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.

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.

I'm not sure if this film was supposed to be serious or funny. This is suppose to be the story of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, but it didn't strike me as much of anything. Actually the tone makes it seem as though everything is a joke, which may have been how Lucas was but at the same time you really can't know which way you're suppose to feel, laughing at or laughing with the film. It doesn't help that Antonio SabatoJr who plays Henry is one note. he has his face scrunched up in what seems to be an Elvis Presley impersonation for a good part of the film and it never changes. Give the film points for trying to do something with its limited budget, the film really looks like they actually had money at times, but outside of that the film never comes together. Its another disappointing horror film based on true events that isn't as compelling as the source material. I'd skip it