I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Wow! Such a good movie.

Purely Joyful Movie!

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Inferior sequel to Darkman has the look and feel of a made-for-TV movie. It was, in fact, straight-to-video. So you can figure what kind of quality you're looking at here. There's a new actor in the title role (Arnold Vosloo) and he's particularly unexciting. 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. Larry Drake's campy performance is the best thing about this sequel. "Xena" fans might enjoy seeing Renee O'Connor in an early role. This was shot back-to-back with Darkman III: Die Darkman Die. Neither film is as good as the first. This is completely lacking in any of the craftsmanship or artistry that went into making Darkman.

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

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.

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.