Henry, portrait d'un serial killer

Ce film est comme un morceau de viande crue, posé sur une table de boucherie ensanglantée et grasse. Mais cette viande provient d'un bœuf de qualité, biologiquement sain, et s'il était bien préparé, il serait un steak de luxe. Mais John McNaughton est un réalisateur de série B, il ne fait pas cuire les steaks et les sert crus. Henry est un thriller psychologique à petit budget, axé sur les dialogues autour de la table de cuisine, avec trois personnages désespérés : une jeune fille sans abri et stupide, un redneck répugnant et mentalement instable avec une bière à la main, et un introverti avec un passé traumatisant (Michael Rooker fait ses débuts ici), qui pimente sa vie en commettant des meurtres, sans éprouver aucune émotion ni remords. Par miracle, ce film pas vraiment familial fonctionne, il capte l'attention du spectateur, suscite sa curiosité et le pousse à comprendre les personnages, leurs actions. Et il transforme un réalisateur de série B bon marché en réalisateur underground de qualité. Si vous êtes fasciné par la violence brute dans les films d'un point de vue psychologique, et que vous êtes agacé de voir qu'elle vous est servie de manière démente dans tous ces slashers italiens, espagnols et autres, Henry sera le film de votre vie. Tout le Funny Games de Haneke est condensé dans une seule scène de quelques minutes, qui a causé des problèmes à ce film pour sa sortie en salles et sa certification d'accessibilité. Et je ne m'en étonne pas, car c'est vraiment puissant. (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)

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)