Darkman III: Die Darkman Die

I had the same feelings about this third installment as I had with the second, back in the mid 90's when I saw it for the first time. DARKMAN III even proved to be that forgettable, that I had completely forgotten about the story when I popped it in the VCR this week. Once again, I can safely say that I liked it better this time around. Was it because my expectations were now less? Or because by now I had seen a whole heap crappier movies already? I don't now… But in any case, this is still a fun sequel, again not near as good as the original, but this time certainly on par with the second. As sad as I was to experience the absence of Larry Drake (who played Robert G. Durant in the first two movies) in this one, I must say B-movie star Jeff Fahey is one hell of a replacement as the movie's main villain (Peter Rooker, chairman of Rooker Inc.). He plays it just the way it was required (a little over the top, evil-style) and is very convincing in his 'cartoonish' role. The lighting is often put to good use in this film, as for instance sometimes when Fahey spews an evil one-liner, his face is often half lit, leaving one side drenched in shadows. Notice even in the previous installments that Larry Drake's face often was lit from below, making him indeed look more menacing. Those are nice little details for me that I always appreciate.

I'm quite sure that parts 2 and 3 were shot back-to-back, since they look and feel the same, they were both directed by Bradford May, and even in the introduction scenes of the second one, you can already see clips of shots and events that don't happen until in the third one. Other than this being somewhat useless trivia, it also means that if you liked THE RETURN OF DURANT, you will most certainly like DIE DARKMAN DIE too. This time there's even a little gore here and there. A guy gets decapitated (the same way as it is not shown in the first one ). Darkman removes an electric implant from his neck with a pair of tongs out of a gross-looking wound. Another guy gets that same implant stuck in his eye, which turns his face into a burned nasty mish-mash. Fun stuff! The climax in the end isn't much, but at least there is one, sort of, this time: It involves a lot of fist-fighting and Jeff Fahey going enjoyably over-the-top again.

So there you have it. The Original, in my humble opinion, is a must-see for anyone who digs Sam Raimi's earlier movies. The sequels are just a fun ride for the less demanding horror/action fans. The recently released triple-disc box-set of the DARKMAN trilogy might be a nice purchase for newer fans who like to get acquainted with this vengeful Super-Hero from the Dark Side.

Fans of the DARKMAN movies might also want to check out Dynamite Entertainment's DARKMAN VS. ARMY OF DARKNESS, the 4-issue comic book version. It's a fun (as in comical & 'cartoonish') crossover between the DARKMAN and EVIL DEAD movie franchises, featuring a complete new story-line and the return of two lovable movie characters to the painted page (Darkman & Ash)... and a whole bunch of not-so-lovable more if you count in the 'deadites' :)

This movie in fact is probably every bit as good as the second sequel.One of my complaints about this movie is the change in the character of Peyton Westlake/Darkman. In the first movie he was a tortured man battling strong demons within himself, whereas in this movie he seems to be fully developed into a wise-cracking comic book type character. We only get a small hint of Darkman's emotional state throughout the entire film and that's about it.

I think this movie's was made as an action movie rather than anything else. The action sequences aren't bad either.

Also Jeff Fahey's character, Rooker is good but feels somewhat shallow, as if more of the character needed to be developed before we could believe he was truly evil. Arnold Vosloo is an interesting choice to play Darkman and brings his own style to the character. Add to this the plight of Darkman falling in love again and having to painfully remember that he can never share his feelings with another person and you have the makings of a good movie.

Maybe they should have spent more time on the characters than the action. Maybe this would have made the movie better. But nevertheless it is still quite an entertaining movie and works well if you don't stop to think about it. 6/10

it's not really bad for a third in the series,, and yes i know that this one was supposed to be the 2nd and all , and return of Durant was supposed to be the third,, but tha't s not why i'm here to discuss this movie,, first off Jeff fahey, is pretty damn good as a villain,, almost as good as Jeff fahey, and in this one you also have a villainess fahey 's assistant,, darlanne fleuggel,, few of you probably remember her from the TV show ,, HUNTER with Fred dryer / ex NFL player.. well storyline goes , that dark man rips off the bad guys shipment, and uses proceeds to further his research . darlanne fleugel's character is very charming and believable as she tries to schmooze our hero,, will she succeed ? will dark man be overcome by her beauty charm and seductivness only can only watch and find out.

