Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer Review 2
Effective sequel.
Warning: Spoilers
Granted, as written and directed by Chuck Parello, it inevitably falls brusque when compared to a genuinely agonizing predecessor, only it works nevertheless. Lead actor Neil Giuntoli ("Child's Play", "The Shawshank Redemption") is no Michael Rooker - he can't friction match Rookers' level of intensity - but he does practise alright in the role of glum loner Henry.
His life at a real low signal, Henry ends up taking a task in the port-a-potty business. He makes the acquaintance of married couple Kai (Rich Komenich) and Cricket (Kate Walsh of 'Greyness'south Beefcake'), and they offer to permit him room with them for a while. Henry soon finds out about Kai'south 2nd chore, equally 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 and then on there'southward no turning back every bit he convinces Kai to turn killer. Their murders weigh heavy on Kai'south censor, but he'due south gotten in too deep.
One expert thing that can be said near 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 tin can run into, Henry just doesn't work that well with other people. Parello utilizes the same approach as John McNaughton in not judging his characters, only presenting their f'd upward lives in a thing of fact way.
The acting is solid from all concerned, and the film is by and large well crafted, with some creepy moments and doses of grisly violence. It's about every bit good a sequel as the first "Henry" could have gotten.
Eight out of 10.
5 out of five found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Close plenty...
Parca xix December 1998
I idea this was going to be REALLY bad. Luckily I was wrong. It tries to imitate the pattern of the showtime 1. It is well paced, with a psychological build-upwards similar to the first one. Notwithstanding, the acting occasionally slips, and so does the direction. The punches thrown in the film are some of the fakest looking ever, for instance... Nevertheless, despite a few mistakes, it comes shut to the first 1 in every sense of the other, while still being slightly inferior. Not a bad rental.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"There'southward plenty of people out there who hate me...tin can't let them win."
Would you want to come across a sequel to Apocalypse Now? Would you want to see a sequel to A Clockwork Orangish? How about Easy Rider 2? The obvious reply 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 only 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 judge information technology takes one to know one. I volition 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 merely no Michael Rooker (and he must stand about 5'2...needless to say he has a hard time beingness intimidating). Anyone interested in the continuing adventures of Henry as he teaches rednecks across the land how to terrify and kill people, should probably all the same avoid this. Chuck Parello went on to make the equally avoidable Ed Gein and the updated Hillside Strangler (which I take non yet seen). It seems he'due south a one trick pony.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Descent sequel
Henry ii: Mask Of Sanity is the sequel to- yous guessed it Henry: Portrait Of A Series Killer. Why make a sequel to the masterpiece? I don't know. Henry 2 lacks the sense of emptiness that the original generated perfectly. Information technology also lacked Michael Rooker's Oscar caliber performance of Henry. Simply Henry 2 is no less disturbing.
Henry has wondered into a pocket-size 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 anxiety off the footing. Henry and his new friend soon first to kill. The idea of brutally killing total strangers cause you lot've had a bad day is disturbing in itself, but Henry ii 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 impale the poeple they were pissed at instead of taking it out on strangers. I did enjoy Henry 2, only its difficult to compare it to the original, and so don't. Neil Giuntoli portrays Henry in the same quiet mode Michael Rooker did, but is in no way as good or convincing. I requite props to Chuck Perello for writing and directing a descent flick, he had the right ideas, just........ I recommend Henry 2, only don't compare or think it volition alive upwardly to the original cause you'll just permit yourself downwardly. Appreciate Henry ii for itself.
viii out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm over it
Yeah, yep, I know. Different director, and a different Henry, even. Not quite what I had in heed, either. Perhaps a bit insulting, if yous're similar me, and you recall highly of Henry i, that is, unless you're, once again, like me and accept extremely low standards for Horror, and are used to that sort of inconvinence, because at that place certain is whole lot of it. Then, as far as half-ass sequels with unlike directors, and an all together different feel goes, this one is actually pretty good. Skillful, only not awesome, at least not compared to the original, which. by the mode, is a masterpiece, just permit's endeavour non to hold that against Chuck Parello'south 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 listen. Henry ends up with a chore 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 dwelling 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. Only as nosotros all know, Henry is only capable of playing well with others for and so long.
