Darkman III: Die Darkman Die

Within the first 17 minutes of director Bradford May's "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die", we have already been subjected to a silly recap and accompanying voice-over on the first two films, hilarious over-acting, about three minutes of footage simply ripped from the second film and re-edited slightly to seem like new footage, and a lengthy advertisement the scarred and tormented title character watches about Universal Theme Parks- Universal being the company that distributed this film. Yes, "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die" is quite the handful when it comes to cheap cash-ins on the success of a previous film.

This time around, the disfigured anti-hero Peyton Westlake (aka, "Darkman"; portrayed by "Mummy" actor Arnold Vosloo) locks horns with evil crime-lord and lousy husband Peter Rooker (played in a brilliantly over-the-top performance by Jeff Fahey), and over the course of the 87 minute film grows to develop an affection for Rooker's wife and daughter, once again learning to care for another person.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

This film is basically just a silly way for the studio to make some more money off of Sam Raimi's original film, which I consider to be a great action-suspense film.

Oh yeah, and there are also a number of silly sub-plots, including a villainess who supposedly was one of the original doctors to save Darkman following his scarring, and her seducing our hero into thinking she is an ally before revealing her nefarious plot to help Rooker create more super-human powered thugs like Darkman. Apparently, she can't just do the same procedure on the thugs that she performed on Darkman. Why? I can't really explain it, because the movie certainly doesn't.

There's also an assassination sub-plot involving a District Attourney who is threatening to bring down Rooker's organization, and some other very silly things going on.

But it doesn't really add up. This film feels like two or three episodes of a television show edited together more than an actual film. The direction alternates between pretty good and downright sloppy (a scene where Darkman rides his train-like vehicle and dodges a rocket-launcher is just plain silly), and the editing is a mixed-bag. The film just moves too quickly for anyone to really care what's going on. And without spoiling it, the final 15 minutes of this movie, and indeed, the entire series is just kinda... I dunno... Another 15 minutes of mixed-bag footage.

In fact, commenting on the editing, one of my favorite things in this film is watching for footage re-used from the previous films, and then looking for footage within this film that is repeated multiple times. Yes, it's that cheap. It's one thing to do a re-cap at the beginning of the film, and maybe repeat a shot or two, but in the sheer volume they do it (minutes of footage repeated from previous films), it's just sloppy and amateurish.

Also, I have to say that Darkman's psychedelic montage freak-outs are a bit overdone in this film. They are so stylized and overdone that they do work, but only in light doses and in proper context, as Raimi did in the original film. Here, there are at least four or five, and they feel very abrupt and out-of-place.

That being said, the film is not without some good points. A few action scenes are well-done. The cliché story of Darkman yearning for a real life works suitably for a direct-to-DVD feature. Some of the acting is nice, particularly from Rooker's wife, portrayed by the beautiful Roxann Dawson. Also, while no Danny Elfman, composer Randy Miller composes some nice music that builds off of Elfman's original themes.

But overall, the film is too quick, cheap and silly to be taken seriously. Arnold Vosloo seems alternatively bored and exuberant from scene to scene, and Fahey, while a joy to watch as an over-the-top villain, just doesn't quite fit in with the series.

Like "Darkman II", I would recommend this to fans of the original, who will surely get a laugh. Otherwise, you need not apply. A four out of ten.

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.

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

"Darkman III" is probably the poorest film in the series, yet it still has some intriguing moments, and it deserves some praise for at least TRYING to develop the themes that the series had already introduced, instead of simply copying them like most sequels ("Jaws 2" or "Predator 2", for example) do. The gruesome unpleasantness of the original "Darkman" is toned down, like it had been in the first sequel (the best film in the series). But that sequel had much more action, and it also had Larry Drake, who is SORELY missed here, since the villain is played by a narcissistic Jeff Fahey. Even with its weak points, however, "Darkman III" is no worse than "average".