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.
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.