Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer
Ryan D. Kearns
thoughts on it. It's an extremely well-done movie, and the casting is
excellent -- I really *liked* it (I suppose as much as one can "like" a
movie that deals with a subject matter so disturbing), and I would rank
it highly on my unwritten list of the best movies I have seen, but I
really don't think I ever want to see this movie again. Anyone else
feel that way about Henry?
I rented the 'Director's Cut,' which contained a very brief interview
with the director at the end -- I found it interesting, but somewhat
unsatisfying. I expected more of a commentary on certain scenes in the
film, and instead it was only really an overview of why the director
chose this subject matter. It seems as though the movie's extremely
limited budget was the impetus for the subject of the movie being a
serial killer rather than a space monster. Impressive that the film was
made for $100,000. This is almost unheard of these days in the film
business, especially for a movie that really doesn't *look* like it was
filmed on such a low budget.
I have a question about the factual basis of the film -- I know that it
was based on the life of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. How much of the
film was based on actual events, and how much was fabricated? Did Lucas
have a "sidekick," as in the movie, who was the brother of his "love
interest"? Did Lucas really kill the sidekick as he was attempting to
rape his own sister? (This scene is a major factor for not wanting to
see the film again!) Did he really hack the sister and the sidekick to
small bits and transport them in suitcases?
I have heard that a "sequel" was made to the film, but know nothing
about it other than it is supposed to be very poor. Was it made by the
same director?
Thanks!
XBRXTNLEX
wanted to ask
-Brx
Remove "trac" to e-mail
BRXTNLE: http://members.aol.com/enfroze/index.html
mals...@milehigh.net
>I have a question about the factual basis of the film -- I know that it
>was based on the life of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. How much of the
>film was based on actual events, and how much was fabricated?
It was very loosely based on the real case. Lucas did pick up
hitchhikers, change his method of killing, kill very randomly - moving
around a lot, he did have a partner named Otis, he did kill his own
mother and he did kill his "common law wife" Becky but she was never
raped by Otis. I can't remember if the suitcase thing really happened -
I'm pretty sure it's not true. Aside from those general facts the movie
is totally made up. Also, Lucas is not nearly as good looking as the guy
in the movie, he has a glass eye, he never killed Otis, and he is not
nearly as intersting, careful and contemplative as the film character. In
fact, the guy in reality is so mixed up he now denies he killed anyone,
including victims whos grave sites he lead investigators to.
I saw the "sequal" - it's ok on its own but as a follow up to "Henry" it
fucking sucks. - Jonathan Canady
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
T.Rose
i
>wanted to ask
>-Brx
It's been a long time since I've seen this, I do remember the broken Coke
bottle shoved onto the girl's face (the act was not shown.) The movie was
creepy and disturbing but I don't recall that much gore per se.
Tom, Silicon Valley
P.S. Didn't they find out that the real guy this movie was based on was in
fact lying about a great number of the killings he had supposedly done?
Medieval Knievel
XBRXTNLEX wrote in message <19990318113734...@ng108.aol.com>...
>how is the gore factor in this movie? i have heard it was pretty grisly,
but i
>wanted to ask
I wouldn't say it was all that gory, but it is pretty brutal, in the way
that texas chainsaw massacre is intensely brutal with little actual gore
shown.
Stacey Holbrook
> how is the gore factor in this movie? i have heard it was pretty grisly, but i
> wanted to ask
> -Brx
It isn't gory but it is deeply disturbing on many levels and the violence
is very realistic. I saw this several years ago and I can still recall
some scenes very vividly which is more than I can say for a lot of other
"serial killer" type movies.
Stacey (au...@netdoor.com)
Trent
>
> how is the gore factor in this movie? i have heard it was pretty grisly, but i
> wanted to ask
> -Brx
>
It is pretty grisly. IIRC, one of the first scenes shows a mutilated
woman with a broken bottle smashed into her face. If that disturbs you,
then don't see this movie. It is a good film, though.
-----> Trent
"High ping builds character."
Scott
> P.S. Didn't they find out that the real guy this movie was based on was in
> fact lying about a great number of the killings he had supposedly done?
At first, Henry Lee Lucas was a happy and willing suspect, trying to
take the 'credit' for additional murders he did not commit. He knew
details of many murders that only the killer would know but others he
simply confessed to because of the notoriety he would receive as the
country's most prolific murderer. Many states were happy to accept these
confessions, however weak, because it meant clearing up a lot of
unsolved murders.
Unfortunately, Lucas then talked to a lawyer who informed him of the
possible consequences of being convicted in some of the states of the
crimes he claimed he committed, whether he actually did them or not.
Lucas quickly realized that confessing to heinous crimes in certain
states meant a very real possibility of being fried to a crisp or
gassed. He rapidly shut his mouth and has only opened it to deny
everything since.
XBRXTNLEX
>but i
>>wanted to ask
>
>
>that texas chainsaw massacre is intensely brutal with little actual gore
>shown.
