MovieChat Forums > Drifter: Henry Lee Lucas (2009) Discussion > This is probably the most accurate movie...

This is probably the most accurate movie about him you'll see.


Spoilers. From the research that anyone can do on the internet I think that this movie is probably correct regarding the number of people he killed. I would only dispute the guy in the movie theatre and the hitchhiker he hits because neither of those are true to his MO which was to get someone alone and isolated. The movie theatre could have meant witnesses and the hitchhiker could have left autopaint as clues. Witnesses or clues would have shut down Henry right away.

reply

Give me a break. Are you the producer of this film? Worst film I've seen this year. "Actors" ? Why choose some f*#king models... casting was retarded.

reply

You said it, friend — this warm squishy hunk of turd is about as historically accurate as Passion Of The Christ. OP is either home-schooled or the producer's buttboy or maybe even both.

peace

--Big Gus

reply

How about he just really liked the movie? It's his opinion so don't get butt hurt about it.

reply

To be fair to the OP, he never said it was good or bad. All he commented on was that it was accurate!

reply

ACCURATE???
He wasn't a rugged, good looking model type that couldn't act - he was rough, badly shaven, bad teeth etc
The film claimed he confessed to thousands of murders, "one a day" I think the quote was, when it was just over six hundred and could have been three hundred.
"Becky" wasn't buried all over an area as claimed in the film, "never to be put back together again" she was dismembered but stuffed in pillow cases and strewn across a field.
Toole is shown as being straight but he was homosexual. He is also portrayed as good looking and hunky. HA look him up. He was far from that.

Accurate? Why make such a claim when it is easy to check on the net?

A dreadful film, badly acted, directed and the music is awful. What a waste of an evening.

reply

one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time...

reply

Agreed. Complete crap. However, isn't every serial killer movie? Why make them at all if someone doesn't have the stones to show an honest portrayal? They often alter the killer's MO in order to add a few overly elaborate, bloody kills. Use about 25 gallons of fake blood per victim, or often decide not to show the kills, or rapes, or tone them down to a point where making such a movie seems utterly pointless. A fine example is the Hollywood 10-15 second strangulation death. Apparently that's all it takes to kill someone via choking/hanging/strangulation. After around 10 seconds all the victims gently drift away into a peaceful death. Yea right. It often takes minutes and is violent murder. Plain and simple.

Serial killers are self indulgent maniacs that get off on hunting their victims for their own sexual gratification. The victims often suffer long, slow, painful, horrible deaths and generally far worse before, during or after the kill sexually. Why is this subject even broached by filmmakers? And if it is broached to educate, then it should honestly show the hell a victim goes though. Otherwise, they are doing it to entertain and this is not a subject meant for entertainment purposes.

Avoid this P.O.S.

reply

This has to be the worst attempt at making a serial killer movie.

BAD acting. BAD music that does not fit in any scene.

Henry Lee Lucas did not looks handsome at any stretch of the imagination.

Very poorly written, acted and directed.

Why bother?



If it harms none, do what thou wilt.

reply

Not sure why this thread received so many overly hostile responses. As of yet, the OP still has a point in saying that this is the most accurate movie portrayal of Henry Lee Lucas' life. Despite its many glaring inaccuracies, and just overall bad execution, there are no other movies that tell this story more accurately. That's not to say the movie is any good, but the OP never made that claim anyway.

reply

are you people so focused on how good looking the lead actor is seriously, is it so ridiculous that good looking people would play such real life ugly serial killers, OH HEARS A LOAD MORE THAT DID IT:

bonnie & clyde: warren beatty & faye dunaway
jesse james: brad pitt
Ted Bundy: played by Mark Harmon, Cary Elwes, michael reilly burke, corin nemec
Aileen Wuornos: Charlize Theron
Scott Peterson: Dean Cain
Karla Homolka: Laura Prepon
Jeffrey Dahmer: Jeremy Renner
Paul Bernardo: misha collins

all attractive people playing notorious serial killers, OH MY GOD!! it cant be

reply

is it so ridiculous that good looking people would play such real life ugly serial killers, OH HEARS A LOAD MORE THAT DID IT:
Well, no. Aileen Wuornos is the only one on that list who could be considered "ugly", and they certainly did make sure that Charlize Theron looked the part in "Monster".

Not that I necessarily agree with people's criticism of Antonio Sabato Jr. playing Lucas anyway.

reply

well having looked at many pictures of them all i think there all ugly, just because aileen wuornos was fat doesnt mean she was the only one was ugly, not one of them had any trace of beauty. Have you seen Bonnie and Clyde???

"*beep* me gently with a chainsaw" Heathers

reply

You can't really count Theron as she did not go into her character with her natural beauty. She was really uglied down for the part.

Ted Bundy was not ugly to begin with; by all accounts he was very attractive, charismatic, intelligent, and easy to like. That's how he was able to get so many of his victims to go with him willingly; by the time the monster came out they had no chance. Having a good-looking actor playing him is not inaccurate at all.

Homolka, Peterson, Dahmer, and Bernardo were all considered attractive by most.

The corruption on the inside is not always visible from the outside.



The wild, cruel animal is not behind the bars of a cage. He is in front of it.

reply

[deleted]