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.

The original "Henry" was a great slasher film that aimed higher than the genre: it examined the psyche of the serial killer, so that the movie was more than just scary, it was genuinely disturbing. The movie's effectiveness could be credited to the masterful performance by John Rooker in the title role (in a less skittish world, he would have been Oscar nominated) and by the no nonsense direction of John McNaughton, which included one of the most chilling closing shots of all time. I happened to come across the present sequel in Blockbusters and, noting that it had a different actor in the title role and a different director (as well as an almost non-existent theatrical release), I checked it out with low expectations. Well, I was surprised. The movie is much better than it has a right to be. It copies the tone and content of the original pretty closely (including ultra-graphic gore), but at least it gets it right. And Neil Giuntono gives a perfectly good performance as Henry (like Rooker, he effectively underplays the role). The lower working class milieu that Henry finds himself a part of is as vividly captured as it is unsympathetic. If you liked the original "Henry," or if you're a fan of the psycho-killer genre, this sequel is definitely worth checking out. If you're not into this kind of movie (even when well done), then obviously you should pass.

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.

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.

Well, the original Henry is my all-time favorite movie, so I didn't think that a sequel could match it, and I was right. However, Henry 2 is not a bad film. It took two viewings, but the second time I enjoyed it much more because I was able to resist comparing it to the original. Henry 2 sucks by comparison, but if viewed as-is, it's perfectly capable of standing on its own.

Michael Rooker is also my favorite actor, so I was not surprised to read many harsh critiques of Neil Guintoli's performance as Henry. It seems to me that, while no one could have played Henry better than Rooker, Neil Guintoli was a great substitute and should be recognized for that.