Dr Peyton Westlake continues to live in the City's sewer system, hiding his disfigured face and working on his synthetic skin. When he steals money from a criminal gang to buy more medical equipment he draws the attention of Peter Rooker. Rooker uses Dr Thorne to get to Westlake and work out how he has become so strong. With Rooker planning to create a small army of `Darkmen' Westlake must learn to trust again to overcome Rooker's plan.

Despite the fact that this was another direct to video sequel and that it was shot at the same time as Darkman 2, it is actually quite good. In terms of the basic story it could have been better (creating super strong street thugs) but really there is plenty in the plot to enjoy. Westlake posing as Rooker and finding joy in Rooker's family life etc brings more humanity to the film than was done in part 2. Obviously the plot does has weaknesses – it's very short for one, it's quite clichéd for another, although there are nice touched around Rooker.

The use of OTT visuals and nightmare vision scenes is retained and very like Rami's style – in fact some of the shot almost mirror the first film. While Westlake lacks some of the craziness that he had in the first film he is still a tortured soul – it's just a shame that this is mixed with the image of him as a sort of Batman figure.

Vosloo (best know as the Mummy) isn't as good as Neeson and sounds like he's reading some of his voice over lines. However he still does OK, but it's pertinent that he takes second billing behind Fahey. It's not Vosloo's fault that his character has become an ill-conceived Batman type. Fahey may well be playing an one-dimensional character but he does it well. He's not a great actor but he can hold his own in TVM's and video movies! The rest of the cast are OK but suffice to say you're never in any doubt that this never saw the inside of many cinemas.

Overall it's not brilliant but it's actually quite good – certainly better than the second. Basically you know what know what you're getting and it doesn't let you down. Also – it's got a really cool title….'Die Darkman, Die'……B-movie homage or what!

This starts out the only way they knew how to open an entry in this series... introducing the villain and building up how tough and ruthless he is(this time, a new guy, thankfully... I love Durant, but a third outing would have been pushing it). Rooker is the name, and he deals drugs(because that's what 90's bad guys do), and... er... he's a fanatic about physical strength(albeit he isn't a muscled beast)... even though he uses no less than two guns(well, only once), even firing one immediately after talking about how you can't make a point with such. Huh. Well, for all the personality he doesn't have, Jeff Fahey, common to B-movies, certainly gives a nice, over-the-top performance(as does someone else, I won't name them here... but maniacal laughter is had, and it is good). Darkman... still hasn't taken up vigilantism(beyond taking revenge), he continues to try to improve his liquid skin(seemingly having forgotten the breakthrough of the second one... yeah, there's no continuity between these), and this time, struggles with caring about regular people again, after all he's lost(not a bad arc, if there is no real thematic in this one). Once the two meet, a hefty battle ensues, which is exactly what we want to see(why didn't we get that in II? Right, because that one's padded like crazy), and the first one only had half the movie to get into that, since it was also the origin story. Still not an actually good movie, this is much more entertaining than the one before it. It emulates the fast pace of the '90 one(still lacking the visuals), with plenty of twists and turns(most of which make reasonable sense, though, sadly, several don't make a lasting impact), keeping it moving nearly constantly throughout the 83 minute running time(sans credits). There is a ton of action(some of those scenes being completely gratuitous!), that tend to be quite cool. This is tense, and genuinely makes you care. Roxann Dawson, of Voyager, really helps as the not-taking-it-anymore wife of aforementioned mobster. Her acting is the most sincere, and she has to deal with a lot of exposition(...which, I guess, makes her perfect for Star Trek). Vosloo remains a fine choice for the titular anti-hero. FX are decent. There is some bloody, gory(finally!) violence and a little moderate to strong language in this. I recommend this to fans of the Raimi take on it who are willing to settle. Not one you'll remember for long; however, it is quite enjoyable during the viewing. 5/10