Darkman II: The Return of Durant
Tags: murder

Plot synopsis:
Scientist Peyton Westlake (Arnold Vosloo) has re-located to an abandoned building connected to an abandoned subway track, and continues to work on his synthetic skin cell formula, funding his research by "taking donations" from criminals he has thwarted. His synthetic skin still has a 99-minute timeframe before light cells cause it to break down, and he continues to search for a way to solve the problem.
Robert G. Durant, who appeared to die in the first film, (how exactly he survived the crashing of the helicopter and subsequent explosion is never revealed) managed to escape alive, and awakens from a coma. Durant and his men plot to break out a prison inmate named Alfred Hathaway and use his knowledge to build futuristic particle-beam weaponry in order to gain power in the criminal underworld of the city.
Westlake meets and befriends a scientist named David Brinkman (Jesse Collins), who is also working on a synthetic skin formula. Brinkman manages to break past the 99 minute photosensitivity reaction that causes Westlake's skin to break down in the light. However, after refusing an offer from Durant's men to buy his building (which they want for their particle-weapon scheme), Durant orders Brinkman killed. Durant's men torture Brinkman before killing him. Westlake discovers his body, and upon observing Brinkman's body missing a finger (Durant's calling card), is able to deduce that Durant is alive and responsible for Brinkman's death.
A reporter named Jill Randall (Kim Delaney) discovers that Peyton Westlake is still alive while investigating Durant. She befriends Westlake but is later killed in a car bombing by Durant after broadcasting a story on him and his criminal operations.
Westlake then learns that Durant is trying to again purchase Brinkman's building, this time from his sister Laurie (Renee O'Connor). He sets out to protect her from Durant. After she is captured, Westlake uses his synthetic skin to make masks and disguise himself as Durant's men. He infiltrates Durant's lair. In an ensuing battle, Durant's men, Dr. Hathaway, and a group of men who were intending to buy his particle weapons are all killed. Durant attempts to flee in his car, however, Westlake has equipped it with an explosive charge. Durant is ironically killed much in the same way that he had earlier murdered Jill Randall, and Laurie is saved.
Peyton Westlake later sees a news report on Jill Randall's death, and Durant, who is publicly revealed alive and deceased once more. Tipping his hat to the departed Jill Randall, Darkman silently vows to continue working on his synthetic skin cell formula and his fight against crime and injustice.

Review: 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.
Arnold Vosloo takes over for Liam Neeson, and it was nice watching play the hero for a change.
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.
Also nice to see the film keep the original movie's musical themes, something sequels don't often do.
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 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.
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.
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..
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..
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.
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.
Director Bradford May who is not well known for directing any other film franchise I think did a good job.
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..
The writers did a very good thing by bringing back Larry Drake as Durant (he's just so mean!
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.
A Good Follow Up. 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.
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.
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.
Larry Drake did a good job as Robert Durant.
The sequel to Darkman is action packed but lacks the greatness of its prequel.The action scenes are staged good and the acting by the new Darkman played by Arnold Vosloo and the returning Larry Drake are good.The sequel is a good film but I prefer the original first..
He must fight Durant once more.Replacing Liam Neeson in Westlake's shoes is Arnold Vosloo, (who many will recognize from The Mummy).
This movie was pretty good...Although Liam Neeson(the original Darkman) is not in this one and Larry Drake(Durant)is back and alive despite being burned to death from a fatal helicopter crash.
The acting and action was okay and Larry Drake played Durant as good as the first one!!
But I was in for a surprise - I think the film turned out to be really good - with some good action scenes - and the acting from everyone - especially Larry Drake (Durant) was brilliant.
I have heard that the first of the "Darkman" triology (there is also a third which I also recommend) is the best, directed by Sam Raimi, so I would like to see that too, but this particular film blew me away.
Overall, the whole film is great, and if you are a fan of Renee O'Connor, then you would like it because her performance in it is really good..
The story has Durant back and once again he is played by Larry Drake, no surprise they were able to get that actor back.
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.
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.
What kind of loser came up with the grand idea of creating a sequel to a sublime film without Sam Raimi OR Liam Neeson?
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.
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..
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.
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.
And so it was that Darkman's two sequels were shown on consecutive weeks, though without the 1990 Sam Raimi original.
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.
"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.
Yes, neither are very good films, but in the world of straight-to-video they're probably all-time greats..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sam Raimi created Darkman with a potential franchise in mind, and his original movie had enough flair to suggest a sequel was warranted.
As a result, Darkman II plays like a bad pilot for a proposed Darkman TV series, with Arnold Vosloo (best known as a villain in Jean-Claude Van Damme's Hard Target) doing his best to replace Liam Neeson in the title role.
Sporting a dastardly scar and delivering lackluster punch lines as he kills his many enemies, Larry Drake returns from the first film as the villainous Durant, who wreaks havoc in his attempt to finance and manufacture the world's most destructive automatic weapons.
As he supports the synthetic skin experiments of a like-minded scientist, the scarred hero known as Darkman thwarts Durant's ruthless plot, but the case proves costly for the intrepid crime reporter (Kim Delaney, Pr-NYPD Blue) who allies herself with Darkman's efforts.
Inferior sequel to Darkman has the look and feel of a made-for-TV movie.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He is fine as Darkman though and he obviously carefully looked at how Liam Neeson played the character previously.
Partly because he was one of the main attractions in the original but mostly because I was curious to see how exactly they would bring his character back from the death, since he died pretty nastily in a helicopter crash at the end of the first "Darkman".
More than reason enough for Darkman to go after Durant again and finish him off for good this time."Darkman II" isn't as disastrous as it looks, I have to admit.
First of all in this review I would like you to meditate on the title for just a second(Darkman 2: The Return of Durant).
Darkman 2: The Return of Durant is just a sorry cash-in sequel and a disgrace to the franchise..
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..
For a Direct to video film, this movie is top notch in a lot of aspects, i enjoyed Darkman but enjoyed this one a bit more, due to better pacing, and better performances (in my opinion).
Darkman II is yet another example of how easy it is for a sequel to completely miss the mark, even when following up such a great comic book action movie.
Darkman II starts out with the ludicrous request that we all believe Durant could have survived that massive helicopter crash at the end of the first film.
So here was my problem with Darkman II  first of all there's no way that Durant could have survived the crash and come out of it with nothing more than some scars on his face and neck.
There is nothing new covered here other than the same villain pursuing a different avenue of high level crime, and Vosloo delivers a respectable performance taking over for Liam Neeson, but Neeson owns this character just like Sam Raimi owns the picture itself.
His work is far too recognizable to be taken over without losing a lot of the original feel of the film, and it's too bad that Durant exploded at the end of the first movie but apparently survived unscathed, while Darkman suffered no injury other than that at the very beginning, and yet it's him that is an entirely different person.
South African actor Arnold Vosloo ("The Mummy" '99) inherits the role of Dr. Peyton Westlake / Darkman from Liam Neeson in this decent direct to video sequel to Sam Raimis' comic book style thriller.
Durant (Larry Drake), is back after being in a coma for a long time.
(You can't feel a bit sorry for Delaney's character.) The late, great Drake provides the main reason to watch, clearly relishing this opportunity to rehash his villain from the first movie.