User reviews

This first sequel to Sam Raimi's Darkman is directed by Bradford May, who worked also as a cinematographer in this film. The story begins where the first film left and there are the same characters again, but Liam Neeson is replaced by Arnold Vosloo as the Darkman/Dr. Westlake. The story is okay and not too stupid considered this is a fantasy film. The actors do fine job and no one acts stupidly. The main point in this film is to deliver action and thrills, and that it does with talent, and especially the cinematography, by the director, is very great and looks almost as fantastic as Raimi's use of camera. The scenes are often exciting, stylish and interesting, and there are only couple of usual cliches and faults which make this film pretty mediocre and worth watching for real fanatics only.

But after all, this could've been MUCH worse and so I am very pleasantly surprised that May could make the film this effective and watchable. Just remember those horrible sequels like Species 2! Darkman 2 is definitely not a masterpiece or important piece of sci-fi cinema, but it works fine as a sequel and as a proof that talented directors appear also from these direct-to-video films. Hopefully May has a fine future as a film maker.

5/10 but don't watch if you prefer mainstream movies or movies that have nothing fantastic or unreal in them. This is science fiction and people who don't understand it, only waste their time by trying to watch these.

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 really like the original Darkman so I was skeptical as to whether this would be a good sequel or not, but I was impressed. Like the first one, it's in no way a groundbreaking film but it is a good slice of entertainment. I think anyone who liked the first film will like this movie as well.

Arnold Vosloo does an exceptional job taking over Liam Neeson's character and I'd go as far as to say that he is just as good. The story is alright but it kind of seems like a repeat of the original, I guess there's only so much you can do with these movies. I really like the effects as well. This one was fun.

Give Darkman II a viewing if you enjoyed the first one and like some cheesy action. As long as you don't expect a sweeping epic, I think you'll have some fun.

DARKMAN II isn't as good as the first (obviously), but it's a decent sequel despite the obvious: there's no way Durant should be able to return. He was most-assuredly fried, roasted, toasted and burned all to hell at the end of the previous film, and his return is rather laughable. The story only briefly mentions that he was in a coma since that incident, and doesn't bother trying to come up with anymore more believable. They at least could have had him horribly scared or something, giving him a taste of what he did to Westlake.

But still, it's fun to have him back only so we the audience that take delight in patiently waiting to see him get his at the end. He's just as vial as he was the first time around. Arnold Vosloo takes over for Liam Neeson, and it was nice watching play the hero for a change. He did a good job. Kim Delaney is rather wasted in a part that could have been much more vital to the story than it was.

The film did a good job keeping up the feel of the original, despite lacking Sam Raimi's added punch. It still maintains that comic book feel, with a hidden underground lair and a hero struggling with his own inner rage while trying to stop a madman. Also nice to see the film keep the original movie's musical themes, something sequels don't often do. There's not as much action as the first one, and it's not as good as the second sequel, but as a sequel itself, it's not bad. If only a more believable explanation for Durant's return had been given.

Not an entirely bad sequel, just nothing all that great. It passed the time quite nicely just really not enough substance this time around though and the absence of Liam Neeson hurts. Granted, it would have been a waste of time getting him back for just a direct to video sequel. The story has Durant back and once again he is played by Larry Drake, no surprise they were able to get that actor back. Drake is okay in small doses and as a villain, he really is not a headliner though. The guy who played the mummy in the mummy movies is Darkman this time and while not as good as Neeson he is not bad. Once again Darkman is on the verge of making his synthetic skin work and last in the sun and once again Durant screws everything up this time taking out a guy who was working on the same thing. There is a lot of Darkman playing with Durant's mind as he is trying to pull everyone's face off in fear it is Darkman and then there is a rather weak conclusion. They bring him back from the dead basically and then do not have some super showdown at the end like one might expect. Still, it is entertaining enough to keep one occupied, however it is not anything I would go hunting down to watch either.

Straight to video sequel that lost most of the charm and quirks of the original. The new actor playing Darkman had a beautiful voice but was painfully corny at times. The standout was definitely the journalist (Kim Delaney) and she's in the best moment of the film (you'll know when you see it). The action scenes were far from the quality of the first film but then again, this sequel obviously had a much lower budget. It's a mediocre flick as in very average TV pilot quality, and not painfully bad as the turd, pardon third movie. It's something to see as a curiosity if you liked the first Darkman.

Rating: 4 out of 10

The first of two low budget dtv sequels, 'Darkman 2' is more than passable. Unfortunately it's caught in an odd place as indicated by the 'Return of Durant' subtitle. You know there's no way he should be alive, but actor Larry Drake reprising the same villain keeps things simple. Of course it has to be mentioned Arnold Vosloo has taken the character over from Liam Neeson.