I take information technology 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 meliorate stand-alone movie than ane may think, and also has a lot going for information technology in the violence and terror section, despite being in the shadow of Henry ane. for those who tin can really appreciate a quality sequel, Troll 2 is waiting. And as for Henry ii, this may sound strange, just this moving-picture show actually is a worthy sequel. vii/ten
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Tolerable Sequel to the Masterpiece
You might wonder why Chuck Perello decided to brand a sequel to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Did he retrieve that it would live upwardly to the original masterpiece? Of course it didn't. In this installment Henry played by Neil Giuntoli, is looking for work and finds information technology. Cleaning and delivering porto-johns. He moves in with a co-worker until he gets his anxiety off the basis. His new friend soon discovers that the repose soft spoken Henry is a psycho, but he (like Henry'south buddy in the original) shortly brainstorm killing total strangers for kicks.
While the movie 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 every bit strongly. Henry 2 tries a more than graphic approach toward the murders, but is no less disturbing than the original. Neil Giuntoli approaches the character of Henry in the same fashion Michael Rooker did, with a certain quiet. But Giutoli is in no way as effective. If you choose to hire Henry 2, bask it for it and don't try comparison information technology to the original, cause y'all'll but be permit down. Allow Henry 2 stand on its own two feet.
vii out of viii found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Better than you might think...
I idea this picture was going to suck, considering (1) how good the first film was, and (2) that the original author/director and Michael Rooker didn't render. I was surprised that this flick actually isn't a bad follow-upward. Even if the first flick never existed, this would still be an interesting movie. It'southward obvious that the director was actually trying hard to duplicate the experience of the get-go moving picture. Movie does somewhat fudge its look at the thoughts of the characters, and how the characters change in the movie, simply the characters still have some interest. And so it's not without involvement - simply don't await a masterpiece.
half-dozen out of viii establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Better than I expected
The original "Henry" was a great slasher moving-picture show that aimed college than the genre: information technology examined the psyche of the serial killer, so that the moving-picture show was more just scary, it was genuinely disturbing. The movie's effectiveness could be credited to the masterful performance by John Rooker in the title function (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 about chilling closing shots of all time. I happened to come across the present sequel in Blockbusters and, noting that information technology had a different actor in the title role and a different director (likewise as an most non-existent theatrical release), I checked information technology out with low expectations. Well, I was surprised. The picture is much better than it has a right to exist. 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 every bit Henry (like Rooker, he finer underplays the role). The lower working grade milieu that Henry finds himself a part of is as vividly captured equally it is unsympathetic. If you lot liked the original "Henry," or if yous're a fan of the psycho-killer genre, this sequel is definitely worth checking out. If you lot're not into this kind of motion picture (even when well washed), then obviously you should laissez passer.
eight out of 11 plant this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What adjacent: Maniac 2: Zito'due south Return? Natural Born Killers 2: Mickey and Mallory's European Vacation?
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is one of the virtually agonizing serial killer flicks of all time, merely seemed to me to be an unlikely candidate for the sequel treatment: despite receiving praise from serious horror fans, the original film's grim subject matter and unflinching approach to common cold-blooded murder was inappreciably blockbuster material, pregnant no-one was ever going to get rich or famous by making a follow up.
Only what surprises me even more the fact that a sequel was actually made, is that this film, a virtual rehash of the original bereft of both the first film'south star, Michael Rooker, and its director, John McNaughton, actually turns out to be much better than I had expected: information technology is suitably repugnant, sleazy, tearing and shocking, and fifty-fifty though information technology never quite matches the power of McNaughton's archetype, it's an effective picayune serial killer flick that refuses to pull its punches and certainly doesn't deserve to be ignored.
