Henry: Portret seryjnego mordercy

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. (12.06.2010)

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%. (19.01.2020)

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! (18.09.2006)

This film is like a piece of raw meat, lying on greasy, blood-smeared butcher’s bench. But this meat is of organic quality from a healthy bull, and if it had been cooked properly, it could have been turned into a delicious steak. John McNaughton, however, makes B-movies, so his steaks are uncooked and served raw. Henry is a low-budget psychological shocker focusing on dialogue around the kitchen table surrounded by three losers: one is a stupid girl without a home, the second an abhorrent retarded redneck with a beer in his hand, and the third one is an introvert with a messed-up childhood (Michael Rooker in his debut role) and making his life interesting with numerous murders, which don’t make him feel any emotion or remorse. By some miracle, this not exactly family-friendly film works, holds the audience’s attention, rouses their curiosity and makes them try to understand the characters and their actions. And this turns the director of cheap B-movies into a creator of quality underground works. If you’re fascinated by the psychological aspects of brutal violence and you’re irritated that all those Eurotrash nasty slashers serve it up in such a retarded manner, Henry will be the film of your life. The whole of Haneke’s Funny Games is squeezed into one several-minute-long scene that caused the film trouble with its distribution and rating. And I’m not surprised, because its raw brutality is something else. (03.03.2009)

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. (18.07.2007)