Dr. Peyton Westlake / Darkman (Vosloo) is still working on artificial skin when a fellow scientist is able to break the 99 minute time barrier. Any hope for a permeant fix is quickly taken away however when this man is murdered by his old foe Robert G. Durant (Drake). Who turns out to be very much alive having awoken from a coma after 2.5 years. As Durant proceeds with particle beam weapons, Darkman gets an ally in a news reporter (Kim Delaney) and must come to the rescue of the scientist's sister (Renee O'Connor) after she's kidnapped to draw him out.

'Darkman 2' contains bits of action, mild humor and those makeup effects you expect. Given the lower budget, no elaborate stunt pieces and there's some poor CGI here. Otherwise I felt this was a watchable sequel. Vosloo is fine taking over, Drake is still solid. The story has less of Darkman's inability to control his rage and a preference for being a straight up flick with less of the comic book elements of the original.

not bad at all for a sequel,, personally i thought that it would ab solutely suck without liam neeson, well i was wrong arnold vosloo does a very credible job in this one. the storyline is very good also,, i was wondering how was darkman gonna get durant this time, in the day and age of cgi and today's movie superheroes , it's very nice to know we have darkman from the 1990's to fall back on,, it's seem like for this storyline anyway that less is more,, meaning less or no cgi is better than all of that stuff that you see today. larry drake returns as durant and is as evil as ever,, he is just such a great bad guy,, maybe not as bad as his role as the evil dentist,, but still he's a villain you sure don't wanna mess, with ,, vosloo is very credible as darkman,, so all in all a very decent sequel to watch for all.

Not bad, but the lack of Liam Neeson, Frances McDormand and overall action sequences (at least in comparison to the first one) leave this straight-to-video sequel feeling simply... watchable.

I'll still check out the third installment because I usually enjoy Jeff Fahey.

I haven't seen the original "Darkman" in some time, but I remember liking the film quite a bit. "Darkman II: Return of Durant" was an OK film, and had some good stuff in it, but I had a lot of problems with it.

The story isn't too terribly cheesy, but certainly not great either. The acting in this film was OK, but could have been better. Larry Drake did a good job as Robert Durant. Kim Delany and Renee O'Connor both did fine jobs with their respective roles. Arnold Vosloo was sometimes really good and other times just terrible. The rest of the cast was OK, but nothing spectacular.

There were a lot of things that I didn't like about the film. One of these things is near the end when Darkman/Dr. Westlake keeps changing masks every five minutes. Where is he carrying all these masks?

All in all, if you liked the first "Darkman" film, then you may want to see this just in case you do like it. If you haven't seen the first "Darkman", DO NOT watch this film until you have seen it. Thanks for reading,

-Chris

What kind of loser came up with the grand idea of creating a sequel to a sublime film without Sam Raimi OR Liam Neeson? I mean, that was the greatness of the first film. The ONLY reason anyone probably saw this movie was in order to see Larry Drake, made famous on L.A. Law. The idea that his character is even alive is one of the stupidest villain rebirths I've ever heard of. If they couldn't get Sam Raimi to work on it again, they shouldn't of even attempted to make it at all.

It's very unfortunate that a box office success like Darkman did not have any sequels released in theatres. Heck, even RoboCop had two sequels that were theatrically released. Darkman II: The Return of Durant is quite obvious in its title about what the plot will involve. Never the less this film is not all that bad as others claim it to be. I do feel it does not match the same greatness as the first by Sam Raimi but I feel it is still a strong sequel for multiple reasons. New or old actors, all them do a good job with their characters. The story is good even though it is a little bit of retread. And it even contains some interesting dialog that was not included in the original.

Playing as Darkman in this film is Arnold Vosloo, who probably at the time was not a well-known actor for anything. I will give him credit though, I think he fills Liam Neeson's shoes quite nicely. Once you get past his accent, which can take a couple minutes to get used to, the rest of the film is fine. I'll say it anyway although we know he comes back; yes, Larry Drake returns as Robert G. Durant to get his revenge on Peyton Westlake. The same goes for Darkman, who also wants to get his revenge for the final time. One thing I'm kind of upset about is that in the first film we saw Durant die. So he comes back in this film, but with all of his body intact?! And how?! None of this is ever explained. I was expecting at least a missing arm or something. Any of the other main characters from the first film are replaced with new ones. The characters of Darkman and Durant are the only two to return. Even though there are new characters in this film, all the actors do their job well so I was pleased with it.