In Mask of Sanity, Neil Giuntoli replaces Rooker in the central part of Henry, a seemingly mild just psychotic out-of-stater who leaves a trail of death wherever he goes. Penniless and homeless, Henry finds himself a job servicing porta-loos, where he makes friends with workmate Kai (Rich Komenich) who invites Henry to stay with his family, sexy wife Cricket (Kate Walsh) and geeky niece Louisa (Carri Levinson), until he can find more permanent lodgings.
When Henry discovers that Kai has been setting fire to warehouses for a little extra cash, his newfound pal cuts him in on the deal; in return, Henry shows Kai how he keeps busy in his spare time: past murdering people!
Writer/managing director Chuck Parello does a pretty skilful job at emulating McNaughton'southward style, taking fourth dimension to build his characters and develop their relationships whilst also presenting scenes of extreme violence in a cold, matter of fact style. At outset Neil Giuntoli is difficult to accept as Henry, being less physically imposing than Rooker (thank you to his rather curt stature), just once he has done abroad with a few innocent people in brutal and encarmine fashion, there is no dubiousness that he was a good choice for the function. If you're not even a little fleck frightened of Giuntoli's Henry after he casually hacks off i poor victim's head with a knife, you're made of tougher stuff than me!
Admittedly, Mask of Sanity rarely strays from the formula gear up past the first film, even going and so far equally to start with a montage of Henry'south earlier victims and end with a nihilistic finalé that sees the killer lay waste to virtually everyone he knows before once once more moving on; simply even though the format is familiar, this unlikely sequel is definitely more hit than miss.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Henry: Portrait Of A Sequel Killer
HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER 2- MASK OF SANITY (2 outta five stars) Uh, long enough title, you retrieve? Get-go things showtime: this movie is 1 of those In Name But sequels... and has practically nothing to practise with the original classic. Information technology hasn't got the same writer, director, actors or fifty-fifty the same style. This film is of a distinctly lesser quality in every respect. (This pic has some of the absolute WORST, fakest fight choreography I have always 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 office 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 lot think, with the two women in the house making googly eyes at Henry and carrying all that emotional luggage, that the tension would escalate into something really interesting. Well, yous'd exist wrong. Instead, Henry finds out that Kai does arson jobs for extra cash and the ii of them get sidetracked into burning down old buildings for awhile. Then Henry starts into his killing spree once 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 before in the movie. No wonder that there hasn't been a Henry 3.
four out of vi found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Henry returns
Chuck Parello was the guy that swarmed in, and made all these real life serial killer flicks, back to back with B form theatrics. I was expecting that was this, but male child I was wrong, as he'southward made a solid, well holstered movie, which continues the shock horror, bloodshed, and murderous, exploits, of our real life, and very successful SK. This 1, a meliorate Henry, has more heart, filling of characters to it, and does shares familiar traits with the start one, equally to the situation of characters, management of story, style of shock violence, perpetrated on innocent victims, and of course Henry'southward intentions. Fifty-fifty it'southward starting, it bares a besides horrific and familiar resemblance, showing us to Henry'due south recent kills. The atomic number 82 playing Henry is a bit of a worry. Although he does play it well to a degree, and has the Rooker hairstyle, the original with Rooker was a more inheld and natural performance. Our Henry hither, wears an aroused, tensed up face, 24/7, anyone in real life, would steer ten feet away from him. This film, I'g happy to say, had more going for it, despite it all, likewise seeming like the starting time 1, with it's many similarities. I must admit, I didn't it to be this expert or enjoyable. Once again, don't always judge a B moving picture by information technology'southward cover. Some very good performances from our cast, and the drunk nosotros won't forget.
1 out of ane found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Severely Underrated Gem Of A Serial Killer Flick.
I would requite this flick a perfect 10, salvage for the fact that the motion picture ends rather abruptly and that no conclusive third installment of the movie was always made.
