I rewatched HENRY - PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, PART 2 (aka Henry - Portrait of a Serial Killer 2: Mask of Sanity) last night. This time on blu-ray (Njuta Films, Sweden). I still can't make up my mind about it - do I like this or don't I. But no matter what, I've bought the fucking film three times! (fullscreen UK dvd, widescreen US dvd, and widescreen Swedish blu-ray)
It's a shit film compared to the original. And Neil Giuntoli is certainly no Michael Rooker. But as someone mentioned recently, if you're going to make a HENRY sequel without Rooker, Giuntoli is your best Henry. And yeah, I guess. When he's good in the film he's quite good. But there's just too many scenes where it was obvious the director said, "be Henry like Michael Rooker!" and he just looks like he's constipated. However, as a fun (and nasty) sequel it works alright.
The question is just - should a "kinda good, kinda shitty" sequel exist to a fantastic original film? If they had called the film "Henrik - Portrait of a Mass Murderer" I would have no hesitation in barracking for it.
PS: Be careful if you buy a reg. 1 dvd: there are two releases, one is heavily cut and one is uncut. The UK dvd is uncut (but fullscreen). The Swedish bluray is uncut and widescreen.
Now, watch dese two different trailers (the top one being the longer, more nasty one):
PS: For some reason these two trailers have no avatar BUT they do work!