For the story of Darkman II it's a little bit of a step backward because it looks like Darkman has to kill Durant and his goons AGAIN. But to me, there was nothing truly wrong with that. This film has Westlake do some other things that are neat to watch. Of course Darkman steals their faces, its what he has going for him. Director Bradford May who is not well known for directing any other film franchise I think did a good job. He at least tries to keep much of what was left of the first movie and added into this one.

Even in the screenplay there are some scenes that are different from the first film. Durant and several other characters use dialog that is funny to listen to. It's not gut busting funny but it will develop some chuckles here and there. Darkman even has some funny moments that I would not have expected to see him do because of his portrayal in the first film. Altogether this is a satisfying sequel.

Darkman II: The Return of Durant is no prize package but it keeps the story of Darkman alive and moving. With good performances from the actors, this Direct-To-Video sequel is probably one of the few that actually works and sticks close to its predecessor.

I wasn't a big fan of the relentlessly unpleasant 1990 original, and this direct-to-video sequel certainly didn't look too promising. After viewing it, however, I found it superior to the first film. It follows the original's formula closely but emphasizes action instead of violence (although there is still an element of sadism). It's a slicker-than-expected production, with plenty of mayhem and noise, which also re-creates some of the cool visual tricks that the original's director Sam Raimi had used. And Larry Drake returns as Durant with an utterly convincing performance.

I saw this poor excuse for a movie on BBC1 while on Holiday in Tenerife. I'd had a few drinks and started watching this movie. After getting over the initial rank bad acting and cheesy dialogue, I started to enjoy it.

The villain, Durant, played by Larry Drake who played the retarted guy in L.A. Law is very funny indeed. On breaking a mad scientist out of prison he asks "Do you know why I busted you out?". The reply is class "You busted me out because I'm one of two people alive who is capable of building a nuclear bomb in a shed, from household items".

The mad scientist goes on to invent a ray-gun which they are hoping to sell to the Police. After an effective demonstration, the chief of police asks the Mad scientist how long it would take to provide 300 of these ray guns. The Scientist replies that he can have them delivered "by the end of the week". He's working in A SHED.

Too funny. Must be viewed as a comedy, funnier than anything Mike Myers has ever done.

2/10

I disagree with those films fan who feel this is a poor film. I don't feel it's over-shadowed by the original film at all.

Arnold Vosloo is great. This is the man who said, "You wouldn't want to hurt my feelings, would you, Randall?" To justify his greatness in this film, he asks, "Is there a problem?" I enjoy his clear-cut voice-over. He handles the changes from toughness to concern to mad-scientist hilarity very well.

I thought it was a sad move to bring back, Larry Drake, as Robert G. Durant. After all he's hardly super-powered. But still he does well as the villain. He's clever enough to counter the Dark Man a few times. His diction and delivery is very precise. He also knows how to lose his calm when losing the battle of the wits.

The script is good. It's very funny. The actors work well in playing so seriously. Durant has a good gang, with most members getting some time in the spotlight. Two of the crew have the job of playing themselves and Dark Man imitating them.

But survive he does, and Larry Drake makes a return appearance as crime boss Durant, despite having been the victim of a helicopter explosion in the original movie. Having spent exactly two years, 148 days, 12 hours and 16 minutes in a coma, Drake emerges to take control back of his territory, and does seem to be having a good time doing it. Most of the other actors, though, are strictly second-rate in an unnecessary sequel that has the hallmarks of a TV Movie, even though it isn't one.

Darkman II marks another stage in the bizarre new trend amongst British TV schedulers: the showing of all the sequels in chronological order without the original film. In September fans of The Omen could be rewarded with rare showings of it's sequels, though those without knowledge of the original movie were left scratching their heads somewhat. And so it was that Darkman's two sequels were shown on consecutive weeks, though without the 1990 Sam Raimi original. Even stranger was the fact the screenings of Darkman were on the minority BBC2, with only a small audience expected. The two follow-ups were given exposure on the majority channel, with up to three or four times the capacity.

What this all goes to show is that, despite having seen Darkman some time ago, I can't recall enough of it to give an honest appraisal. I do remember it being full of verve, something this one lacks, and probably worthy of a 6 or 7. And to be fair, this first sequel isn't that bad, though it's not particularly any good either. Plot elements are notably contrived, while Darkman's ability to mask himself as an enemy is taken to extremes when one of those enemies is only about five foot two. This is added to his ability to exactly impersonate his foes. Did the original see him invent a voice duplicator? Goodness only knows, and if you were to only see the sequels you'd be left with the impression that he's just a really, really good mimic, which is plainly silly.