The motion-picture show continues from the before Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer, directed and co-written by John McNaughton, which starred Michael Rooker as the championship character.
Trivia: For those of y'all that don't know, and are seeing this film for the first time, the grapheme of Henry is based on the real-life serial killer Henry Lee Lucas(August 23, 1936 - March 13, 2001).
Lucas was arrested in Texas and on the basis of his confessions hundreds of unsolved murders attributed to him were officially classified every bit cleared up. Lucas was convicted of murdering eleven people and condemned to death for a single case with an unidentified victim. He recanted all his statements and a written report by the Attorney Full general of Texas concluded he had falsely confessed; the decease sentence was commuted to life in prison in 1998. On March 13, 2001, Lucas died in prison from heart failure at age 64. He is buried at Captain Joe Byrd Cemetery in Huntsville, Texas. Lucas' grave is currently unmarked due to incidents of vandalism or theft.
The sequel is directed by Chuck Parello and shows Henry as a drifter who is looking for piece of work. He finds employment with a port-o-john company where he meets two employees, Kai and his wife Cricket. They have compassion on Henry when they acquire that he is a homeless drifter and offering him a room in their home. While there he meets Cricket'southward emotionally fragile teenage niece, Louisa. Louisa eventually becomes close and falls in love with Henry.
Like to the showtime film, Henry reveals his dark-side to Kai. He involves Kai in his random murders and threatens to expose him to his married woman Cricket if he ever leaves him or reveals his secret to anyone.
Watch the film to find out what happens next.
More Serial Killer films: Copycat, Bone Daddy, The Os Collector, The Watcher(2000), To Catch A Killer, Confessions Of A Serial Killer, Deranged, The Deliberate Stranger, Dahmer, The Secret Life: Jeffrey Dahmer (1993), Ted Bundy, Denizen X, Evilenko, The Boston Strangler (1968), Albert Fish: In Sin He Found Salvation, The Gray Man.
ii out of iii found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Without Michael Rooker…there's no `Henry'!
No matter how brilliant and stunning the screenplay would have been, this sequel to `Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer' was doomed to automatically lose 99% percent of its ability. Why? Considering Michael Rooker didn't reprise his office of the relentless serial killer. The fashion he gave image to Henry made articulate that no 1 could ever equal him. Actually, when I first saw `Portrait of Serial Killer' (at much younger age than generally recommended) and not knowing who Rooker was, I actually was convinced he was a real madman! Neil Giuntoli was the rather unknown actor given the thankless task to play the `new' Henry Lee Lucas. And he obviously tries his all-time. In fact, he tries a lilliputian too difficult! Throughout the entire moving-picture show, it seems similar he's trying to be Michael Rooker instead of Henry Lee Lucas. `Mask of Sanity' lacks the rawness of the original. The original was a brutal, rock-cold documentary completely defective humanity. This sequel is `friendlier' and basically easier to get into. Henry is yet at large afterward his initial killing spree and homeless. He accepts a task equally a toilet cleaner and goes to life with i of his colleagues. Henry fools effectually with a suicidal teenager (she looks like a younger version of Jennifer Dearest Hewitt with binoculars attached to her head) and deserves a little actress money as an arsonist. Presently, his ambition for murder rises again and he finds a new partner in the homo he lives with. Mask of Sanity is a rather redundant sequel without any mentionable aspects. The acting is okay while the tension level is rather weak. The disturbance-elements featuring in the original take entirely vanished, and that was exactly what made the original immortal. The ending is left open up for another sequel, although I promise that'll never come.
two out of half-dozen institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hideous, deadening failure
If y'all loved "Henry - Portrait of a Serial Killer", you may hate this terrible sequel. There is nothing here to recommend. Managing director Chuck Parello, who as well made a more recent Ed Gein film (not quite as awful, but almost), has no idea how to make a skilful film. This hopeless diameter is a serial of desperately staged murders. There is no free energy, no characterization, and no horror. I wanted to like this, I actually did, just by the time it hit the one hour marker, I was having trouble stopping myself from turning the Television off. Of course, in the interests of forming a fair opinion, I needed to run into information technology out to the end. Michael Rooker was wise not to return for this hideous failure.
iii out of 7 plant this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After a few minutes Henry is back
When I started to watch the movie my first thought was: This isn't Henry, Simply if the grapheme starts to talk and kill than this pic becomes a very decent post-obit story of the outset picture show. Henry again has a criminal friend and a women that doesn't get the respect she earns and the story begins over again...