>
>
that's cool, i think that kind of atmosphere is more effective that all out
gore, but i do enjoy gore flicks as well.
Lonnie Moon
Another person has become desensitized by the gratuitous violence in this
movie. But this is probably the most realistic movie when it comes to crime
thrillers.
His pal Owen was not killed because he leaked out a lot of this information,
while in prison himself. Owen's niece did become a love interest of Henry's
though and, yeah, he killed her just like every other love interest of his.
Actually, let me rephrase love to lust. I don't think he is or was ever
capable of love.
Anyways, Owen and Henry were not sidekicks for very long, Henry has bragged
of killing over 300 people and Owen has only bragged of a number like 75.
The problem, factually, with Owen and Henry is they both talk way too much
and most serial killers are big talkers, you know? So psychologically
speaking, they don't fit the mold of the correct psyche. They mostly sound
like a couple of guys that maybe pulled off a few murders and then
exaggerated their stories.
But I think Michael Rooker played his best part for that movie, and deserves
the accolades and the royalties. It is quite a disturbing movie, though.
So realistic, if you remember the scene wheree Owen and Henry start to kill
the family and rape the mom and the son comes in, that lady went into SHOCK
after the shoot was done. Now that is realism. All for a measly
$100,000.00. Only in America.
LJ
Ryan D. Kearns wrote:
> I just saw this movie for the first time, and wanted to share my
> thoughts on it. It's an extremely well-done movie, and the casting is
> excellent -- I really *liked* it (I suppose as much as one can "like" a
> movie that deals with a subject matter so disturbing), and I would rank
> it highly on my unwritten list of the best movies I have seen, but I
> really don't think I ever want to see this movie again. Anyone else
> feel that way about Henry?
>
> I rented the 'Director's Cut,' which contained a very brief interview
> with the director at the end -- I found it interesting, but somewhat
> unsatisfying. I expected more of a commentary on certain scenes in the
> film, and instead it was only really an overview of why the director
> chose this subject matter. It seems as though the movie's extremely
> limited budget was the impetus for the subject of the movie being a
> serial killer rather than a space monster. Impressive that the film was
> made for $100,000. This is almost unheard of these days in the film
> business, especially for a movie that really doesn't *look* like it was
> filmed on such a low budget.
>
> I have a question about the factual basis of the film -- I know that it
> was based on the life of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. How much of the
mals...@milehigh.net
>His pal Owen was not killed because he... <chop>
His name is OTIS - Otis Toole. And incidentally he claimed to have
murdered John Walsh's son Adam (and cut off his head). So it is possible
that without Mr. Toole we would all be deprived of the glory of "America's
Most Wanted" (ha ha). -Jonathan Canady
Lonnie Moon
Otis, you are correct!! It has been a few years since I have seen this epic
movie. Thank you and I stand corrected.
LJ
Doc
I doubt he killed Walsh's son or most of the killings him and Henry
claim.
They may have killed a few people but not the 100's they say.
They spouted alot of bullshit in jail and led investigators away from
finding suspects in some cases, fucking idiots
Godd flick though.
mals...@milehigh.net wrote:
>Lonnie Moon <lm...@tcc.tacoma.ctc.edu> wrote:
>
>>His pal Owen was not killed because he... <chop>
>
>His name is OTIS - Otis Toole. And incidentally he claimed to have
>murdered John Walsh's son Adam (and cut off his head). So it is possible
>that without Mr. Toole we would all be deprived of the glory of "America's
>Most Wanted" (ha ha). -Jonathan Canady
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
"Its the Super Magic Man, theres nobody more magical, than Bigfoot...that I know of."
Craig Carpenter
Mohawk Indian and Spirtualist
Pat Lukasik
confessed to commiting 600+ murders. Ottis was into cannibalism while Henry
was into Raping, incest necro-beastiality and such. Henry's mother used to
abuse him and make him wear dresses in school which got him to drop out in
5th grade. His father got hit by a train and was paralyzed. While his
father was in his wheelchair at home, his mother used to bring guys over and
fuck them while forcing Henry and his sister to watch. One night while he
was drunk when he was 14, him and his mother got into an arguement leading
him to kill her and raping her corpse. He is in prison now. he was
supposed to get the death penalty for killing a girl in Texas given the name
"Orange Socks" by the fact that when authorities found her, she had nothing
on but a pair of orange socks. After much studying, the police realized
that there was no way Henry could of killed her because he was somewhere
else. He brags about going over to Europe and other countries and killing
people, but America has no proof of him ever leaving the country. Ottis
Toole was his sidekick in real life. He met Henry in a soup kitchen. he was
a transvestite and retarted. The guy who does America's Most wanted-John
Walsh, started the show because his 6 year old son was killed and
decapitated in Florida. The person who did it was Ottis. Ottis died in
prison on September 15, 1996 of Liver failure. Another movie you should see
is Confessions of a serial killer. It is about them and more accurate, even
though they don't use their real names. Oh, by the way, the girl in real
life was Ottis's neice and Henry had a thing with her when she was 13 and he
was older. She eventually got killed (What did you expect). If any of this
information is inaccurate please e-mail me at pluk...@sprynet.com
XBRXTNLEX
to be honest i was quite dissapointed. mostly because through the whole thing i
felt like i was watching a cheap Lifetime movie. other than the swearing and
nudity. the story was good, but i guess if they had used better actors, and had
a bigger film budget, it could have been as "disturbing" as everyone claims it
to be. or maybe i am just too desensitized, but the most disturbing part was
when otis was doing his sister on the floor. of course it's disturbing to know
this guy existed, but the violence wasn't all that bad. just my opinion.
