just saw this again, probably hadnt seen it since it came out. its bad in a lot of ways but its a very intertaining movie. lots of familier faces. the action scenes are way over the top and cliched, which adds some more comedy to this film. lots of shoot outs, lots of explosions. cars bursting out of shipping crates in the middle of a shoot out, howd they get in there? most of this movie takes place in abandoned warehouses. seems appropriate. darkmans face is is disgusting,even by todays standards. i think this movie has batman quality to it. also- BRUCE CAMPBELL is in the last 5 seconds of the movie. i recognize that chin! groovy....
Yeah, there's way too much talent involved to label Darkman a bad movie. If anything, it's a stylish B-Movie that doesn't hide the fact.
That said, it's quite enjoyable and certainly one of the better movies that came out in 1990. Just my opinion.
This is the one with Liam Neeson, yes?
Been on cable recently. Good from what I've seen but didn't see the whole thing yet.
Loved this one when I rented the VHS in the 90s. It was also my introduction to Sam Raimi. Now I find the hyper-kinetic camerawork a bit distracting, but I still think it's a great superhero movie, specially considering how cheap it may have been. If anything, I regret that the sequels were so lame.
his is probably one of my favorite superhero movies ever. Even if it does feel as much like an old Universal Monster movie as it does a superhero movie at times.
I saw this one in the theatres when it came out; honestly I don't remember much about it except that I dug it at the time. Wouldn't mind seeing it again.
There were also two (direct to video) sequels to it if I remember correctly.
Quote from: FatFreddysCat on May 18, 2012, 12:24:13 PM
I saw this one in the theatres when it came out; honestly I don't remember much about it except that I dug it at the time. Wouldn't mind seeing it again.
There were also two (direct to video) sequels to it if I remember correctly.
Yes. But neither Liam Neeson nor Sam Raimi returned. Also, the violence was considerably toned down for the sequels.
Good movie! Now I'm wanting to watch it again. It's been so long. :thumbup:
:hot:
Take it NOW! TAKE IT! TAKE the f**king elephant!
Surely one of the greatest of all one-liners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r2YxRdyVNo
This is a pretty good movie. Liam Neeson as Darkman was a great character. The part at the beginning with the one guy who had a machine gun hidden in a false leg was one of my favorite parts.
I don't mind the two sequels that much. Their not bad, but just don't capture the magic of the first one.
I saw this in theatres when it came out, before I had any real B-film appreciation. I thought it was pretty good. What sticks in the mind is the cigar cutter scene. Now I look at clips, its a LOT Sillier than I remember in places.
-Ed
Love this flick. I have not seen the sequels though. Have any of you?
This is more or less a perfect(ly entertaining) movie, in my book. There isn't a single thing you could change to make it better. Darkman is still Sam Raimi's best movie and the best comic-book movie ever, even though it isn't based on a comic book.
Liam Neeson should have won a damned Oscar for this movie.
I have always liked Darkman a great deal since I originally saw it during its initial theatrical run. A truly underrated film! I do wish though that they would revisit the blu-ray as the original blu-ray that I own had way too much digital noise reduction (DNR) applied that made everybody look like they had been dipped in candle wax.
Quote from: crackers on May 23, 2012, 06:09:25 PM
Love this flick. I have not seen the sequels though. Have any of you?
Yeah. The first one features the mobster from the first movie, Durant, coming out of a coma. Which if you remember what happened to him in the first movie is a miracle he wasn't cooked to a cinder and broken into a million pieces. Durant's plan is to use laser weapons to take over the city.
The second one features a mobster trying to replicate Darkman's strength and the Doctor who originally found his body tracking him down.
These two are much more in the line of superhero movies then the original which had plenty of horror elements.
Quote from: Torgo on May 30, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
I have always liked Darkman a great deal since I originally saw it during its initial theatrical run. A truly underrated film! I do wish though that they would revisit the blu-ray as the original blu-ray that I own had way too much digital noise reduction (DNR) applied that made everybody look like they had been dipped in candle wax.
Just a matter of opinion I guess. Personally I don't think it looks as bad as the DNR Predator re-release. Here's a review from Blu-ray.com about Darkman's image quality:
QuoteDarkman is as schizophrenic on Blu-ray as Peyton Westlake becomes after his unfortunate "accident." Arriving from Universal with a VC-1 encoded 1080p image in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1, Darkman can be appealingly sharp, with well saturated colors one moment, and then distressingly soft and blanched the next. I have to lay most of this to the source elements, though one has to wonder why such a widely variant quality is so evident here. For instance, the opticals behind the opening title sequence look horrible--dirty, grainy and soft beyond even what one might regularly ascribe to mist and clouds. Contrast that with "Peyton"'s first identity swap, in Pauly's (Nicholas Worth) room, where detail is extremely crisp and colors and contrast are incredibly strong. As befits its title, a lot of this film plays out in shadow and dusk, and for the most part black levels are excellent. The film elements do display occasional scratches, flecks and other blemishes, so if DNR was applied (and it sure doesn't look like it was to me), it was done very minimally.