Should I Watch..? 'Darkman' (1990)

Darkman is a superhero film released in 1990 and was directed and co-written by Sam Raimi. The film was released to capitalise on the success of Tim Burton's Batman the year before and follows a disfigured scientist waging a war of vengeance on the criminals who destroyed his work and left him fighting for his life. The film stars Liam Neeson, Frances McDormand, Larry Drake and Colin Friels. The project originated after Raimi was unable to make a film adaptation of pulp 1930's figure The Shadow at the time and the character has a noticeable influence over the look and style of Darkman. The film received a warm reception from critics and was considered successful enough at the box office to lead to the creation of two direct-to-video sequels, although neither of them involved Neeson or Raimi. The character has also since been featured in video games, novels and comic books.

Maverick scientist Dr Peyton Westlake is conducting experiments into developing a synthetic skin and is getting close to succeeding. He is unable to maintain sufficient strength in the skin for it to last longer than 99 minutes until he realises that the skin is photosensitive, proving much stronger in darkness. Across town, his long-time partner Julie Hastings works as an attorney for property developer Louis Strack and stumbles across a document suggesting illegal bribes have been paid in order to achieve permission to build. After she approaches Strack with this evidence, she unwittingly places herself in danger when Strack contacts his crime boss accomplice Robert Durant about his little problem.

As Peyton is about to perfect his formula, his laboratory is raided by Durant and his goons who are there to retrieve the incriminating document. Witnessing his assistant's murder and being tortured by Durant's men, Peyton is trapped when Durant rigs the lab to explode and is presumed killed. While Julie mourns, Peyton is rescued by a shady scientist who conducts an experiment on him that makes him immune to pain, enhanced strength and amplified emotions that make him prone to outbursts of rage. But Peyton's disfigured form escapes from hospital and soon begins to plot his revenge against Durant and his gang.

I remember the first time I watched Darkman years ago and I found it a goofy and faintly silly effort. But a curious thing happened when I saw it again recently - it actually wasn't as bad as I remembered. For starters, Raimi's talent as a director remains as evident as ever and even if the film has a comparatively small budget (the budget for Batman was more than three times that of Darkman), he knows how to maximise screen time. The climatic scenes between Durant and Darkman, who is swung around the city's skyline from beneath a helicopter while dodging explosions, is both amazing to watch but also reminiscent of a similar scene from The Matrix years later. Of course, Raimi never strays far from his preferred genre of horror but this film never quite leans towards it as much as The Evil Dead does. There are some decent prosthetics on display as Neeson's scarred visage is occasionally exposed while set designs and imagery are suitably spooky for a character who shuts the rest of the world out.

Neeson deserves credit for being able to deliver a memorable performance as Peyton, despite being buried underneath buckets of makeup or wrapped up in bandages like a cosplaying mummy. The character might not be the deepest but in Neeson's hands, he becomes a tortured vigilante lurking in the shadows like the classic horror creations of the Universal films of the 1930's. The film has a curiously old-fashioned aesthetic that suits this type of story and at times, it feels like a comic book brought to life. It's deliberately pulpy and over-the-top and if you were expecting subtlety from a Sam Raimi film then you probably have a concussion.

• Raimi was determined to have his good friend and frequent collaborator Bruce Campbell in the lead role but the studio were unsure he would be suitable. In the end, Raimi managed to sneak a brief cameo for Campbell in the last scene of the film. Other cameos include an uncredited Jenny Agutter as the scientist leading the team behind Peyton's recovery and John Landis as another member of her team.
• The film proved tricky behind the scenes. McDormand and Raimi did not get on during the shoot, the script went through numerous rewrites and the film's editor allegedly quit after suffering a nervous breakdown. Raimi was also critical of studio interference, something he was then unused to as an independent filmmaker.
• The film marks the cinematic debut of Neal McDonough who plays one of the dockworkers seen at the beginning of the film.
• A number of actors were considered for the role of Darkman including Gary Oldman and Bill Paxton, who told Neeson about the audition before Neeson himself went for it. When Neeson was cast, he and Paxton didn't speak to each other for some time afterwards.

Unfortunately, the film's ideas and concepts rarely seem to come together at any point in the film. Darkman veers wildly from scene to scene, covering everything from atmospheric horror to tragic romance to goofy comedy and back again. It makes the film difficult to invest in because it never seems to settle down into a recognisable, predictable groove. I also found the regular appearance of famous cameos (see Fun Facts) off-putting as well, making the film feel a bigger deal than it actually is. Perhaps the biggest factor that keeps the film in a B-movie sphere is the narrative which is littered with plot holes and inconsistencies such as Peyton's new-found (and unexplained) ability to imitate people's voices perfectly. It feels like Raimi had all the enthusiasm producing these ideas but ran out of energy or funds when it came time to actually film them.

As good as Neeson is, there is precious little support elsewhere in the cast. McDormand, who is normally as solid a star as you can find anywhere, feels detached and uninvolved in the film although I'm inclined to forgive her in what is an underwritten role for an actor of her talents. Drake is effective as the main henchman but totally overshadows poor Friels who feels uninspired and hammy as the apparent criminal mastermind. Perhaps if the film hadn't had so much of it cut in post-production, the film might have made more sense. As it is, Darkman runs as though it skips several pages at a time in order to get everything in and honestly, an extra ten or fifteen minutes might have benefitted the film enormously.

Darkman is a really wasted opportunity, compressing a lot of ideas into a film that isn't big enough to contain them all. This results in narrative inconsistencies, an uneven tone and a frustrating lack of quality in the final product. It's a shame because I get what Raimi was aiming for here and with Neeson demonstrating his talent in the lead, there is plenty for fans of the director to enjoy here. It's not his strongest effort but Raimi does just enough to make Darkman one of those films that you'll either love it or love laughing at it.

Great For: early 90s superhero fans, Neeson's rising profile, helping Raimi conclude his Evil Dead trilogy

Not So Great For: anyone expecting a more serious superhuman film, empowering viewers with facial disfigurements, contemporary superhero audiences used to the MCU

Given that Larry Drake was the only cast member to return for either of the sequels and that there weren't given a theatrical release, it's safe to say that Darkman II: The Return Of Durant and Darkman III: Die Darkman Die aren't worth the effort trying to find a copy of. Raimi would have far more success in the superhero genre with the original Spider-Man trilogy, one of a number of films that proved that superhero films didn't have to be cheap, corny and poor quality. The first two films in particular were widely acclaimed by critics and audiences alike and while Spider-Man 3 wasn't a bad film as such, its relative failure led to the series ending prematurely - at least, in my opinion - and the release of Iron Man the next year mean led to the creation of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) and the continuing torrent of superhero films that have left us allergic to the sight of anyone in a cape.

Despite there being no shortage of superheroes in comics (many of which have already been adapted into films), filmmakers have still created their own characters who have subsequently gone on to become cult figures themselves. Perhaps the most famous is The Toxic Avenger who debuted on screen in 1984 and has returned for a number of sequels and remakes (the most recent in 2023 with Peter Dinklage in the title role) ever since. Other examples include The Incredibles which is a loving homage to vintage superhero films of yore, early M. Night Shyalaman thriller Unbreakable and off-beat comedy Super which sees Rainn Wilson adopt a crime-fighting alter ego in order to win his wife back from a local drug dealer. Of course, many of us these days are tired of all things superhero with both Marvel and DC offering mediocre efforts such as Madame Web, The Marvels, Blue Beetle and the ill-advised Joker sequel, Folie A Deux. There is a real reason why the term 'superhero fatigue' exists and it will be interesting to see how the genre reacts in the near future.