Darkman II: The Return of Durant (1995)

It's more of the same from the Renaissance stable, except where the first film had a unique visual style and ferocity thanks to director Sam Raimi, a journeyman director brings nothing new to this movie and only succeeds in ripping off his predecessor. The story has been changed to make way for new characters here but it's still the same hijinks with Darkman disguising himself and infiltrating the enemy camp just as he has done previously. They even throw in a scientist torture scene almost exactly the same as the one in the original.Liam Neeson had become too big a star for a low budget movie like this in the four years since the first film, so the lead role was taken by Arnold Vosloo, who had already made an impact as the villainous henchman in Van Damme's excellent HARD TARGET. To be fair, I've always liked Vosloo in his films, even if his acting ability is somewhat limited. The only problem is that he doesn't bring much in the way of freshness to the role, instead happily copying Neeson's performance in every possible way. Larry Drake also returns from the first one as the film's villain and gives a great, hissably evil pantomime performance with lots of one liners in his own inimitable style, and he's the best thing in this film. I just wish they could explain how he escaped from inside an exploding helicopter with only a few scars.As for Drake's henchmen, they don't have personalities and are just there to look cool and imposing, which they do. Some of the performers show a surprising comic touch but nobody really shines. Female interest comes from the familiar Kim Delaney, as a cocky reporter, and Renee O'Connor, better known these days as Gabrielle from XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS. It's interesting to watch O'Connor in a different role but you quickly realise why she has been relegated to just one television series instead of becoming a major star: she's an actress just impossible to take seriously! There are enough explosions, fights, shoot-outs and basic plot intrigue to make this watchable, but in all it's a bit of a mess. If only they had added to Darkman's character instead of giving him a few one-liners to convey his suffering which are just variations on Neeson's script. We don't learn anything new about any of the characters at all here, we just watch their actions, there's no depth which at least the original had. By all accounts the third film in this series is even worse, so it's probably best give that one a miss as well. This is a passable but disappointing film which just comes across as a slapdash rehash of the superior DARKMAN more than anything else.

I know that many viewers will disagree with me, but I think Darkman II is a slight improvement from the first. Darkman may have been a more original story, but this film offers more energy and quirky fun. Rather than being kind of Abstract like Raimi was, this story at it's core falls back to an archetypal principle of super heroism, Person vs. Person conflict, good verses evil. The movie which results is not a great one but it's a neat watch.In the first movie, Dr. Westlake defeated his enemy; Crime lord, Robert G. Durant...or did he? Leaving his past behind him, Peyton went off to face the world alone, and that is how the first movie ended. Living in his new hideout deep in the bowels of the subway system, Dr. Westlake continues his research to figure out a way to permanently repair his face. His current formula can only only last him 97 minutes. One day he reads a newspaper article about a rogue scientist who is doing some similar studies. After meeting with him they decide to become partners. This other guy has an office in a vacant building which used to belong to his father, therefore it has sentimental value for him. This old factory has not gone unnoticed by Durant, who has recently woken up from the coma that Westlake put him in. Durant is ready to go back into the weapons dealing business, and he wants to base his operation in this vacant factory. He has his goons bump off the young scientist, spoiling Peyton's hope for a partnership. And that makes him mad. He must fight Durant once more.Replacing Liam Neeson in Westlake's shoes is Arnold Vosloo, (who many will recognize from The Mummy). He is not a skilled actor, but he manages okay here. It is Durant who has the bigger screen presence. He is played with a certain quirkiness to go with his two- dimensional villainous persona.Although hardy an example of good-filmaking, it should not be so quickly dismissed just because it is a strait to video release. If you were not satisfied with what you saw in Darkman, you might find a little more in this one.

I remember back in 1996, when I saw this one, being pretty disappointed. Because this movie lacks the grandeur of the original. It felt like a lesser movie, and in a way it is of course. But re-watching it, learned me to re-appreciate it, and I now even like it more than back then. It is a darn decent sequel, if you ask me. What it lacks are some heavy-weight emotional aspects of the Darkman (provided in the first one because of his love-interest), therefor the revenge-theme is bit thinner here. It also, clearly lacks a budget of the same size as the first one, making it look a little less impressive. Other than that, the movie delivers as far as most of its predecessor's characteristics go. I must add, however, if you were to take the Darkman himself out of this movie, you'd just end up with a pretty mediocre, run-of-the-mill action movie, truly worthy of the direct-to-video status. But, fortunately, he's still in it, and Darkman only still is the sole reason we watch these movies, now don't we? This time (and this might be a disappointment to many), Dr. Peyton Westlake is played by Arnold Vosloo. At the time of my first time viewing, I didn't like this very much. Now, I can only conclude Vosloo does a more than decent job stepping in Neeson's footsteps. A nice touch in the script, was having Peyton set up his laboratory on a new location, underground this time. The writers did a very good thing by bringing back Larry Drake as Durant (he's just so mean! :) and having him team up with a mad scientist/weapons inventor. Good thing too, in the plot, was having Darkman, at one point team up with a fellow scientist (Dr. Brinkman) to try and perfect his liquid skin techniques. When, later in the movie, he finds Dr. Brinkman murdered and his dreams smashed to pieces, all the agony of similar things happening to him once come back... and it's Darkman's Revenge Time again! Sadly, this movie is lacking an enjoyable climax in the end. The ending itself doesn't necessarily hint at a sequel, but it leaves the door open saying: this might turn into an on-going series.

i didn't think this movie was as good as the first one.to me,it didn't distinguish itself from most other revenge movies.it felt like one of the Death Wish films.the theme in the movie was vigilantism.at least that's the impression i got.also,i don't feel the title character evolved from the first one.he has little to do here.Arnold Vosloo takes over the role of Darkman,and does a good job with what he he has,but it isn't much good,when your character is is not very well defined.if only they had went somewhere worthy of the character,this could have been a good movie.as it is,i would say it passes about 90 minutes,and is watchable.but so are many movies.i'd say this was a disappointing follow up to the first film,but that's just me.my vote for Darkman II:The Return of Durant is a 5/10 at best.