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good for the not-judgemental
Well, the original Henry is my all-time favorite motion picture, so I didn't call up that a sequel could friction match it, and I was correct. However, Henry 2 is not a bad film. It took two viewings, but the 2nd time I enjoyed it much more considering I was able to resist comparing it to the original. Henry 2 sucks past comparison, but if viewed as-is, it'southward perfectly capable of standing on its ain.
Michael Rooker is also my favorite histrion, so I was not surprised to read many harsh critiques of Neil Guintoli'southward functioning every bit Henry. It seems to me that, while no one could take played Henry better than Rooker, Neil Guintoli was a great substitute and should be recognized for that.
5 out of 10 plant this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Obsessed with Murder
Warning: Spoilers
(Some Spoilers) We at first see on the screen a montage of murders committed by Henry, Neil Giunatli,every bit he then viciously smashes in the head of a terrified woman, Peneople Milford, whom he kidnapped in the forest. This is just to show u.s. in the audience that he'due south still out there and back in action after 10 years since the beginning "Henry: Portrait of a Series Murderer" movie was released. Henry when we commencement run across him in this sequel is anything just the effective killing car that we saw back in 1986. Instead he's a homeless and shiftless out-of-stater who spends most of his fourth dimension in soup kitchens and flop houses where he has to put upwardly with witnessing ill and inhuman indignities, similar man on man rape, that would drive about people out of their skulls.
Looking for a job Henry gets involved with this port-a-toilet visitor offering him $forty.00 a mean solar day that he takes without hesitation since Henry must feel that this is nearly as skillful a job he'll get. Since besides beingness a serial murderer, which of course he keeps to himself, what other talents does he have to offer whatsoever employer. Working for his boss Rooter and his right-paw man Kai, Daniel Allar & Rich Komenich, Henry at outset seems to take gotten away from his urge to murder. Since he's occupied working long hours draining out and hauling the smelly and disgusting waste products from the johns to the local waste treatment plant. Ane evening Henry learns that both Rooter & Kai are not all all that interested in what their supposed to exist doing but using information technology equally a forepart for their real job. A chore that pays every bit much every bit $1,500, not the $xl.00 that Henry has been getting, a solar day. Their professional torches or arsonists who are hired to burn down, and make information technology look like an accident, highly insured properties by the very persons who own them.
Getting involve in torching private houses and wear-houses gives Henry the opportunity to get back to his murderous ways. This shocks his friend and fellow arsonist Kai who at first idea that Henry was a existent stand-up guy who you tin can get out to the local bar and take a couple of beers with. With Henry getting so completely defenseless up with his homicidal tendencies, he generally kills but to keep from getting bored, Kai's wife Cricket, Kate Welsh, wants him out of her and Kia's firm where Henry is a non-paying tenant. The concluding straw with Cricket is when her what seems like semi-retarded niece Louisa, Carri Levenson, falls madly in love with the madman.
Henry to his credit want'due south nothing to do with Lousia knowing that he'southward not her type but the star-struck young girl won't have no for an answer going so far as to threaten suicide if he doesn't ally her and take her away from both Kai & her aunt Cricket. During all this fourth dimension Henry is slowly getting the somewhat alcoholic Kai involved in a string of brutal murders that has nada at all to do with either the port-a-toilet or arson business concern merely does quench Henry'due south thirst for blood and violence.
