the audience applauded

Fantastic!

Absolutely brilliant

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Not only horror is my cup of tea but the story behind serial killers does interest me too. But being in the biz for over 15 years I'm mostly not into movies about serial killers. Oh yes, there are some great ones, The Deliberate Stranger (Mark Harmon playing Ted Bundy) for example, still OOP and the other OOP To Catch A Killer (Brian Dennehy playing John Wayne Gacy), and of course Henry:Portrait Of A Serial Killer concerning Henry Lee Lucas (played by Michael Rooker). The movie I just saw also told the story of Henry. But here it's boredom all the way. Were Portrait gives some nasty disturbing scene's (remember the television) this flick just is about, did he kill 3000 persons or not. We see some killings but the blood never flows. We see stabbings in the back, in the neck but the victims never bled. The best part is when Henry and his friend Otis picks up a hitchhiker. What happens next isn't disturbing but is really the best part. The only fact I could agree with is the truth about Henry having an affair with his niece Betty. He did kill his mother but not as stated in this flick. It's sad to see that a flick about two weirdo's doesn't deliver fear.

I'm going to waste very little time on this particular take on the Henry Lee Lucas story. The film is based on the life and of some of the supposed killings of disputably proficient serial-killer Henry Lee Lucas.Virtually everything is wrong with this film. The casting is f!cking horrible. Sabato is neither creepy or in any way believable as a serial killer. The guy that plays Otis sucks too. And the woman who plays Otis' niece and Lucas' teenage female lover is ridiculously unbelievable and looks like exactly what she is-a 30ish year-old woman playing a 14 year-old. Even the soundtrack/score blew. I honestly couldn't tell if this film was supposed to be a comedy half the time. Avoid by all means, and watch either of the far superior HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER or CONFESSIONS OF A SERIAL KILLER for far more interesting and competent takes on the story. 2/10

I'm a big supporter of the indie-film, but movies like "drifter" make me despair. There's very little to like here. You have two very attractive male actors playing the two grossest, most inbred serial killers in the murder encyclopedia, weak production values (including a hysterical movie theatre set replete with folding chairs (!) ), a meandering script that ineffectively cuts back and forth between henry's upbringing and his adult killing spree, and kill scenes that wouldn't rival your garden variety lifetime network film. The director comments on the ac track that the film was written and filmed on an extremely tight schedule. It shows. "Drifter" is little more than video store shelf filler.

Horrible acting, script, music,,, unrealistic,, boring. Couldn't finish watching. Everything in place for a good movie, but it FAILS. One scene, he's supposed to be strangling a lady, looks like he's giving her a neck massage from behind. Hands don't even go near her throat. Music is just ridiculous 70ish. No suspense at all. Some lines were just nonsense. Main character isn't even scary, too far from the appearance of the real Henry Lucas, who was a small man, creepy, bad teeth. Characters didn't fit the period, hair styles, beards, clothing. I saw a better movie 15 years ago, not great, but much better than this. Could've been done so much better with just some basic changes. A documentary would've been cheaper, scarier, and more enjoyable than this movie.