RECENT WATCHES: Darkman II: The Return of Durant (1995)

Being a superhero movie, even one original to cinema, “Darkman” was obviously meant to launch a franchise. The film would be followed by the expected media tie-ins, such as a video game, novels, and, fittingly enough, comic books. Considering all of this, and the original's box office success, a sequel would eventually roll into production around 1993. While Sam Raimi initially envisioned a follow-up starring Bruce Campbell, the finished product would take a very different form. With Arnold Voosloo slipping on Liam Neeson's fedora and bandages, “Darkman II: The Return of Durant” would become the first live action Universal Studios film made exclusively for the direct-to-video market. If that doesn't inspire much in the way of confidence, you're right on the money.

Three years have passed since Dr. Peyton Westlake was transformed into Darkman. In that time, he has continued to hide in the shadows, still working on perfecting his artificial skin formula and fighting crime whenever it crosses his path. However, he's not the only one that has lingered on... Despite his helicopter slamming face-first into a bridge, gangster Robert G. Durant is still alive. Awakening from a coma, he immediately goes about re-establishing his criminal empire. Busting a mad scientist friend out of prison, Durant decides to build high-tech laser weapons and sell them to the highest bidder. He wants to use a factory currently occupied by another scientist working on synthetic skin. Westlake befriends the man and his sister just before Durant has him killed, sending the Darkman on another collision course with the criminal underworld.

As the subtitle indicates, “Darkman II” recognizes that Robert G. Durant was too good a villain to toss out after one adventure. I don't object to Durant returning to life. “Darkman” is a superhero series, after all, and people come back from the dead in comics all the time. Yet the sequel goes about resurrecting the gangster in the laziest way possible. Durant's helicopter exploded in a massive, mid-air fireball in the last movie. Yet the sequel expects us to believe that such an incident merely caused him to slip into a coma, the slightest of scars on his face being the only indicator that he was previously caught in a giant explosion. Think of how cool it would've been to bring Larry Drake back as a similarly deformed evil adversary for Darkman to tango with. That would've represented more creativity than the filmmakers behind “Darkman II' was willing to put into things.

This senseless story idea was definitely the laziest decision that was made during “Darkman II's” production but it's far from the most baffling. Obviously, Liam Neeson was never going to return for a direct-to-video sequel to a movie he made three years prior. Luckily, Darkman presented an easy solution for re-casting. With the hero being hideously deformed, the star would be covered in make-up for most of the runtime. Further more, Darkman's tendency to create false faces means he can look like anyone. Maybe Dr. Westlake was so despondent over the first film's events, that he fashioned a new face for himself to wear, totally different from the one he was born with. Instead, “Darkman II” inserts Arnold Voosloo into the flashbacks from the original, retconning things so he always looked like this new guy. Voosloo can only summon a fraction of the manic energy Neeson brought to the role but he's otherwise fine. The lack of thought put into the screenplay is much harder to forgive.

If Voosloo had some difficult filling Neeson's trench coat, the man behind the camera was lost in an even larger shadow. Stepping into Sam Raimi's place is someone named Bradford May. You've probably never heard of him. The guy largely directed television movies before and after “Darkman II's” production. May makes some token attempts to replicate Raimi's frenetic visual style. When Darkman is driven into one of his trademark rages – which doesn't happen nearly often enough – the film does launch into fiery montages of cascading, strobbing imagery. It's a decent aping of Raimi's style and the only time the sequel tries at all. Otherwise, “Darkman II” is shot in dimly lit rooms and warehouses. A whip-pan or crash-zoom here or there doesn't make up for how flat most of the sequel looks.

Truthfully, “The Return of Durant” barely feels like a “Darkman” movie for most of its run time. Darkman spends a lot of time wearing Voosloo's face. He talks to various allies, including the other scientist and a muckraking journalist played by Kim Delaney. There are far too many scenes of people standing around and just talking about stuff. While Durant does far more killing and torturing, he too spends a lot of the movie negotiating civilly with people. The sequel opens with a car chase between two deranged drug addicts, ending in multiple fiery crashes. It's a decent moment and feels manic enough to pass as a sequel to a Sam Raimi movie... And “Darkman II” never attempts this level of energy again. The action scenes that follow are totally bland and forgettable. Durant doesn't even get a cool death scene, Darkman being weirdly hands-off about it.

Direct-to-video is a perfectly acceptable release strategy for many different types of films. However, productions like “Darkman II: The Return of Durant” is why the release route has a bad name. The production values are unimpressive. The story is derivative of the original. Mostly, it's clear very little thought or heart was put into this sequel. Universal just wanted to capitalize on the name recognition and rental popularity of the first one. “Darkman” is too distinctive of a film to have spawned such an uninspired follow-up. [4/10]