Similar the Frankenstein Monster Henry loses what piddling control he had of himself and uses what he learned from both Kai and Rooter for his own evil purposes. In the end Henry ends up murdering both of them and afterward together with Kia'due south murdered wife Cricket incinerates them. In the example of Kia, while he'due south still alive and breathing, in order to hide the evidence of his crimes.
The relationship that Henry had with Lousia was nigh the just interesting affair in the film. Since information technology showed that he had at least some kind of homo feelings in not wanting her to exist stuck with him knowing that this brief sense of humanity, on Henry's function, may quickly evaporate and atomic number 82 him to murder her, which for some foreign reason he was very reluctant to do. It turned out that the very emotionally disturbed Lousia didn't have to take Henry do her in since she did a good task, by bravado her brains out, doing it herself.
Nowhere every bit good as the original but all the same very shocking to watch in that Henry now has a new weapon, in becoming a skilled torch human being or arsonist, in his vast armory of death and devastation. A weapon which he'll undoubtedly apply in the future to proceed his reign of terror on humanity. A weapon of death and devastation which he learned from his one-time employers and latest victims Kai & Rooter.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Poor Rip-Off of the Original
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Part 2 (1996)
* (out of iv)
Sequel to the 1986 masterpiece picks upward slightly after that moving picture ended. Henry (Neil Gluntoli) finds himself homeless just picks up a job in a small town. A husband and married woman takes him into their habitation and presently the married man and Henry are on a murdering binge. HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A Series KILLER, PART 2, somehow, has a fairly skilful reputation among people just I plant the film to be quite horrid from start to end. I'one thousand non 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'south 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'south basically just a remake of the beginning picture with a few changes made. At that place's no question that Henry and the "new" husband are just carbon copies of what we got in the original moving picture. There's a young "troubled" woman here who is but a slightly unlike version of Becky from the first moving picture. The entire film has a very cheap feel to it and, unlike the original, that'due south not a good affair. Very picayune is washed hither and the entire story simply struck me every bit pretty stupid. The unabridged business organization scheme of the husband and Henry setting places on burn just went nowhere interesting. The murder rampage that the two keep is, you lot guessed it, just a cheap rip-off of the original. None of the violence here is shocking or very interesting. In that location's quite a bit of gore only it too never gets all that exciting. The performances themselves weren't that bad only you shouldn't exist expecting Oscar-caliber performances. HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, PART ii is a pretty poor film simply trying to greenbacks-in on a popular picture show.
one out of vi found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Poor sequel
This is nothing more than a series of badly staged violent scenes base around the perpertrators situation with his unfortunate business firm friends and the wider customs.
Apart from reasonable photography at times this picture has no merit which was annoying as the local T.Five. guide gave it 5 stars!
iv out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A bad idea that should have remained on the chalk board.
Henry: Portrait of a Series Killer, part two (1998) was an ill brash and unwelcome sequel to the dark and fell pic Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986). Many things are missing from this film that made the first one so memorable such as the original director and Michael Rooker. Without those you just have an average run-of-the-manufacturing plant depression budget slasher pic. The movie lacks motivation and a theme. The moving-picture show makers turns Henry into just some other movie monster who kills his victims creatively at every turn.
The film follows the farther exploits of Henry. He travels around the dorsum woods of America standing his murderous spree. Unlike the beginning film, nosotros never get a glimpse into his ill and twisted mind. It's better to just forget this pic and pretends that information technology never happened. That'south how I experience virtually this motion picture.
Not recommended for fans and non-fans of the original. Others definitely demand not use.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
True to the first film...
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Role 2 (1996)
Office 2 is a worthy follow upwards to 1986's, "Henry: Portrait of a Series Killer."
While Part 2 lacks some of the intensity conveyed past Michael Rooker in the start film, Neil Giuntoli, Rooker's replacement, instills the "Henry" character with stone-cold ruthlessness.
