Henry, portrait d'un serial killer 2

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.

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.

You might wonder why Chuck Perello decided to make a sequel to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Did he think that it would live up to the original masterpiece? Of course it didn't. In this installment Henry played by Neil Giuntoli, is looking for work and finds it. Cleaning and delivering porto-johns. He moves in with a co-worker until he gets his feet off the ground. His new friend soon discovers that the quiet soft spoken Henry is a psycho, but he (like Henry's buddy in the original) soon begin killing total strangers for kicks.

While the film has its similarities and differences to the original Perello still manages to acquire a cold empty feeling which was present in the original Henry although not as strongly. Henry 2 tries a more graphic approach toward the murders, but is no less disturbing than the original. Neil Giuntoli approaches the character of Henry in the same way Michael Rooker did, with a certain quiet. But Giutoli is in no way as effective. If you choose to rent Henry 2, enjoy it for it and don't try comparing it to the original, cause you'll just be let down. Let Henry 2 stand on its own two feet.

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

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.