Henry, portrait d'un serial killer 2

Yeah, yeah, I know. Different director, and a different Henry, even. Not quite what I had in mind, either. Perhaps a bit insulting, if you're like me, and you think highly of Henry 1, that is, unless you're, once again, like me and have extremely low standards for Horror, and are used to that sort of inconvinence, because there sure is whole lot of it. So, as far as half-ass sequels with different directors, and an all together different feel goes, this one is actually pretty good. Good, but not awesome, at least not compared to the original, which. by the way, is a masterpiece, but let's try not to hold that against Chuck Parello's underdog of a sequel. Henry 2 picks up some time after the events of the original. Henry is broke, desperate, and completely out of his mind. Henry ends up with a job cleaning porta-potties, and soon gets friendly with a co-worker and his wife (Kai and Cricket), resulting in a place to crash for a few days. Polite at first, Henry makes himself right at home after discovering Kai's hobbie... firebug. Naturally, Henry wants to play, and soon Henry introduces Kai to his own games, quickly turning this regular joe firebug into a bloodthirsty killer. But as we all know, Henry is only capable of playing well with others for so long.

I take it we weren't supposed to notice that the new Henry is about a foot shorter than Michael Rooker. In that case, forget I said anything. Henry 2 Mask Of Sanity is a much better stand-alone movie than one may think, and also has a lot going for it in the violence and terror department, despite being in the shadow of Henry one. for those who can really appreciate a quality sequel, Troll 2 is waiting. And as for Henry 2, this may sound strange, but this movie really is a worthy sequel. 7/10

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.

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.

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.