In function 2, nosotros meet the plot follow a familiar trajectory. Henry meets and befriends a like-minded human and the two form a murderous duo. The men take pleasure in impulsive acts of violence; this includes murdering people who are both known and unknown to them. Needless to say, hunting and killing strangers for kicks was the motive behind nearly of the real-life Henry Lee Lucas murders.
In addition, it's worthy to annotation that the majority of male person characters in this film are wretched human beings; a particularly disgusting man is Henry's employer "Rooter," played by Daniel Allar. Audiences will have piffling sympathy for the characters who become a office of Henry'southward impale tally.
Kate Walsh's operation as "Cricket," the wife of Henry sidekick, "Kai," (Rich Komenich) is rather stale in this 1.
Overall this movie is pretty well written; however, more backstory and evolution of the "Louisa" character (Cricket's niece), played by Carri Levinson, would take given this film some added depth.
I gave Henry (1989) a rating of vii stars and Part 2 is not quite as good; therefore, I rate this moving picture v.5-6 stars on IMDB'S 10 star calibration.
1 out of 1 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nothing on the first "Henry"
I was hesitant for a sequel to the shocking Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, which was both graphically and psychologically disturbing. It seems that the shock and psychology of the kickoff gave way to irksome dialogues and less-than-effective acting. Perhaps the producers were hoping to cash in on the cult-post-obit of the first "Henry".
2 out of four establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This henry is terrible, pass it's not good at all!!!
The original had an incredibly keen performance by Michael rooker and to me information technology's similar psycho no 1 can play norman bate except perkins and no one can play henry merely rooker. This moving-picture show was non worth the endeavor information technology was junior to the original past a long shot!!!!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A great follow-upwardly, to a genre masterpiece.
Firstly I must say I'one thousand a stern critic, especially when information technology comes to cash-in sequels but thankfully 'Henry 2', is a vivid effort and great picture show (in its ain right). In fact the moment the commencement bars of Robert F.McNaughton'south, brooding synth score (for the opening credits), i knew it was going to be a credible and most authentic follow-up. Despite some truly bizarre and negative reviews (right here), folk who genuinely capeesh the mechanics of movie making, will surely appreciate not just the skillful direction by Chuck Parello (a film maker to follow), merely also the fine acting by each of the cast members. The concepts are finely executed (excuse the pun) and taking Henry into the exterior world (work, relationships) was an original idea in itself. The intense claustrophobia of the original, is largely replaced by superb character evolution and some highly creative location piece of work. The Arson scenes must accept been truly dangerous to accept pulled-off just look so impressive. The 'Mask of Sanity', is one disturbing, jolt to the system and forever sticks in the dark corners of the psyche.
0 out of ane found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Likewise much of a waste product of time to be a thwarting
I had no intention of seeing this piece of schlock, just finally caved into temptation. I had to see why anyone would bother to make a sequel to a motion-picture show that plain did non demand one (much like Jaws), well I did not look much and got even less. This flick is a gratuitous waste of time that has nothing similar the intensity of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Henry was non a slasher film, it is human portrait, better yet a sort of cynical comment on films about real people. Henry Lee Lucas was a real person, merely certainly not the blazon of person that has any right being venerated in motion-picture show. Even if he did not kill all of the people that he claimed to, he is nevertheless a degenerate who has notwithstanding killed.
This moving-picture show was a meditation on the blazon of mind that can do these horrible things, it is a commentary on the evil in man's eye. Henry was non exploitive in any style (which is why I object to it existence placed in the Horror section at video stores and its being referred to equally a Slasher film), it was grim and unpleasantly realistic. It did not attempt to be entertaining, whereas this pathetic sequel does, it tries to portray Henry as a slasher or a graphic symbol rather than the unproblematic, banal evil of the original motion picture. I am completely baffled past the fact that this film was e'er made and what perchance could have motivated it (well, money of course, but thats not an alibi).
one out of four found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116516/reviews
0 Response to "Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer Review 2"
Post a Comment