Ralph Barbagallo
on real events. I know another poster a few messages up chronicled the
real-life story, but I read that after the movie came out they found out
that most of the confession was bogus? Is that true?
--
Ralph A. Barbagallo III --- fl...@concentric.net
--- http://www.concentric.net/~flarb --
Ralph Shapiro
entirely.
Jon
XBRXTNLEX
>entirely.
>Jon
no no no, i can appreciate the story, i just didn't care for the acting and
cinematography. ever see rampage? i loved that movie, and found it more
disturbing. it was more of a court drama/psycological thriller than a horror. i
didn't ,mean to say i didn't like it because there wasn't enough killing or
action... sorry to mislead anyone. :)
DESSCRIBE1
>It is quite a disturbing movie, though.
>So realistic, if you remember the scene wheree Owen and Henry start to kill
>the family and rape the mom and the son comes in, that lady went into SHOCK
>after the shoot was done.
That's interesting...and it would probably explain why she hasn't done any
other movies since then. (Although, I know, most of the cast apart from the
leads were probably local theater talent or non-professionals anyway...)
Are there any interviews in which either McNaughton, Rooker, Tom Towles, or
Lisa Temple (the actress in question) have discussed the filming of this scene
and its traumatic effect on her?
Erich
"I'm just a nasty, narrow-minded jade" (Bonzo Dog Band)
Steven Weller
There was a nice interview with McNaughton in the old Film Threat
magazine, along side an interview with Henry Lee Lucas. The thing
about the film that I find interesting is that it wasn't intended as
a 'serious' film at all; McNaughton was trying to get his foot in the
door with a very low-end STV producer/ditributor, and after a certain
amount of begging nd pleading got a tiny little budget to do a quick
n' dirty exploitation film. They lit everything for exposure rather
than effect, they shot quick and didn't do a lot of retakes, and in
pretty much every other aspect made the film as quckly and cheaply
as humanly possible. That they had an interesting script, and quite
a bit of talent, made the difference.
As for Lucas, he's something of a cypher. No one will ever know (besides
him) how many people he killed. It's at least likely that he's a little
smarter than people think; he may have confessed to some killings that he
didn't commit specifically to throw confusion into to the whole affair.
If he can be exonerated from some of the murders he's confessed to by
simple circumstances (he was in Washington while a murder he 'claimed'
was being comitted in Texas, say) then ALL of his confessions become
suspect. In the interview, he claimed that he hadn't seen the movie
(Henry: Portrait) but seemed intimately familiar with the contents - at
least enough to deny that they showed anything that he was actually involved
in.
Anyone who is interested might check out the Film Threat website; some of
this stuff might be archived somewhere.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary,
Steven
Carla Pettigrew
Weller) wrote:
>As for Lucas, he's something of a cypher. No one will ever know (besides
>him) how many people he killed. It's at least likely that he's a little
>smarter than people think; he may have confessed to some killings that he
>didn't commit specifically to throw confusion into to the whole affair.
>If he can be exonerated from some of the murders he's confessed to by
>simple circumstances (he was in Washington while a murder he 'claimed'
>was being comitted in Texas, say) then ALL of his confessions become
>suspect. In the interview, he claimed that he hadn't seen the movie
>(Henry: Portrait) but seemed intimately familiar with the contents - at
>least enough to deny that they showed anything that he was actually involved
>in.
This behavior is what sociopaths live for: the manipulation of other
people. He had the Texas Rangers dancing like puppets at his every word.
The best info on Lucas, imho, is the book by Joel Norris.
O:) Carla
--
The moon grew teeth.
--Clive Barker
grimoire, the horror literature discussion list
http://www.mindspring.com/~screamqueen/grimoire/
OcristIII
couldn't turn away from the screen. It's a must see movie. But after seeing it
once you'll never want to see it again.
It's that disturding.
(Trey smashed his fists against the keys until this spewed forth)
Sadie Mae
> As for Lucas, he's something of a cypher. No one will ever know (besides
> him) how many people he killed. It's at least likely that he's a little
> smarter than people think;
I've seen the boy interviewed a few times and would have to agree with you.
he just HAS to be smarter than he seems to be......
.....but only because he SEEMS to be about as intelligent as one of your
more common houseplants.
:)
Sadie