Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Leofwine_draca HENRY LEE LUCAS: SERIAL KILLER is a modern B-movie retelling of the life of the infamous killer, originally played (to the hilt) by Michael Rooker in the unforgettable '80s movie HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A KILLER. Of course, this isn't on a par with that movie, but at least it does something entirely different. While the Rooker flick provided a realistic, slice-of-life portrayal of the killer at the peak of his infamous crimes, HENRY LEE LUCAS: SERIAL KILLER is a biopic told via annoying flashbacks (and forwards) that covers his entire life.First off, the most surprising thing about this film is that Antonio Sabato Jr. (CRASH LANDING), a notable B-movie actor, actually gives a fine performance in the titular role. He plays Lucas as a hulking, scarred brute, who seems permanently stoned and given to unpredictable violence. At the same time he's charismatic to boot and certainly Sabato's performance outshines everyone else in the production.For a low budget film, the production values for this are pretty decent, and I particularly enjoyed the exploration of Henry's childhood which sows the seeds for his latter day crimes. The best thing about the movie is that it doesn't dwell on the brutality of the crimes; the temptation for modern film-makers would surely be to sicken the viewer at every opportunity but this is surprisingly restrained, giving the production a mature feel as a whole.

JR Howard I've read some of the (few) reviews here that offer different defenses for this low-budget attempt to cash in on the story of self-proclaimed serial killer, Henry Lee Lucas.Did he kill anyone? Even the most critical of the investigation and described preferential treatment Lucas received for confessing feel confident he murdered. How many? Well according to Lucas, that would change daily.Even a low budget film can get simple facts correct - there is no cost associated with correctly identifying the law enforcement - There are no "Sheriffs" in the Rangers, nor would one refer to a Ranger as "Officer", if for no other reason than the lowest rank in the Rangers is Sergeant. There was a Sheriff involved in the Task Force, but it's not made clear that this is who they are referring to. Casting note- he would have made a better HL Lucas! And the movie theater scene. Is someone suggesting this actually happened? Free details. The sort of thing you get right when you don't have the budget to do other things. Some have suggested that this or that portrayal of this or that crime is an accurate depiction - hard to subscribe to when Lucas recanted on virtually every confession. It just depends on whose ear he was trying to hold.The filming, story, dialog, casting (did they see a picture of Lucas?!!) are all failures. Cheap doesn't have to equal bad. It just does in this movie. Nothing for the crime true-story fan, the slasher fan, the gore fan - nothing for anybody except the people paid to be in this atrocity.I saw it on Netflicks - free except for time wasted. Don't waste yours.

Theo Robertson A man called Henry Lee Lucas is arrested for murder in Texas . As he's interrogated by the police department he confesses to another murder . Then another . Before very long Lucas has been confessing to an unprecedented number of murders I'm not really an aficionado of serial killers / spree killers and so consulted wiki as to this true life mass murderer . Henry Lee Lucas isn't going to win any humanitarian awards . He eventually confessed to 60 murders while in police custody . When he went to court he said he committed 100 murders then before long he was confessing to 3000 murders .. He was found guilty of the murder of an unidentified woman in Texas woman and sentenced to death but this was commuted to life imprisonment on the grounds that he was almost certainly in Florida at the time of this murder " Hold on Theo . If he was in Florida that almost certainly means that he didn't commit the murder so why did the court do something resembling a strange compromise where's imprisoned instead of being executed ? Surely he's innocent or guilty and no compromise involving punishment is required ? " Yeah that's what I don't understand either and things don't make a lot of sense . There's a massive difference between 3,000 murders and 1 murder . Most importantly from a legal point of view there's a massive difference between 3,000 murders and zero murders . If you don't kill anyone then no crime has been committed therefore the state has no right to imprison anyone . Lucas continually kept changing figures as to the numbers he supposedly murdered and that leads to a limited number of possible scenarios 1 ) He was guilty of at least one or more murders and seeing the resultant publicity decided to up the numbers to gain even more infamy . The good a man does while he is alive dies after him but the evil he does live long after him 2 ) The police deciding he's guilty of one or more murder decide to stitch him up for a few unsolved cold cases and Lucas went along with it and it kind of snowballed from there 3 ) Lucas was entirely deluded and committed no murders at all but the cops thought he was guilty of at least something so decided to stitch him up What is certain is Lucas was found guilty of killing his mother and served ten years for her killing . Apart from that the film is unsure as to how it should play its hand . Lucas doesn't come across as the most pleasant or intelligent of men . He is from a background of to use a derogatory term " trailer trash " but this doesn't necessarily make him a murderer of one individual or many and the film does seem to be a bit to willingly say he was a serial killer without going in to any specifics as to the amount of people he murdered . It feels the need to be a a compromise . I'm not saying Lucas was in any way innocent of murder but you're painfully aware that the film isn't trying to make out what the truth may be and stick to its opinion of that possible truth and for what might have been a very impressive well made indie film featuring an outsider from society ends up sinking to a degree

Rabbit-Reviews This movie is not a classical low budget blunder trying to cash in on the fact that it's about serial killer. Granted, the budget was small, but that did not made a big impact on the movie. Script is well written, and constructed. Realistically portraying the torture in his childhood years, that later on led to his twisted personality, movie is not afraid to make a bit longer scenes, just to make you a bit more uncomfortable.Henry Lee Lucas was a serial killer that, imprisoned, confessed to over 600 murders. Truth is that we really do not know how many victims he killed, due to his false confessions that were rewarded by the police by better treatment.Overall, do not expect a masterpiece, or some innovative and strange things in it, but more of familiar style of directing with the focus on the story. If you want to go further than that, you can start analyzing events in his childhood and their impact on his killing urges. Was it all his fault, or were there other culprits? Movie did manage to stick to the actual story of Henry, so it's not all dramatization and imagined events, like some of the recent movies. They slap a "based on a true events" sticker on it, and hope that it will sell better. This is not the case here.