leplatypus
What I remembered about Darkman is that was the toy of Sam Raimi who couldn't play then (a long time ago before CG effects and Spiderman) with brand-name super heroes. It also featured a good score from Danny Elfman. Thus, like a famous beer, it has the entire flavor without the bad sides.Sam leaving the boat as well as the original Darkman (Liam Nelson), the sequel drops consecutively.Even if it isn't the crap of Darkman 3 (even its title is ridiculous "Die, Darkman, Die") this movie isn't totally garbage. It stars the wonderful Kim Delaney! Very sexy, very witted and strong-willed! Unfortunately, she has little screen time! It also stars the fake president from "GI Joe" about twenty years before this blockbuster! The story brings no thrilling ideas but the locations should get attention: Except "Erarserhead", I can't name another movie that takes place in those industrial derelict areas. You don't see downtown or country but huge, deserted warehouses or undergrounds. As it featured gang fights, car chases, it also looks like a bit like the city of the first "Robocop".There is surely a dark, moody atmosphere there but not enough to get a good grade.
MaximumMadness
1994's "Darkman II: The Return of Durant" is a direct-to-video sequel to Sam Raimi's original pseudo-super-hero flick "Darkman", and in every way this follow-up seems to be plagued by a classic case of "unfounded sequel syndrome", where a sequel to a successful film is hastily made for no real reason other than to cash in on the success of the original. Though, for a direct-to-DVD film, "Darkman II" certainly isn't the worst.I will admit that while it is no modern masterpiece, Raimi's original "Darkman" is a favorite of mine, because it is a dark tale of vengeance that is well-executed and has some of the classic Raimi touches I love so much. (I give the original about a 9 out of 10 for sheer thrills.) Bradford May's first sequel (this film was followed by an even zanier and more non-sensical third chapter) is really just a re-tread of the original film. No new villains, no new heroes, just more of the same. As the title implies, Robert G. Durant (Larry Drake), one of the main villains from part one is still alive, miraculously having survived his explosive helicopter demise as seen in the original film. And while he should be more scarred and flayed than the film's burnt hero, all he really has is a few lines on his face, a story about being in a coma, and a thirst to get back into organized crime.At the same time, Peyton Westlake a.k.a. "Darkman" (Arnold Vosloo) is still trying to perfect his liquid skin formula to restore his own identity, after Durant and his thugs left him burned beyond recognition and in a state self loathing and insecurity in the first film. He is now using his semi-superhuman abilities (granted to him by the medical procedure given to him to stop his pain, which resulted in emotional rages and constant adrenaline surges) to fight petty crime and steal money from bad-guys to use for his secret underground lab. Yes, he's still completely off the grid, as he was in the original.But after meeting another scientist with similar interests, things might seem to be looking up for our toasty anti-hero... until of course Durant kills his new friend and makes Peyton realize he's still alive.From there on in, it's basically a repeat of the second act of the first film- Darkman infiltrating Durant's organization and tearing it apart from within. This time, Durant does seem a bit more prepared, but the predictability just takes away any of the surprise- we saw this all happen in the last movie! There is also a new sub-plot about Durant commissioning a wacky scientist to create, and I'm not kidding, Particle Beam firearms like something right out of a "Star Trek" episode, and selling them for millions as the "new guns for a new era." There's also a nice sub-plot about an investigative journalist who befriends Darkman and wants his help to expose Durant for his crimes. But these really don't go anywhere. They're just there to kill time.Yes, the movie is really just about Darkman trying to kill Durant once and for all, which he apparently didn't do in the first movie. Simple as that- a revenge story.Like I said, this film isn't bad, but it doesn't add a single new thing to the "Darkman" story.Now, onto the director, Bradford May. He does a decent job at times emulating Raimi's visually delightful style that made the first film so fun to watch, but overall, his take on the material is just straight-forward and uninspired. There are a few cool scenes and shots, but overall, the direction is very "blah." Also, May has crafted a film with a darker tone, and frankly, it hurts this movie- it just isn't as much fun as the original.The acting does shine, as Drake does a great job reprising his role as Durant with fiendish glee. And Vosloo does a decent enough job taking over for Liam Neeson (the original Darkman), though Vosloo does seem a little more wooden, as though he is trying to bring a darker, more stoic edge to the character. He's good, but not Neeson good.All-in-all, "Darkman II: The Return of Durant" is a retread of the original with a few cool sub-plots and some nice acting. But too much of the movie is a simple repeat of the first film, and the direction (and script) is very uninspired, adding nothing new to the mythos.I would recommend that fans of the original give this a shot for laughs. Everyone else need not apply. A 5 out of 10.
sveknu
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.
