Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Part 2

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.