Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Part 2 (1998)

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Part 2 (1996)* (out of 4) Sequel to the 1986 masterpiece picks up slightly after that film ended. Henry (Neil Gluntoli) finds himself homeless but picks up a job in a small town. A husband and wife takes him into their home and soon the husband and Henry are on a murdering rampage. HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, PART 2, somehow, has a fairly good reputation among people but I found the film to be quite horrid from start to finish. I'm not going to lie, I really didn't go into this picture expecting anything like the original. The original film was one of the greatest of its type so it's impossible for this thing to match up to it and especially since we've got a new cast, production crew and director. The problem I had with this film is that it's basically just a remake of the first picture with a few changes made. There's no question that Henry and the "new" husband are just carbon copies of what we got in the original film. There's a young "troubled" woman here who is just a slightly different version of Becky from the first picture. The entire film has a very cheap feel to it and, unlike the original, that's not a good thing. Very little is done here and the entire story just struck me as pretty stupid. The entire business scheme of the husband and Henry setting places on fire just went nowhere interesting. The murder rampage that the two go on is, you guessed it, just a cheap rip-off of the original. None of the violence here is shocking or very interesting. There's quite a bit of gore but it too never gets all that exciting. The performances themselves weren't that bad but you shouldn't be expecting Oscar-caliber performances. HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, PART 2 is a pretty poor film simply trying to cash-in on a popular movie.

Granted, as written and directed by Chuck Parello, it inevitably falls short when compared to a genuinely disturbing predecessor, but it works nevertheless. Lead actor Neil Giuntoli ("Child's Play", "The Shawshank Redemption") is no Michael Rooker - he can't match Rookers' level of intensity - but he does do alright in the role of glum loner Henry.His life at a real low point, Henry ends up taking a job in the port-a-potty business. He makes the acquaintance of married couple Kai (Rich Komenich) and Cricket (Kate Walsh of 'Grey's Anatomy'), and they offer to let him room with them for a while. Henry soon finds out about Kai's second job, as an arsonist for hire. Henry tags along with Kai on these arson gigs until they discover two squatters in a building. It's here that Henry is able to satisfy his need to kill, and from then on there's no turning back as he convinces Kai to turn killer. Their murders weigh heavy on Kai's conscience, but he's gotten in too deep.One good thing that can be said about this sequel is that it stays true to itself and its grim depictions of life. It follows a pretty predictable story line, working towards the kind of resolution that marked the original. As we can see, Henry just doesn't work that well with other people. Parello utilizes the same approach as John McNaughton in not judging his characters, but presenting their f'd up lives in a matter of fact way.The acting is solid from all concerned, and the film is generally well crafted, with some creepy moments and doses of grisly violence. It's about as good a sequel as the first "Henry" could have gotten.Eight out of 10.

If you loved "Henry - Portrait of a Serial Killer", you may hate this terrible sequel. There is nothing here to recommend. Director Chuck Parello, who also made a more recent Ed Gein film (not quite as awful, but almost), has no idea how to make a good movie. This hopeless bore is a series of badly staged murders. There is no energy, no characterization, and no horror. I wanted to like this, I really did, but by the time it hit the one hour mark, I was having trouble stopping myself from turning the TV off. Of course, in the interests of forming a fair opinion, I needed to see it out to the end. Michael Rooker was wise not to return for this hideous failure.

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.