Darkman III: Die Darkman Die

The second sequel to Darkman is action packed but lacks the greatness of its prequel, Darkman.The action scenes are good and the acting by the returning Darkman played by Arnold Vosloo are good.This sequel is a good film but I prefer the original Darkman first.

Despite what people say, I found DARKMAN III to be a better sequel than DARKMAN II. It had a quicker pace and more action that helped move the standard story along. Jeff Fahey is fun to watch as always, and Arnold Vosloo again does a good job portraying a sympathetic hero. The use of footage from the previous film in some scenes is a little distracting, but otherwise it's pretty good, and the scenes in which (a disguised) Darkman interact with the villain's child are nice. Obviously not up to par with Sam Raimi's original, but better than the previous sequel. I doubt we'll see them, but I wouldn't mind some more sequels.

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.

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

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!