Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Part 2

I thought this was going to be REALLY bad. Luckily I was wrong. It tries to imitate the pattern of the first one. It is well paced, with a psychological build-up similar to the first one. However, the acting occasionally slips, and so does the direction. The punches thrown in the film are some of the fakest looking ever, for example... Still, despite a few mistakes, it comes close to the first one in every sense of the other, while still being slightly inferior. Not a bad rental.

HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER 2- MASK OF SANITY (2 outta 5 stars) Uh, long enough title, you think? First things first: this movie is one of those In Name Only sequels... and has practically nothing to do with the original classic. It hasn't got the same writer, director, actors or even the same style. This film is of a distinctly lesser quality in every respect. (This movie has some of the absolute WORST, fakest fight choreography I have ever seen!) Neil Giuntoli stands in this time for Michael Rooker (the original Henry) and, while he has a couple of effective scenes of underlying, stoic menace, for the most part he doesn't make much of an impression. This time around Henry is on his own and looking for work. He gets a job cleaning and moving port-a-potties and makes fast friends with a co-worker, Kai (Rich Komenich). Kai and his very un-happy-looking but smolderingly sensuous wife (Kate Walsh) invite Henry to stay with them until he gets some money put together. They also have an emotionally unstable niece (Carri Levinson) who draws freaky pictures. You think, with the two women in the house making googly eyes at Henry and carrying all that emotional baggage, that the tension would escalate into something really interesting. Well, you'd be wrong. Instead, Henry finds out that Kai does arson jobs for extra cash and the two of them get sidetracked into burning down old buildings for awhile. Then Henry starts into his killing spree again, slowly involving Kai more and more. The finale is a big disappointment in all respects... hardly touching on some of the more interesting elements introduced earlier in the movie. No wonder that there hasn't been a Henry 3.

I thought this movie was going to suck, considering (1) how good the first movie was, and (2) that the original writer/director and Michael Rooker didn't return. I was surprised that this movie actually isn't a bad follow-up. Even if the first movie never existed, this would still be an interesting movie. It's obvious that the director was really trying hard to duplicate the feel of the first movie. Movie does somewhat fudge its look at the thoughts of the characters, and how the characters change in the movie, but the characters still have some interest. So it's not without interest - just don't expect a masterpiece.

Would you want to see a sequel to Apocalypse Now? Would you want to see a sequel to A Clockwork Orange? How about Easy Rider 2? The obvious answer would be NO. So why would anyone want to see a sequel to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer? Henry 2: Mask of Sanity is a completely unnecessary sequel. It fails in just about every way that the original succeeded. It also recycles much of the plot. Henry moves in with a lower class family, gains a new sidekick, and teaches him how to kill people. How does Henry stumble upon these kinds of guys? I guess it takes one to know one. I will give credit to Neil Giuntoli. Anyone trying to fill the original Henry's shoes is going to be in for a critical bashing, but he's actually decent. He's just no Michael Rooker (and he must stand about 5'2...needless to say he has a hard time being intimidating). Anyone interested in the continuing adventures of Henry as he teaches rednecks across the country how to terrify and kill people, should probably still avoid this. Chuck Parello went on to make the equally avoidable Ed Gein and the updated Hillside Strangler (which I have not yet seen). It seems he's a one trick pony.

Henry 2: Mask Of Sanity is the sequel to- you guessed it Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer. Why make a sequel to the masterpiece? I don't know. Henry 2 lacks the sense of emptiness that the original generated perfectly. It also lacked Michael Rooker's Oscar caliber performance of Henry. But Henry 2 is no less disturbing.

Henry has wondered into a small town looking for work and a place to stay. He gets a job delivering and cleaning porto-potties and moves in with a co-worker until he gets his feet off the ground. Henry and his new friend soon start to kill. The idea of brutally killing total strangers cause you've had a bad day is disturbing in itself, but Henry 2 does it in more of a graphic slasher-esque manner than the original. I didn't understand why Henry and his new friend just didn't kill the poeple they were pissed at instead of taking it out on strangers. I did enjoy Henry 2, but its hard to compare it to the original, so don't. Neil Giuntoli portrays Henry in the same quiet manner Michael Rooker did, but is in no way as good or convincing. I give props to Chuck Perello for writing and directing a descent flick, he had the right ideas, but........ I recommend Henry 2, but don't compare or think it will live up to the original cause you'll just let yourself down. Appreciate Henry 2 for itself.