导演: 约翰·麦克诺顿
编剧: Richard Fire / 约翰·麦克诺顿
主演: Mary Demas / 迈克尔·鲁克 / Anne Bartoletti
类型: 剧情 / 惊悚 / 恐怖 / 传记 / 犯罪
制片国家/地区: 美国
语言: 英语
上映日期: 1986-09-24
片长: 83 分钟 / Australia: 77 分钟 / Norway: 78 分钟 / Sweden: 78 分钟 / Italy: 75 分钟(edited for TV)
又名: 连续杀人犯的一生 / 亨瑞
IMDb链接: tt0099763
杀手的肖像的剧情简介 · · · · · ·
　　The real Henry Lee Lucas had one of the worst childhoods that I have ever had the misfortune of reading about. Growing up in Texas, he lived with a family that was totally dysfunctional. He grew up in a shack, that had nothing more than a dirt floor. The father being a legless alcoholic, literally as well as figuratively. The mother worked as a prostitute. Henry was also forced into sexual activity with her clients. They forced him to dress as a girl and then would proceed to have sex with him. He was a child that grew up being raped.
　　He then grew up with such an intense rage that he became a serial killer. Are we surprised? Now, I am not trying to justify his behaviour. Rather, I am pointing out the fact that these people do not just fall out of the sky. There is no such thing as an inexplicable evil. That is, the person is just evil because they are. Yes, there seems to be some genetic evidence for psychopaths. However the majority do not become killers. The ones who become killers are made. If you are truly interested in what makes a psychopath, I suggest you read, ‘Not Guilty by reason of Insanity ‘ by Dorothy Otnow Lewis. Serial killers are often portrayed as being like Hannibal Lecter. Smart and talented creatures that have suddenly lost their moral code. The truth is most are a psychological mess. Losers that are full of conflicting emotions. There is also strong evidence to suggest that these people are made by a specific form of brain damage. Basically when you combine trauma in childhood and frontal lobe brain damage, you end up with Henry.
　　This movie is what happens when people are treated in an utterly horrific way. Michael Rooker is excellent as a psychopath who seems normal but deep down harbours a psychotic rage against society. He and Otis travel around killing. Why? Why not? The pointlessness of their lives is perfectly captured. People complain about the lack of plot. I think it perfectly captures the plot. It shows the emptiness of these characters. In fact Henry and Otis feel nothing unless they are killing. The emotional side of the characters has been like killed off by previous abuses against them. They are not unlike the living dead. Even when Otis‘s sister shows some affection towards Henry he cannot reciprocate. He can‘t relate to people, he can only get off on torture and death. Yeah, this is shocking. But it is also incredibly sad.
　　Here in New Zealand there are many shocking drunk driving ads that they play to try and get people to stop this behaviour. I feel that this movie is like that. The movie is an ad for psychopaths, who they are and the dysfunctional psychological world that they inhabit. It is a film that honestly looks at these kinds of people. This certainly does not glorify these people, which is a criticism that has been levelled at the ‘Silence of the Lambs‘ series. This is why I think it shocks people. The serial killer kills for visceral, physical pleasure. As Ted Bundy stated, ‘I killed because I wanted to.‘ Maybe, this is where the film falls down. That the characters motivations are not explained well enough. But either way the viewer is given a shockingly realistic interpretation of a serial killers world.
　　Obviously this is a film that was made on a budget! But this just adds to the bleakness. In fact Chicago looks dirty, grimy and not like somewhere that you would visit. The performances of the rest of the cast are pretty average if not bad. So the film has some definite flaws. The exploitation factor is there. But then I think of films like Baise Moi and this film has nothing on that!
　　Overall I think this is an objective look at a world that those of us who come from normal backgrounds will find horrific. A world that we prefer would never exist, but however does exist. Maybe one day, as our society matures these people will cease to exist. Stories like these will become completely fictional. I really hope for that day. 7 out of 10.

