Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer - Still Shocks Me After All These Years!

Okay, international film buffs, I just re-watched "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" (again!) and, wow, it still gets to me. It's so… raw. I know, it's low budget and the director (John McNaughton, figured it out!) wasn't a household name (at the time anyway). But the way it portrays these killings, it's just disturbing on a whole other level. I mean, there's no glamorization, no real motive, just... emptiness. Anyone else feel like it's almost too real? Michael Rooker is absolutely terrifying. He makes Henry so believable, so…ordinary. The scene where they're watching the video of the family they killed is just…wow. I had to pause that scene I can't lie. It's so unsettling because it's not shot to be thrilling or scary in a movie-way, it's just cold and detached. And what about Otis (Tom Towles)? How complicit do you think he actually was, beyond just being easily led? It's not a 'fun' watch, that's for sure. It definitely sticks with you long after the credits roll. I just keep wondering what McNaughton was trying to say. Was it just about the banality of evil, or was there something more there? So, here's my question for you all: What do you think is the most disturbing aspect of "Henry," and does its realism make it more, or less, effective as a piece of cinema? Curious to hear your thoughts! Also, any other films that give you that same feeling of dread and unease without relying on cheap scares?