El rostro de la venganza II: el regreso de Durant

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.

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

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.

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.

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.