm this?
Thanks
Glenn
Of course it happens this movie is based on a real story/guy Henry Lee
Lucas!
cya
glenn
--
gzu...@globalserve.com
"I have the understanding of a 4 year old.
I have the peace of mind of a kindred soul.
I have the rationale of a New York cop.
I have patience of a chopping block.
Can you TRIP like I do?......"
-Crytal Method, Filter
Paul Maloney
> > This film disturbed me. Although I don't remember it as being
particulary
> > bloody or gory, the style in which it was filmed seemed so realistic.
> > Since we all know that this stuff does happen and that victims are
chosen
> > at random and taken so easily, the fright factor is multiplied by this
> > film. Opinions ?
>
> I agree. A terrifying, disturbing film. Especially the final sequences.
If you want MHO I thought this film was utter shite. The only bit
reasonably good was when that tv shop guy had a tv come crashing down on
his head. I wish someone had done the same to Henry! All you see are
repetitive shots of a car pulling away and then the camera zooms in on the
victim. Woop-dee-doo! Herschell Gordon Lewis was more realistic!
Eric
cigarettes:
the attendant:"how bout them bears?"
Henry:"FUCK the Bears!"
sorry kinda pointless I know but I enjoyed it at the time
-Eric
Timothy Clark
Part 2 is already in the can. McNaughton had nothing to do with it. Who
knows if we'll ever get to see it. There were some cool pics in Fango on
it about a year ago.
Jim Roberts
LilLilly1 wrote:
>
> This film disturbed me. Although I don't remember it as being particulary
> bloody or gory, the style in which it was filmed seemed so realistic.
> Since we all know that this stuff does happen and that victims are chosen
> at random and taken so easily, the fright factor is multiplied by this
> film. Opinions ?
Everything I've read about Henry Lucas indicates that most of the stuff
he says he's done, he hasn't. He's a killer, but the actual number of
his victims is much smaller than he claims.
Not particularly comforting; means there's *even more* serial killers
out there than we ever thought. But that's fodder for another post.
Anyway, the movie *Portrait of a Serial Killer* gave me the creeps. The
killers were average, bland looking guys, kind of guys you wouldn't look
at twice nor pay particular attention to if you saw them on a street or
in the local McDonald's (or at the Post Office ;) ). I think that's
what gave me chills -- their very *ordinariness* is what makes them so
dangerous.
Few serial killers have Ted Bundy's good looks. Most are, well, you
wouldn't give them a second look. Which is why they are so hard to
catch -- they can hide in plain sight and no one sees them.
The movie fairly accurately portrayed the literature as it pertains to
the serial killers of the late 20th Century (e.g. -- young to
middle-aged lower middle class white males, unassuming looking, driving
plain older cars they generally take care of and maintain themselves,
few roots, manual labor, etc.)
I guess that's why this movie so bothered me: I know that there really
are guys out there like Henry and Otis. And frankly, I would prefer the
monsters under my bed be imaginary.
--
jim roberts
---------------------------------------------
Freedom lies in being bold!
mailto:jamesr...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jamesroberts
André F. Jølsen
The Gore-met wrote:
>
> LilLilly1 wrote:
> >
> > This film disturbed me. Although I don't remember it as being particulary
> > bloody or gory, the style in which it was filmed seemed so realistic.
> > Since we all know that this stuff does happen and that victims are chosen
> > at random and taken so easily, the fright factor is multiplied by this
> > film. Opinions ?
>
> doubt. It could be more graphic, but does it need to be? I don't think
> so. I think it works so well because it is so believeable.
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------
> "We have a lifetime to know your flesh..."
> Terror! Mayhem! Bloody horror!
> The Galloping Gore-met: http://www.interlog.com/~goremet
> --------------------------------------------------------
Henry is brilliant.
My opinion, it blows away Se7ven...
--
André F.Jølsen
------------------
sav...@newmedia.no
The Gore-met
There is no serial killer movie that compares to this one. The rest pale
in comparison. Another one worth checking out is "Confessions Of A
Serial Killer", basically rips off "Henry", but I thought it too was
well done.