--- title: "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/henry-portrait-of-a-serial-killer/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/henry-portrait-of-a-serial-killer" critics_score: 68 critics_reviews: 11 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986): what the critics said Critics' score 68 from 11 reviews: 5 positive, 5 mixed, 1 negative. Most critics find Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer still disturbing decades on, and they praise it for much the same reasons. The consensus is that McNaughton’s rough, documentary-style direction, which declines to judge its killer, is what makes the film so cold and so hard to shake off. Michael Rooker’s understated performance is singled out again and again as the source of the fright: an ordinary man doing terrible things without emphasis. The reservations are about age and purpose. Several critics say the violence lands less hard than it once did, that the score has dated badly and that the cheap production shows. Empire questions what the film is for and finds one plot turn hard to credit. The Guardian goes furthest, finding little left in it beyond a few lingering shocks. The spread is wide, from five stars to near dismissal, and the doubters are mostly writing about later re-releases rather than the film’s first appearance. ## Radio Times — John Ferguson Rating ★★★★★. Ferguson presents the film as a disturbing, chilling portrait of a random killer. He praises McNaughton’s rough, non-judgemental direction and the documentary-style feel it creates. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-hrs1lw/henry-portrait-of-a-serial-killer/) ## Slant Magazine — Jeremiah Kipp Rating 3.5/4. 7 September 2005. Kipp sees the film as a raw, unrelenting challenge to viewers’ assumptions about their own moral distance from violence. He praises its minimalist realism and the way it makes spectators confront their complicity. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/henry-portrait-of-a-serial-killer/) ## Variety — Variety Staff Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 4 October 1989. Festival review. The review finds the film riveting and a major debut, despite its disturbing violence. It singles out Michael Rooker’s understated performance as making Henry especially frightening. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1989/film/reviews/henry-portrait-of-a-serial-killer-1200428109/) ## Los Angeles Times — Robert Abele Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 27 October 2016. Abele finds the restored film still powerfully disturbing, despite some tonally uneven and dated moments. He singles out Michael Rooker’s chilling performance and the film’s cold, everyday vision of evil. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-mini-henry-serial-killer-review-20161024-snap-story.html) ## Time Out — NF Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). The review presents the film as a compelling, unsettling study of a sociopath. It singles out the portrayal’s ability to make the viewer recoil and think. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/henry-portrait-of-a-serial-killer) ## The New York Times — Janet Maslin Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 23 March 1990. The page content is unavailable, so the critic’s verdict cannot be verified. No praise or complaint can be reliably identified from the accessible text. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/23/movies/review-film-henry-the-disturbing-almost-true-story-of-a-serial-killer.html) ## Empire — William Thomas Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. Thomas regards the film as technically accomplished but morally troubling, with its purpose left in question. He praises Michael Rooker’s restrained performance and the film’s documentary-like realism, while criticizing a plot development that undermines credibility. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/henry-portrait-serial-killer-review/) ## The AV Club — Josh Modell Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 31 January 2011. The critic finds it gripping but dated, with violence less potent today. Its unflinching home-invasion sequence stands out, while the score feels corny. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/henry-portrait-of-a-serial-killer-1798223936) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 2 May 2003. Bradshaw finds the re-release creaky and drearily unpleasant, despite a few lingering shocks. He singles out the video-camera scenes for suggesting the inspiration behind Auto Focus. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2003/may/02/artsfeatures6) ## The Playlist Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 21 October 2016. The URL identifies this as a review of the 1986 film, but the page content is blocked. The review’s verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be verified. [Read the review](https://theplaylist.net/bleak-brutal-henry-portrait-serial-killer-aged-still-manages-shock-review-20161021/) ## Den of Geek — Stuart Anderson Rating 3/5. 3 November 2011. Anderson finds the film still powerful in places but says its cheap production values and uneven presentation make the Blu-ray a poor showcase. He praises the actors’ performances, especially Michael Rooker, while criticizing the transfer and dialogue. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/henry-portrait-of-a-serial-killer-blu-ray-review/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/henry-portrait-of-a-serial-killer.md