Connect with us

Reviews

[REVIEW] Henry: A Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

While Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer succeeds as a film, it completely fails at shedding any light on the true horrific story beneath the fiction. For a film that was post-release deemed X-rated, it is rather tame. With this film’s notoriety, I was expecting something more historically authentic and truthful. The final product is nothing more than two writers’ picking and choosing of history. I know that not every bit of detail can go into a film and some things need to be left out. It’s just confounding as to what was left out and which inauthentic aspects were added.

Published

on

When thinking of the theme for January, “based on a true story”, many films came to mind. Many films boldly claim to be “based on a true story” and so many of them get it all wrong. If you think a real story is great enough to be adapted into a film, then why do filmmakers find the need to change myriad aspects of what made the story appealing? The first film I wanted to look at that was “based on a true story” is one I’ve scrolled past many times, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. True crime stories fascinate me, as they do many, and this story is one I always thought was interesting.

Who Was Henry Lee Lucas? The “Confession Killer”

Henry Lee Lucas was nicknamed the Confession Killer due to his confessions of over one thousand murders. Why was he allowed to confess to so many crimes that he obviously didn’t commit? It comes down to his addiction to nicotine and police laziness. Before we try to analyze whether or not this is a faithful adaptation (it’s not), let’s take a look at the film proper.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer follows nomad serial killer Henry (Michael Rooker) who is currently shacking up with his prison friend Otis (Tom Towles). The two men are eventually joined by Becky (Tracy Arnold), Otis’s sister who comes to town after escaping a particularly bad relationship. As Henry and Otis slip further into depravity, Henry finds himself getting closer to the off-limits Becky. Will Becky cast a wedge between Henry and Otis? Can she drive him out of the devil’s grips?

A Disturbing Yet Fascinating Film Debut

As a film, Henry succeeds. It depicts a fascinating delve into the mind of a serial killer. While Henry Lee Lucas probably killed four to five people, this film paints him in a much more questionable light. (I’m not saying he was a good person by any means, but we’ll get to that later.) Co-writer/director John McNaughton sets the scene with a seedy salaciousness. You can feel the dirt, grime, and blood pulsing from the screen. Henry was McNaughton’s directorial debut and oozed controversy; it’s an impressive debut.

Unfortunately, this film is little more than flashy. It’s controversy, for controversy’s sake. The most frustrating aspect about Henry is why it was even made. McNaughton could have easily written a slasher film about a degenerate serial killer and called it a day. Instead, he spits in the face of the people Lucas actually did kill. It should be noted that Michael Rooker and Tom Towles (rest in peace) give exceptionally authentic performances. There’s just no need to set their performances against the backdrop of supposedly real crimes.

Advertisement

True Crime Adaptations vs. Victims’ Families

A frequent criticism of true crime adaptations comes from the families involved. Recently, the mother of Tony Hughes (one of Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims), came out against the the Netflix series Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. Did McNaughton specifically pick Henry Lee Lucas because the victims were considered “the less dead”? It’s easy to spit in the face of the victims if their families don’t care about them/know they’re dead.

So what’s the point of trying to tell the Henry Lee Lucas story when you can’t even tell the basic information correctly? Lucas was missing an eye, which caused him many problems growing up. Do you think this was addressed in the film? Nope. Otis’s name in real life was Ottis (pronounced ah-tis). Why change his name? Becky was Ottis’s 11-year-old niece and not his 18-year-old sister. If you’re trying to tell a story about a serial killer that the audience ISN’T supposed to like, then why sugarcoat things?

Historical Inaccuracies and Distasteful Choices

McNaughton finds it necessary to show kills that Henry Lee Lucas definitely did not commit, yet he finds the need to whitewash the relationship between Henry and Becky. Becky had developmental issues in real life. So why don’t you show the true awful side of Henry? Instead, they decide to show us a consenting relationship between Henry and Becky. It’s truly distasteful. The number of times they try to find ways to make you sympathize with Henry rather than beg for police intervention is astounding.

While Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer succeeds as a film, it completely fails at shedding any light on the true horrific story beneath the fiction. For a film that was post-release deemed X-rated, it is rather tame. With this film’s notoriety, I was expecting something more historically authentic and truthful. The final product is nothing more than two writers’ picking and choosing of history. I know that not every bit of detail can go into a film and some things need to be left out. It’s just confounding as to what was left out and which inauthentic aspects were added.

Advertisement

Brendan is an award-winning author and screenwriter rotting away in New Jersey. His hobbies include rain, slugs, and the endless search for The Mothman.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

‘Other Mommy’ Review: Jessica Chastain Can’t Save This CGI Mess

Published

on

Of all the horror movies to be described as a runaway train, Rob Savage’s Other Mommy is the first in recent memory to have that quality as a negative. A more focused piece of over-the-top supernatural horror would capitalize on starting at a high speed and just gunning it. It would get increasingly faster, more horrific with its effects and reveals, more stunning and spectacle-filled. But Other Mommy never utilizes the momentum it starts with. It stays at the same steady, uncomfortable pace. And it gets old, very fast.

Other Mommy Is Missing a First Act

The movie begins in what should have been the second act; it never does stop haunting the narrative that Other Mommy feels like it’s missing 30 minutes of setup and 10 minutes of breathing room that would actually get you to care about what’s happening.  Bela (Arabella Olivia Clark) is a young girl already well acquainted with a creature known as Other Mommy. A supernatural being that can change shape and size to her liking, becoming anyone she wants and then some. The entity only desires one thing: for Bela to let it into her heart and give it a new body.

Bela’s parents, Ursula (played by Jessica Chastain, in a dual role as the Other Mommy) and Russell (Jay Duplass), become aware of the space-bending creature in the film’s very first scenes. Soon, they’re on the run from the creature that’s trying to tear the already strained family apart. But the overwrought family drama of an unfaithful mother and a scatterbrained father forced to hide their struggling marriage from their kid is smothered. Much like Chastain’s performance, it’s drowned out by a barrage of aggressive and unimpressive digital effects trying to milk every single moment for a fright, desperate to keep audiences’ attention.

A Clumsy Digital Effects Showcase That Smothers the Story to Death

Other Mommy is primarily concerned with showing off its titular monster and her reality-bending powers, jumping from one “scare filled”, dreamlike sequence to the next; heavy, heavy quotes on scare filled. You become inured to every trick the film has as it shows you all the most unimaginative uses of a shapeshifting, size changing monster possible. There is no clever framing or use of shadow to obscure it, no restraint at all really. The directing is frenetic and clumsy, but it makes sure to make the monster as clear as possible. It’s all out in the open, plain to see, and bizarrely mundane for a depiction of a demonic interloper.

Every jumpscare-a-minute scene moves too fast and is too overlit to ever scare. The bright and inappropriate atmosphere fails the already rough looking digital effects. What it amounts to is a choppily edited and disjointed assortment of scenes, with weak imitations of Trevor Henderson style abominations center stage. Tall and small and melty variations of a CGI Chastain, none of them work to evoke tension or fear or any emotion other than the occasional eyebrow raise for how goofy some of them look.

Advertisement

There are a few moments where Chastain teases at playing the monster effectively without face and body morphing effects, sporting a genuinely disturbing countenance and creepy voice. But as soon as these fragments of interest come, they’re washed away by warping her into a lanky, slinking monster of ridiculous proportions. What we get out of the dual role is a boring creature for the feature, and a dry, one-dimensional protagonist, both squandering the phenomenal actor Chastain is.

Other Mommy is Full of Dull Performances and Squandered Potential

Duplass offers little with his supporting role, providing flat dialogue and flatter comic relief as a middling SNL sketch’s idea of a clownish father. It’s worth noting Clark actually provides the most interesting performance among the entire cast, a feat impressive from such a young child actor. But even her endearing and heart-breaking time as Bela is too little and too shadowed by the faulty composition of the film it’s trapped in.

