New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

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.

Continued:       1       2       3