Sinopsis(1)
Henry Lee Lucas tuvo una infancia muy desgraciada y acabó en la cárcel por acuchillar a su madre. Una vez en libertad, se convierte en un asesino que escoge a sus víctimas al azar y cada vez utiliza un método distinto con el fin de no ser descubierto. Otis, un tipo que conoció en prisión, es su cómplice. Un día llega Becky, la hermana de Otis, y se queda a vivir con ellos. Pronto entre ella y Henry surge un sentimiento mutuo de atracción. Una noche, Otis y Henry salen de juerga y matan a dos prostitutas en un callejón. Desde entonces, la sed de sangre que se apodera de ellos no conoce límites. (texto oficial de la distribuidora)
(más)Reseñas (6)
Esta película es como un trozo de carne cruda sobre una mesa de carnicero grasienta y manchada de sangre. Pero esta carne es de calidad orgánica de un toro sano, y si se hubiera cocinado adecuadamente, podría haberse convertido en un delicioso bistec. Pero John McNaughton hace películas de clase B, por lo que sus bistecs no se cocinan y se sirven crudos. Henry es un thriller psicológico de bajo presupuesto, que se centra en el diálogo alrededor de la mesa de la cocina rodeado de tres buscavidas: uno es una chica estúpida sin hogar, el segundo un aborrecible paleto retrasado con una cerveza en la mano, y el tercero es un introvertido con una infancia jodida (Michael Rooker en su papel debut) y haciendo su vida interesante con numerosos asesinatos, que no le hacen sentir ninguna emoción o remordimiento. Por algún milagro, esta película no precisamente familiar funciona, mantiene la atención del espectador, despierta su curiosidad y hace que intente comprender a los personajes y sus acciones. Y convierte a un director de películas baratas de clase B en un director underground de calidad. Si te fascina psicológicamente la violencia brutal en el cine y te irrita que todos esos slashers desagradables de Eurotrash lo sirvan de una manera tan retrasada, Henry será la película de tu vida. Todas los Funny Games de Haneke están aquí comprimidas en una escena de varios minutos que causó problemas a la película con su distribución y calificación. Y no me sorprende, porque su cruda brutalidad es muy fuerte.
()
An interesting spin on the thriller – we follow the killer himself with elements of documentary – but unlike other users, I don’t see a very deep psychological portrait. This is something that any talented screenwriter could put together if they’d paid attention to psychology in secondary school. The aura that surrounds this film is, in my opinion, much stronger than the film itself, which doesn’t alter the fact that it’s very well made, and bleak.
()
An amoral protagonist who we understand and in a sense sympathize with, as well as dead people at every turn. And yet the killing spree takes up only a fraction of the film's runtime. It is a purely atmospheric affair that is steadied by the director and perfect acting performances but it’s definitely not going to put you in a good mood when it’s over. Michael Rooker is scarier than any murderous "redneck" from horror movies, and yet you meet hundreds of similar (seemingly) nice guys every day. It’s unpleasant, raw, authentic, and great!
()
Rightly a cult picture with a powerful atmosphere, several perfect scenes that will remain in your mind for long after and three flawless acting performances. The filming is very low-key, but at the same time so raw to the point of being unbearable. Depression in its purest, “unembellished" movie form. Henry is definitely not a “feelgood" movie and you will carry its mood away with you after the movie ends... and that’s good.
()
When it came out, I would have probably admired this film and would have needed to return to it, but now, after more than thirty years, it can no longer deliver the required viewer’s experience. Its aloofness is the inevitable result of the fact that we are watching the repudiation of a valuable human creature with whom we would never like to share the same room. Henry is just a guy who makes a living and in his free time, instead of going to the pub, goes to the slaughterhouse. And although the impersonal approach and the concentrated violence that can detonate at any moment hide an undeniable impact and cinematic intent, the film held me at bay so much that I repeatedly lost interest. Maybe it was because the touted horrendous scenes of violence didn’t feel particularly controversial from today’s perspective. The next time I watch it, I won’t expect something that should justify the film’s cult status, but will enjoy the concept as a whole. For the time being, 65%.
()
Traditionally too 80s for me, but it was passable. What irritated me more was the lack of any attempt to explain why Henry was what he was. Some of the family strife is outlined, but not in a way that allows any reasonable explanation to be discerned. I’m not criticizing the absence of any authorities such as the police, the landlord, etc, as I assume that was the artistic intention. In fact, the whole film went for two stars with me, mainly helped by the utterly disgusting character of Otis, and only pulled up to three by the pretty rough ending.
()