The trailer for Other Mommy may have caught audiences off guard at the cinema in the past few months. But ultimately, that trailer showed the movie’s entire hand. Other Mommy is a pasty, crooked collage of elements from the supernatural horror movies producer James Wan made the backbone of the genre a decade ago. That doesn’t make it a throwback; just a rehash of cliches, with no structure and no sense of cohesion. It never amounts to anything more interesting than what the marketing material showed, which is a tragic end for a film, if there ever was one.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Reviews

‘Luz: The Flower of Evil’ Review: A Colorful Nightmare

Published

on

Luz: The Flower of Evil is a movie simultaneously charged with and mired in ambition. It’s genuinely comical how overly ambitious of a first-time film it is for writer-director Juan Diego Escobar Alzate: a microbudget, shot on location in the mountains of Colombia, character driven psychological horror film meant to explore the very nature of good and evil while also tackling cults and misogyny.

So, it’s shocking how much of it works. Not all of it works, not at all, but it is cohesive enough to serve as a surprising experience with the colorful aesthetic it employs and incredibly dark places it goes to.

What Is Luz: Flower of Evil About?

After the death of their mother Luz, three sisters in a rural cult community find their faith waning. The three are the centerpiece of an elaborate theology crafted by their cult leader father, a man who is becoming more difficult to deal with by the day. So, when he brings a mute boy into town, chaining him up and claiming he’s the people’s messiah, an already tense situation devolves into outright madness. What ensues is the slow dissolution of the cult, and the torturous end of an already fractured family.

Let this usual synopsis section also serve as a content warning: the film does depict sexual violence very early on, about 25 minutes into the film. It’s not Irreversible levels of horrifically long, but it’s also not particularly brief and still graphic content by its nature. It can be difficult to stomach, so I’m mentioning it now for those who would rather avoid that sort of thing.

A Ponderous Arthouse Folk Horror About Good and Evil

The film has shocking moments, but it’s not very interested in shock value. This is first and foremost a slow burn, a piece of arthouse folk horror that is more about bleeding out than it is about a violent demise. The most obvious comparisons are to The VVitch and Midsommar, but even that feels like an inappropriate mix, even when it leans towards Aster’s commercial darling or Egger’s colonial nightmare.

Advertisement

Fundamentally, Luz is a study about people who mythologize suffering and cruelty and excuse it as being driven by outside spiritual forces rather than their own decisions. It’s about deconstructing harmful religious and cult mentalities, and it wears its philosophy on its sleeve (aggressively so). Alzate creates a visually and textually fascinating meltdown of his characters and the community they find themselves within.

I would say it’s a “descent into madness” if it didn’t feel clear that the characters were already in a tailspin right at the film’s outset. The script, especially through its second act, starts to feel repetitive and a little simplistic, with a somewhat anticlimactic ending and dialog that starts to feel less naturalistic and more tedious. But it’s an interesting dissection of a family, even if it’s rough around the edges.

Hyperreal Sense of Color, But Shaky Directing and Writing

The film’s most obvious and striking feature is its hyperrealist palette, bearing a rich Technicolor aspect that permeates throughout the entire runtime. Colorist Felipe Martinez U paints the mountainous countryside with such vibrancy, a simple but very effective contrast to the dying days of a cult the story centers on; bleak, muddy times, punctuated by vibrant nature all around. Aesthetically, it’s pretty clearly visually inspired by the early works of Pedro Almodóvar and the visual warmth of Robin Hardy’s The Wicker Man.

Even the naturalistic tendencies of Terrence Malick make an appearance here, though how much of that is just in the gorgeous location scouting and how much is actually emulated by Alzate is up for debate. All around, the film lacks polish. The camerawork is amateurish in some ways, slightly cramped and occasionally uninspired in its framing. Sometimes the oversaturated look of the film can feel a little saccharine and heavy, but the pop of color here feels purposeful enough that I can forgive it as being highly stylized rather than trying to mask the weak points of a first-time director.

Is Luz: The Flower of Evil Worth the Watch?

In the search for great Latin American horror, Luz was an odd duck to stumble upon to be certain. But I’m a champion of strange birds with a lot of character, so you do the math.

Advertisement

Luz: The Flower of Evil is a struggle of a film, hard to watch at points despite how visually appealing it can be. It’s a brutal, bleak piece of psychological folk horror that certainly has a thin audience and will test the patience of even those the premise appeals to. But it does have as much substance as it does style, even when it treads into murky waters, and for that I think it’s worth the watch.

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria