LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Suman Roberson It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Joseph P. Ulibas Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, part two (1998) was an ill advised and unwelcome sequel to the dark and brutal film 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-mill low budget slasher movie. The movie lacks motivation and a theme. The film makers turns Henry into just another movie monster who kills his victims creatively at every turn.The film follows the further exploits of Henry. He travels around the back woods of America continuing his murderous spree. Unlike the first film, we never get a glimpse into his sick and twisted mind. It's better to just forget this movie and pretends that it never happened. That's how I feel about this movie.Not recommended for fans and non-fans of the original. Others definitely need not apply.

sences When I started to watch the movie my first thought was: This isn't Henry, But if the character starts to talk and kill than this movie becomes a very decent following story of the first movie. Henry again has a criminal friend and a women that doesn't get the respect she earns and the story begins again...

a.north This is nothing more than a series of badly staged violent scenes base around the perpertrators situation with his unfortunate house friends and the wider community.Apart from reasonable photography at times this picture has no merit which was annoying as the local T.V. guide gave it 5 stars!

Ivan Ravenous 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.