Darkman himself (now played by Arnold Vosloo after Liam Neeson opted out) is left to say guff like "vengeance has many casualties", which is positively Shakespearean compared to the final film in the series. Diet, Darkman, Diet! sees an increasingly portly Vosloo reprise the title role in a clichéd finale. Forced to utter Freddy-like puns such as "looks like you've got an eyeful", you almost feel sorry for Vosloo as he really does try his best, yet cannot help but be as wooden as a crate. However, even his standards are high compared to the absolutely diabolical actors numbering in the support cast. Jeff Fahey is pure ham, while Darlanne Fluegel is miscast as a bitchy nurse. The dialogue in this one often manages the not inconsiderable task of roping together more clichés in one sentence than you'd humanly expect to hear. "Nothing like a little show of strength to put the fear of God into the hearts of children," mutters Fahey, and, in his defence, he does manage to keep a straight face.

However, despite all it's shortcomings, and the fact that it's the lesser film, I must confess to have preferred the third Darkman film to the second (contrived, truncated ending notwithstanding) due to the fact that it was an original plot, whereas Return of Durant is merely a weak retread of the first. Darkman II is not awful, but does nothing the first didn't. Why bother to watch it when you can just as easily see the vastly superior Neeson vehicle? Both of these sequels also contain abominable flashback sequences from Darkman's eyeball, which have to be seen to be disbelieved. Yes, neither are very good films, but in the world of straight-to-video they're probably all-time greats.

This film, produced by Sam Raimi but directed by Bradford May, is my least favorite film of this otherwise fine film series. Arnold Vosloo takes over the reigns of Westlake/Darkman from Liam Neeson and, while trying his darndest, just isn't as good as Neeson was. It's like replacing Peter O'Toole in a sequel of "Lawrence of Arabia" with Charlie Sheen. Larry Drake is really unnessesary(sic) as Durant. The writers should have moved on with a new villian for this film. Kim Delaney is underused and is killed half way through the movie. The only actor who I thought was any good Renee O'Connor. She played vulnerable and tough in a role that helped her land on "Xena" (Raimi cast her in this role after a bit part on "Hercules", than Robert Tapert & Raimi cast her on "Xena"). All in all, this film is poorly written (two other writers wrote "Darkman III", which is much better) and it seems that May points the camera to scantily clad women more than the main characters. Rent this if you need a quick thrill or a fan of the actors.

5/10

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.

Bradford May takes over directing duties from Sam Raimi in this sequel, which also sees Arnold Vosloo take over the role of Peyton Westlake/Darkman, who is still trying to perfect his synthetic skin formula, in order to rebuild his life, but that plan is disrupted by the return of Durant, the evil gangster responsible for ruining his life. Durant did not die in the helicopter explosion, but instead survived in a coma, and after he awakens, seeks to rebuild his power by kidnapping an insane genius who can build him a powerful laser weapon.

Arnold Vosloo isn't a bad replacement for Liam Neeson(who is still missed) but sequel is pretty standard stuff, with the unlikely survival of Durant stretching things; though Larry Drake is still good, film isn't, though there would be one more, filmed at the same time.

Although this is a straight-to-video movie that didn't go to theaters like the first film in the series did, I still think that this one is superior to the original. This is typical for some movie series. The first film is a rather slow introduction to the concept, and when the second movie is released, everyone knows the deal already. That means that it's possible to get straight into the action without any further delay. The "Alien"-movies is an example of this, and the same goes for the "Darkman"-movies. Anyway, the totally sadistic Durant is back in this one. Looks like he survived the first movie after all (don't ask me how he managed that). With Durant back, the plot is (apart from the introduction of how Darkman became Darkman in the first movie) pretty equal to the first movie. But as i mentioned, I think this one is more fun. Liam Neeson is out of the series, and now Arnold Vooslo is Darkman. That's no problem to me, I think he did at rather good job.

The first movie "Darkman", directed by Sam Raimi, was also already made in a B-movie kind of style but in the fun and comic book type of B-movie. The kind of style all Sam Raimi movies till some extend have in them. But this movie is just made in a bad B-movie kind of way, with some horrible dialog, lacking editing and simple camera compositions. It actually shows how uniquely talented Sam Raimi is, with his hard to copy style.

