Viking Night: Darkman
By Bruce Hall
February 23, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Once upon a time, there was a talented young director who wanted to make a superhero movie. But nobody with the power to make it happen was willing to trust him with an existing property. So, he created his own hero and managed to get a picture made around the character. He got Danny Elfman to write the music. He got Liam Neeson and Frances McDormand to star in it. He even found a place for Bruce Campbell. And if I’m the one you’re talking to, I’d say the results were mixed like nuts. In fact, if it weren’t for Sam Raimi, I’m not sure I’d like Darkman very much. It’s a pretty pedestrian story and a lot of its creative shots miss the mark. But if nothing else, Raimi proved that generally speaking, he knew what he was doing. And if you look at Darkman that way - as a proof of concept, its shortcomings are much easier to forgive.
It doesn’t hurt that years later, Raimi was attached to the new Spider-Man franchise and he did great things with it. In fact the second (and best) of those films successfully executed a dramatic arc similar to the one that hadn’t quite worked with Darkman. In large part, Raimi’s experience with Darkman would seem to be a blueprint for the success of both Spider-Man films. I say "both" because everyone says there was a third one; I just have no idea what they’re all talking about.
One of the most reliable plot staples in science fiction is the scientist whose life is radically changed by hubris. Stories like that usually have something to do with the old idea that intelligence is no defense against selfishness. It was at the center of the Frankenstein myth, and Sam Raimi was a big fan of Universal Studios’ classic horror catalogue. So when he set about creating Darkman, he drew on both of these sources for inspiration, and on Universal for a home. Our scientist is this case is Peyton Westlake (Neeson, dodgy American accent and all). He’s your standard movie egghead, always single handedly inventing things in a basement with a set of socket wrenches that in real life would take dozens of people and billions of dollars. What Westlake has managed to create is a skin replacement that could ease the suffering of millions worldwide.
The only catch is that the substance dissolves after a time in sunlight. (At this point, I want you to keep in the back of your mind the fact that movie scientists never invent anything that isn’t also ironic). Westlake has been recently engaged (irony alert) to Julie Hastings (McDormand), who makes good use of her competent sounding name as a corporate lawyer. Julie has just uncovered damning evidence on her boss and a local drug kingpin named Durant (Larry Drake, whose deliciously diabolical performance deserves much more screen time). The men retaliate but instead of going after her, they go after her fiancé.
Now go ahead; admit it. You can already see where this is going. Durant and his goons attack Peyton, badly burning him to the point where the world believes he’s dead. But a revolutionary treatment saves his life and keeps him from feeling the pain of his burns. It also gives him incredible strength, along with a slight case of ‘roid rage. Too bad, because Peyton leaves the hospital to find his lab destroyed, his girlfriend dating again, and if I remember correctly his pickup breaks down and his dog also dies - not to mention the fact his terrible burns mean an office job is off the table. So Peyton’s goal becomes to win back Julie and get brutal payback on the people who ruined him.
Using the patented Fake Skin tech we mentioned earlier, Peyton is able to mimic the appearance of other people, making it easy to get close to his victims – at first. But naturally he finds revenge distasteful and longs to be back with his girl, which is impossible now that everything has changed. But by the time his conscience catches up with him, so do his enemies, who take the decision out of his hands. It’s all out war, winner take all. Darkman is a drama, it’s a horror movie, and it’s even got a little comedy. It just isn’t very interesting.
The problem for me is here is that while Darkman’s individual origin story is very inventive, the plot itself is just a standard issue revenge flick, no better than a below average episode of a below average cop show. Neeson and McDormand are far better known today than they were in 1990 so their presence here is fortunate, but only occasionally helpful. Neeson’s dramatic chops are tough to question but this material required someone who could pull off an action role with a wink and a nod (like Michael Douglas, who would never have put on all that burn makeup). Although Neeson has always had the brawn to pull off an action flick, most would agree that humor is probably not his strong suit. Then again, had Bruce Campbell (or Bruce Willis, who would never have put on all that burn makeup) played the lead this would have been a very different movie – and one that I would have liked more. Frances McDormand is a fine actress who happens to excel at comedy, but her inherently maternal appeal doesn’t quite fit the "superhero girlfriend" mold. Like Neeson, her dramatic abilities aren’t challenged by this material, which makes her unsuitability for it all the more apparent.
Much of this is Raimi’s fault, because he has little eye for drama and has never been known for getting the best out of his actors in this way. You can’t always get the people you want, so it pays to be able to bring out of an actor their best work relative to the content. On the upside, Larry Drake is so hilariously evil as Durant that they (improbably) brought him back for another movie. Danny Elfman isn’t quite "Danny Elfman" yet, but his score is more than a serviceable match for Darkman’s gently cheesy brand of action/drama/comedy/horror.
Again on the positive side, Sam Raimi’s strengths happen to be just as prominent as his faults. He’s a master at capturing the "feel" of his material, if only on a superficial level. And his direction is full of such visual joy and flourish that almost anything he creates is worth watching just for that. He shares with his muse Hitchcock the ability to endow films with personality in both subtle and not so subtle ways. I won’t bore you with details on that except to say that there’s always something about a Sam Raimi film that people tend to appreciate even if they don’t immediately notice it. So while you might not hear him mentioned in the same breath with Hitchcock, the former worships at the altar of the latter and like his idol, it doesn’t take more than a few minutes to tell that you’re watching his work.
That’s really the saving grace of Darkman, the fact that Raimi is involved. The movie’s dramatic aspirations added length to the story but not much in the way of depth. Sure there was a scientist tormented by his creation, a good man tormented by the bad things he’d done, a plucky girlfriend, an oily villain – these are all staples of the genre. But there’s little materially to keep it interesting except some great camera work and a subversive sense of humor.
Comic books, in the most fundamental sense, are soap operas for little boys. They satisfy a visual need, promote a superficial level of brain activity and give you something to do when you’re bored. But in the hands of a man with the heart of a child, they often become something more memorable. So if Darkman could be considered in a direct ancestor of Spider-Man, it’s fair to call it successful because the latter franchise was blessed with a better story to go along with Raimi’s visual talents. Otherwise, Darkman just makes good research material for an article like this. Or if you’re into the whole "before they were stars" thing, check out Liam Neeson when he was still subject to the indignity of a zany Sam Raimi action closeup. And check out Sam Raimi, back when he still had something to prove.