Darkman

Of all the super-hero movies around, "Darkman" is my favourite. An original creation from Raimi, and not based on any comics, "Darkman" follows the story of Dr. Peyton Westlake, a scientist about to make a breakthrough in synthetic skin. Peyton's girlfriend, Julie Hastings is a hot-shot lawyer who gets on the wrong side of Robert G. Durant. Durant and his henchmen destroy Peyton's lab, and leave him for dead. Horribly burned and scarred beyond recognition, Peyton uses his uncompleted and synthetic skin to get revenge on those who wronged him - he becomes Darkman.

Darkman has no real super-powers - apart from some increased strength and his inability to feel pain - he uses the synthetic skin to assume the alternate identities, and fights his battles that way. Darkman is not a real super-hero. He makes no pledge to rid the world of evil-doers. He is just out for revenge, and every time Darkman acts, Darkman's dark-side claims just a little bit more of Peyton.

Others have mentioned the parallels to 'Robocop'. I'd like to mention the parallels to Sam Raimi's recent efforts with 'Spider-Man' - the two are very similar style-wise, but Peter Parker/Spider-Man is generally pretty happy and cheerful, where as Darkman finds sadistic pleasure in the way he toys with his enemies before finishing them off. 'Spider-Man' is family-friendly, 'Darkman' is not the sort of movie you would want to show to parents or younger-siblings.

'Darkman' is original, and yet another under-rated classic from Sam Raimi. Check it out if you like Sam Raimi, but avoid if you enjoy the family-friendly nature of 'Spider-Man'. Definitely my favourite super-hero movie, and nearly up there with Tim Burton's 'Batman' and 'Batman Returns', the best super-hero movies ever.

7/10

I liked this movie because it showed the consequences of being vengeful. Peyton Westlake was a scientist who experimented with artificial skin and hoped to perfect it to help burn victims. When he was mutilated and burned beyond recognition by Robert Durant. He turned his experiment into a weapon of revenge. He would disguise himself as his enemies and turn Durant's criminal organization against itself.

As he goes through this Westlake becomes Darkman. He no longer cares about helping humanity, but only about getting revenge. His soul loses everything that made him a man, and in the end he's a killing machine. He's just as bad as those who made him that in the first place.

But that's why I liked the movie. It doesn't glorify vengeance seeking, instead it shows the reality and consequences. Seeking revenge doesn't just hurt your enemy, it hurts you as well.

Stumbled upon this movie backtracking Liam Neeson movies. Frances McDormand & Sam Raimi upped my hopes.

Otherwise an average movie of the 90s, I found these 2 absolute steals by the Mission Impossible franchise from this 1990 movie:

1. The hooking of helicopter so that it crashes - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 1

2. The henchman kills his own mate thinking it to be the hero but its actually his mate who is taped behind the hero's mask - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2

What do you think guys??

For a Class-B type movie and feel to it, it's pretty good....better than I anticipated. I've seen it twice and enjoyed it more the second time. I had forgotten how stylish-looking it was and it was fun to see.

What I did remember were a couple of wild scenes, such as "Darkman" (Liam Neeson) being swung around in the sky on the end of a chain from a helicopter, and the big fire scene early on which turns Neeson's character into the masked hero.

The villains in the movie are over-the-top, leading with Larry Drake's character "Durant." There also is some outrageous Rambo action which stretches way past credibility, such as people shooting from five feet away and missing our hero!

Overall, not as good as the critics would have you believe, but still entertaining. At least it has two quality actors in Neeson and Frances McDormand. Drake went on to play the infamous "Dr. Giggles." If you liked this crazy film, you'll love that one.

This movie might have joined the ranks of the utterly forgettable Z-movies of the genre had it not been for excellent direction, superb characterization, and outstanding acting on the part of Liam Neeson, who played Peyton Westlake/Darkman, and Larry Drake, who played his enemy, the arch-villain, Durant. The movie presents the destruction of a man by a psychopathic monster for utterly trivial reasons -- and makes it clear that however horrifying the physical damage perpetrated on Peyton Westlake by Durant's minions might be, the effect on his soul and spirit is far worse. At the same time, it showed that in spite of what happened to him, Westlake/Darkman was able to rise above it at least enough to choose the life of a giver of justice rather than one of evil, as the physically unscarred drug-lord Durant & Co., the _real_ monsters in this film, had. This film does _not_ glamorize psychopathic, criminal violence in any way, but rather shows it for what it really is: repellant, ugly, and contemptible, destroying life and everything that supports it without a qualm for no better reason than cheap thrills or a very minor profit. This is _not_ a typical Hollywood film, nor just a cheap garage-flick monster movie special. It shows with graphic realism exactly what is left when conscience, civilization, and the rest of the more delicate mechanisms that constitute our humanity are stripped away: pure beastliness, without glamour and without redemption of any sort. -- And it shows, as well, that even when everything is taken from a man, he can rise above it, choose to remain a man, however damaged, rather than sinking down to the level of the beast.