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.

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.

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

Sam Raimi created Darkman with a potential franchise in mind, and his original movie had enough flair to suggest a sequel was warranted. Unfortunately (or perhaps wisely--for Raimi), he handed over the straight-to-video sequel duties to rookie director Bradford May, and nobody bothered to come up with much of a screenplay. 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. Basically, this by-the-numbers plot serves as a tissue-thin vehicle for lots of explosions and gratuitous violence, and it's all about as inspired as a bad syndicated action show. Of interest only to those who were dazzled by the original Darkman, and even then it's a disappointment.