杀手的肖像电影网友评论：

不同于Otis野狗或秃鹫式的低劣卑贱，在Henry身上能看到康德式冷漠/自律的伦理性和萨德式残酷/倒错的享乐意志间的缠结，更为深刻也更加可怖，所以配得上给一个Portrait。在杀手眼中作为受虐者的女性对象没有任何实在意义，只是美的现象的代理和苦难的能指，杀手通过执行大自然的意志(不是你就是他,不是杀就是被杀)为自身的短暂的快感续航。或许Becky曾象征着作为至善的母亲，其他受害者象征着作为至恶的母亲(乱伦对象—儿时被迫窥淫的经验的作用)，在她们身上他无数次弑母以至于在复数的幻象中混淆了唯一一次真实的杀戮方式，然而至善即至恶，Becky于他或许理应存在于不可触碰的彼岸。悬念策略:赢取信任—放下戒备—空门一击，迫使人思考杀手的本质。凶杀尸体场景的三层声音:当下环境声(水声虫声等)+宗教质感氛围音+闪回并回响的残虐刺耳的凶杀现场断片

隔了十来年，又看到一部类似《山腰绞杀手》的片子，年轻的勇度演了个有童年阴影、杀人无算但又有所不为的人物。全片用大量特写和4比3响应录像带美学，但全员表演又很踏实，尤其妹妹一角把这片拉到更现实的调子。这片子更像八九十年代那些中国大案纪实电视剧，只不过尺度大些，令乏味生活添些危险的甜蜜

黑色电影，开头介绍人物用平行剪辑通过声画时空分离表现杀手让人无法想象的凶残和动机，用冷静的镜头表现冷血的杀戮，表演毫不造作更令人不寒而栗，粗糙的影像里还原出超高的真实感。结尾长镜头再次强调了杀人动机不可知论这主题，若保护者与施暴者的身份只有一线之隔，也许只有人性本恶能概括一切。

全片充斥黑暗醜惡污穢感覺,雖然血腥暴力場面亦不少,但很多時巧妙地用上剪接配樂等等而為,個人感覺此類電影還是獨行比較冷酷孤寂,當加上另一人時有點兒變味,當然以現在角度來看還是充滿反社會的暴力形態片,但沒多大藝術感覺反而是意識不良的暗黑現實電影,結尾處理不錯,喜歡此類電影的可以一試

①豆瓣的简介有误“HENRY热衷于杀人，他把杀人当成一种艺术”②影片中的Henry对于杀人从来都不热衷，也不是艺术，杀人只是一种存在的常态，但从来不会带来满足感或者自豪感③被扭断的脖子、爆头、肢解…Henry看来都是死亡后的一种呈现而已④猜到结局，但依然难以置信。

一個文藝殺手殺手活得很瀟灑嗎？並不！妓女的孩子，被虐待，厭惡婦女，所以，殺。沒錢，買不到東西還要被老闆羞辱，所以，殺。然而丫居然戀愛了，想歸隱田園這個梗還能更狗血一點嗎……其實我在期待結局千萬不要完美，我希望看到女主跟他一起殺人，然而就這麼完了。

导演善于捕捉人物的脸部表情，整部电影的质感偏向《FatGirl》,《Clean,Shaven》那一类，很节制，收尾更是如此，指向不见底，没有理智的明天。当杀人变成吃饭一样的欲望需求，动物的肖像便开始形成。叫人不敢承认的是：原来杀人是这么的轻易。

根据真人真事改编粗粝的影像异常真实地记录亨利的冷酷和嗜血没有理由没有延续性只有血浆和一个个冰冷的灵魂开场亨利驾车前行与一个个犯案现场结合印证着他的理论不断移动警察就抓不到你片中他对贝基的关心让人真希望他们能在一起这也让结尾的皮箱看上去异常讽刺

根据真实事件改编，货真价实的魔鬼，你永远不知道他下一个会杀谁，也不知道他为什么会杀人，这是真正恐怖所在。杀戮对象包括：随机遇上的路人，妓女，电器店老板，自己的同伙，爱自己的人，救过自己的人......脑子某根筋一动，就动手了......

「我喜欢杀人就好象其它人喜欢散步罢了，只是嗜好不同。如果我需要猎物，我只需到街上去随便找一个。」本片的主角原型为美籍杀人狂亨利·李·卢卡斯，据他自己宣称，在1975年中期至1983年间，他的杀人数目为——三千人以上。

20170803周四22:54Itsalwaysthesame.anditsalwaysdifferent.itseitheryouorthem.onewayortheother.aintthatright？!

干净利落，很多留白；只关心结果，有意掩盖人物动机。声音的闪回（亦是声画分离的一种，但用的很少，在这片子的开头有创造性地使用）不但让声音取代了画面的作用，而且让叙事非常简洁明了。成本仅10万。