And how is Durant still alive in this one? I remember that the helicopter crash from the first "Darkman" movie in which Durant died was one of the most fatal looking once out of movie history. It exploded like a balloon, with an enormous blast. No way that it's credible that anyone walked away from that one. But yet somehow had the bright idea for this sequel to let Durant return. And come on, he wasn't even the 'main' villain in the first "Darkman" movie but yet they show him in this movie as one of the biggest crime bosses in the country. But of course the Durant character is Larry Drake's greatest role and he is one of the bes movie villains out of recent movie history. So it didn't mind seeing Larry Drake reprise his role from the first movie, although I would had of course preferred a more creative solution to let his character return.

The story as a whole was a disappointing aspect of the movie. I was shocked at how simple and without ambition it was. It somehow even features a group of Neo-Nazi's and a crazy professor. The most thrilling aspects in the movie are the recycled sequences from the first movie, in which Westlake takes over the identity of the henchman of Durant. What I did liked about the movie was that it showed more as a crime fighter with morals this time. It was not just a revenge movie this time.

The movie and its characters are still all portrayed in an over-the-top comic book kind of way but it this time doesn't really work out as good as in the first movie, which is I think also partly due to the obvious lower budget of the movie.

With this movie Arnold Vosloo shows he's a good actor, although his South African accent is too notable in the movie. It's good for most of his roles but just not suitable for Dr. Peyton Westlake. He is fine as Darkman though and he obviously carefully looked at how Liam Neeson played the character previously. Also Larry Drake shines again although he also was struggling with delivering some of the badly written dialog. Not even he could make it sound good and believable. Most of the other new characters are all mostly just disappointing ones, not to mention the horrible actors that portray them all.

A disappointing movie that could had worked but just doesn't ever does so, which can for most part be blamed on the script.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Darkman, formerly scientists Peyton Westlake, still lives in isolation in the big city. His world, however, is turned upside down when he discovers the gangland boss who blew up his lab and destroyed his life is still alive. Before long, said villain has employed the help of a half-crazed scientist to help him build powerful weapons to control the city. Darkman's only hope is in the use of his synthetic skin creating machinery, sets out to stop the maniacs.

Though never equalling Liam Neeson, Arnold Vosloo is great as Darkman. There are plenty of other good performances as well. The almost-as-monstrous-as-Darkman villain Durant is still an imposing presence, the crazy old genius scientist is good and the film succeeds in re-capturing the spirit of the original very well.

This was about what I expected from a "Darkman" sequel, and I'm glad for that. It doesn't equal the awesome flavor of the first, but it's fun, if not forgettable. The plot: arch-nemesis Durant is back. Somehow, he's survived the helicopter crash from the first and only has one scar on his face to prove it. This is acceptable because Durant was such a great villain and because they got Larry Drake to play him again. Arnold Vosloo (Hard Target, The Mummy) plays Darkman here and isn't as bad as I expected. He's different from Liam Neeson, who played our hero in the first, but he's still good and acceptable in the role. There is a lot of really good action scenes and the story is pretty good, if not at times repetitive of the first. What "Darkman 2: The Return of Durant" keeps from the first film is the cool camera work and completely awesome music.

Actually this film is totally campy and over-the-top but in a good way. These are precisely the elements you look for in a good comic book movie. With the exception of some subpar special effects the film looks good. There's lots of dark alleyways, spooky thunder and lightning and loud explosions to jolt the senses. The action scenes, as low key as they are, rely on archive footage from the first film a bit too heavily. One of that film's best gags, Peyton creating a Durant mask to infiltrate his inner circle, is repeated here twice but with Durant's henchmen this time. The script makes up for any inconsistencies by supplying an endless amount of great one liners, most of them delivered by Drake. If there is such a thing as a best performance it would probably be him. He seems to genuinely be enjoying the chance to recreate the elegant and eccentric title character. Vosloo, in a rare leading role, does an okay job as Westlake. He doesn't fare as well as Darkman though constantly screaming "Durant!" at the top of his lungs and smashing his fists on whatever hard surface is in front of him for added dramatic effect. Delaney is given the least to do out of anyone. But she's super beautiful to look at. That seems to be the theme of the film - no matter how dumb things get or over-the-top they are, there's always something visually interesting to look at.

Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

Inferior sequel to Darkman has the look and feel of a made-for-TV movie. It was, in fact, straight-to-video. So you can figure what kind of quality you're looking at here. There's a new actor in the title role (Arnold Vosloo) and he's particularly unexciting. The plot is pretty thin and is just an excuse to have Robert Durant (Larry Drake) return, despite having been killed at the end of the first movie. Larry Drake's campy performance is the best thing about this sequel. "Xena" fans might enjoy seeing Renee O'Connor in an early role. This was shot back-to-back with Darkman III: Die Darkman Die. Neither film is as good as the first. This is completely lacking in any of the craftsmanship or artistry that went into making Darkman.