Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

People are voting emotionally.

Expected more

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

First things first, this is definitely not the movie most people will go in thinking it is. There's no good vs evil, there's no slasher in a mask or ghosts or anything like that. There's not even really a hero. Your main character is Henry, played uncomfortably perfectly by Michael Rooker (ya know, Yondu). Henry is, as the title suggests, a serial killer. That's right, your protagonist is the bad guy. A violent, soft spoken, methodical, dangerous and scarily of all, smart. So yeah. If you're looking for a feel good happy ending, do not watch. I repeat. Do not watch! This movie is uncomfortable to watch. Not to be that douche guy but it's the type of movie you feel like showering after. But I digress.So yeah, basically the movies story I guess you could call it is relatively simple. Henry, living in Chicago with his ex cell mate and his sister ( (cell mates, not his) Tom Towles and Tracey Arnold respectively) basically just goes about his day doing various things. It just so happens one of those things is killing people. Literally anyone. In fact, Henry makes a point of changing his method every time so it's harder to catch him. It's pretty sick, especially when you consider that it's based on real life serial killer Henry Lee Lucas.Story wise in all honesty this movie is very simple, but honestly that's forgiveable. Michael Rooker is phenomenal as Henry, like full honesty I think this is the best performance of his career. He perfectly balances the switch in Henry that you can never really know what's going on inside his head, but you know it's not good. Tom towles and Tracy Arnold too are great and all three have great dynamics with each other, even if you kinda don't really care about Arnold all that much (nothing against her, but look at what she's up against).Sooooo yeah, the violence in this movie is pretty disturbing, one scene in particular which I won't dare write about her, but needless to say anyone whose seen it knows exactly what I'm talking about and yeah, it's difficult to watch. It's not even that it's gory because it's honestly not, it just feels a bit to real to I guess separate. The ending too is one of the more objectively big downer endings I think I've ever seen though to be fair, look at the title. That's all you needed to know.Okay so this isn't for everyone, but it's still a phenomenal character study. Approach with caution, but check it out if you get a chance

What makes Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer so harrowing, so numbing, is the absence of any judgment of the characters. The film was shot on 16mm film in one month's time for $110,000 in 1985. It did not premiere until 1990, and became one of a handful of international independent films to instigate the NC-17 rating. It does not contain buckets of blood, nor is it particularly explicit sexually. It is, from any and every angle, an omniscient portrait. Two naked women are shown dead, having already been brutally murdered, one in a field and the other in a bedroom, while a troubled man named Henry drives around Chicago. We hear their screams. All we see are their mangled bodies. That is all we need. And it is stomach-churning.Itinerant Henry and his prison buddy Otis are cold-blooded and chillingly casual murderers. Played by gravelly character actor Michael Rooker, Henry never appears or behaves like anyone out of the ordinary. We get the sense that he hardly ever thinks about murder, except for when he does it. As for Otis, played by the imposing Tom Towles, think of when you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, versus one after your morning coffee and one after dinner. Think of the discipline and organization inherent in the latter. That's Otis's problem kind of, only he's not just the one pack a day, he's about five and the tobacco is laced with children's tears. That's why he truly brings out the things about individuals we never see. He does many unforgivably monstrous things here, but he still manages to go about his business without remorse or fear of getting caught, so we presume he's just a good ol' boy with a short fuse. And he is; he just goes a few steps further than most.Portrait is not about the thin line between good and evil. Portrait sees no line. There are innumerable films about serial killers. It is a permanent fixture in the Middle American zeitgeist. We fear them, so we turn them into our own bloodthirsty entertainment. They have become mythology for us to use in order to take our morbid curiosities and sadistic fantasies out for a safe spin. Even after this definitive film on the subject, it is not often that a movie dares to portray the real ones, unmitigated by thriller tropes.John McNaughton and his late collaborator Richard Fire do not feel the need to pigeonhole or explain them, not just as movie characters but as people. Without a frame of compromise, McNaughton defies the hankering to pump up the volume, to frame Henry in chiaroscuro or Otis with Dutch angles. When most human beings see the things that Henry and Otis actually go through with---feeling no other rationale, it would seem, than that it's simply something for them to do---our immediate reaction is to ask how someone could do such things, and why. As Nick Nolte says as a homicide detective in Ole Bornedal's 1997 thriller, "Even when we catch the killer, they wanna know the how and why."That character would agree with McNaughton and Fire that people like Henry and Otis, are well beyond the need to justify what they do. What explanation could there be for slaughtering an entire random family, while recording the whole incident on a camcorder to then watch it later with the blank beer-chugging catatonia of watching an inning of baseball? Horror films, though designed to scare us, are also designed to make us feel safe. The killer was humiliated by his quarries in high school, or has split personality disorder. This film is not a horror film. Explanations are just a fiction to make us feel safe. This film does not have explanations. It has events, key moments in the lives of guys who like to drink beer, smoke weed, hang out with Otis' sister and kill random strangers.

Based on the true life serial killer, Henry Lee Lucas, 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' is a haunting & unsettling tale of a troubled man. Its brilliantly written & Michael Rooker nails in it! 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' is dark, disturbing & violent. But, thats the mood of the film, its unsettling & haunting. Its no-holds-barred, no-mercy storytelling, that leaves a strong impact. Its certainly not flawless, but its depiction of a serial killer is extremely intriguing. John McNaughton's Direction is note-worthy. He handles this difficult, disturbing story with an unbiased opinion. He captures every frame with a sense of repulsion & paranoia. Michael Rooker is awesome. He's award-worthy as Henry. He's truly an under-rated performer, who deserves much more than what he has received. On the whole, 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' is not everyone's cup of tea, but those who can stomach a brutal, life-like story of a twisted of serial killer, shouldn't give this one a miss.

One of the best thriller-horrors of all time pure and simple good film making well worth a look. Rooker (merle from the walking dead) plays the part perfectly and when I watched this film back in 86 when I was 9 years old (ah the good old days) this performance stuck with me for life and ascended the actual role , I have been a fan of his ever since just wish he could have had bigger roles by now also considering the cruddy actors of today who get better roles but that is life .Although a murder flick it also goes deep into the life and mind of a killer which is a compelling watch.In summary if you like a good plot and story along with a bit of killing then find it and watch it you wont be disappointed.