Why Liam Neeson's Horror Superhero Darkman Never Got A Proper Sequel

Technically, Sam Raimi's 1990 superhero/monster movie "Darkman" has two sequels. In 1995, Bradford May directed "Darkman II: The Return of Durant," a film that resurrects the villainous Durant (played by the amazing Larry Drake), with Arnold Vosloo replacing Liam Neeson as Dr. Peyton Westlake, aka. Darkman). Raimi has a "based on characters created by" credit on "Darkman II," but he didn't actually work on its script and merely served as an executive producer. "Darkman II" was also made for a relatively minuscule $4 million, which was less than a third of the budget for Raimi's original ($14 million), and went straight-to-home-media with little fanfare.

The same is true of May's "Darkman III: Die, Darkman, Die," which also starred Vosloo and featured Jeff Fahey as a new crime boss named Rooker. That film went straight-to-home-media in August 1996 and was made for, from the look of it, an equally low amount of money. Most fans of Raimi's "Darkman" haven't necessarily seen "Darkman II" and "Darkman III," forcing them into the realm of pop culture footnotes. They are official sequels, but they were not Raimi projects and Neeson wasn't in them.

Honestly, it's a little baffling that Raimi and Neeson never re-teamed to make a theatrical sequel to "Darkman." The film was a modest hit, grossing more than triple its budget in theaters, and attracted mostly positive notices. (It has an 81% critics' score on Rotten Tomatoes.) Raimi's zany, cartoonish sensibilities may've made Universal nervous, but they also resulted in something unique and striking.

Way back in 1992, Cinefantastique Magazine asked Raimi's producing partner, Robert Tapert, about any potential sequel to "Darkman," and he revealed that it was all a matter of money. Yes, "Darkman" was a success, but it wasn't successful enough to warrant a return. It was as simple as that.

"Darkman," to remind readers, is a Gothic superhero tale in the mold of Tim Burton's "Batman" from the year before. It's equally dark, but in a more fantastical sort of way. "Darkman" feels a lot like a Universal monster flick from the 1930s as well, with scenes of the skinless Darkman skulking around in a hat and coat, his face bandaged like the Invisible Man. Neeson himself is gleefully twisted as Peyton Westlake, a man who loses his face and most of his skin in an explosion, only to gain the ability to make photosensitive flesh masks that melt in the sun. (As you might imagine, Neeson's "Darkman" makeup wasn't pleasant to wear.)

Tapert, when asked about the possibility of a second "Darkman" movie in 1992, was pessimistic and blunt:

"'Darkman' didn't do enough business to generate the kind of money that makes it worth making a sequel; they're not going to give us a $25 million budget. I don't think Sam wants to make a sequel, and I don't want to make a sequel to that movie." 

And that was that. 

Raimi has idly addressed the topic of a "Darkman" sequel over the years, including in a 2022 interview with The Wrap. He was told that Universal was planning a new "Darkman" project without him, but had a very blasé attitude about it. "I haven't heard the story yet or gone into it," he explained. "[...] But I think it's cool." Raimi also said that he felt that his "Darkman" should have been more successful and that a proper sequel would've happened if it had been. Basically, he admitted that while he would make another "Darkman" film with Neeson, neither of them had plans to do so.

Both Raimi and Tapert seem to have put "Darkman" behind them.