Darkman III: Die Darkman Die (1996 Video) User Reviews

Darkman 3: Exit Larry Drake... Enter Jeff Fahey

[Vomitron_G · 6/10 · 4 February 2008]

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' :)

At least it's fun

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 5/10 · 21 September 2012]

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

Larry Drake is sorely missed, but the film is still passable.

[gridoon · 5/10 · 16 November 1999]

"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".

Not great but solid entertainment

[bob the moo · 27 June 2002]

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!

"Darkman III: Die Darkman Die"... sigh.

[TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness · 4/10 · 2 April 2009]

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.

dark man - Durant

[kairingler · 5/10 · 13 September 2012]

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.

Darkman III: Die Darkman Die

[phubbs · 5/10 · 22 November 2016]

One year later and another straight to video sequel came along once again directed by Bradford May. So bottom line we knew what to expect with this and bottom line I don't think we were too disappointed. What was kinda disappointing was the opening of this movie which, once again, started with the same recap of the original that we saw in the second movie. To top that, they even appear to actually use some of the same footage from the second movie to kick off this third movies plot, the same footage!

So this time Westlake (Arnold Vosloo again) is still looking to create synthetic skin that won't disintegrate over time. He is approached by Dr. Bridget Thorne (Darlanne Fluegel) who was apparently one of the original doctors who helped save Westlake's life in the original plot (supposedly in the original movie, but obviously she wasn't in that movie). She claims that she wants to help Westlake, but low and behold she's actually working for corrupt businessman Peter Rooker (Jeff Fahey) who simply wants to unlock Westlake's gift of super strength for his own devious deeds.

The start of this movie looks much like a straight to video affair which was to be expected to be truthful. If the second flick was a slightly trashy looking feature then obviously this would be no different. With both sequels directed by May you could be forgiven for thinking he made both one after the other, seeing as they start off in exactly the same way, same credits, same recaps, same Batman-esque soundtrack by Danny Elfman, same overall style etc...So in one sense, both movies are, continuity wise, very neat and tidy. All together the whole trilogy fits together nicely with the same overall visuals and atmosphere.

The actual movie is of course a golden cornucopia of stereotypical action flick clichés, positively brewing over with them. The bad guys are a small bunch of very slick, smartly dressed men with sharp haircuts. Their leader (Jeff Fahey) is a smooth talking son of a gun with a large house, loads of dosh, a hot wife, a kid and an even slicker haircut than his henchmen. His second in command seems to be homosexual but I'm not too sure how that is supposed to figure into the plot, it just seems to be there. What I did find amusing, something that you saw often in dated action flicks, was how the main bad guy lived in a large house, apparently with all his henchmen. Its like...do all these guys live together? Do these henchmen actually have their own places or do they sleep in the spare rooms? In certain scenes you would see these guys just standing around with their boss as he past the time playing his piano or watching TV or whatever. The whole thing just looks so stupid, like is that all they do all day?? Its such a weird trope of dated action flicks.

As for Fahey's villain, he's a slimeball, he treats his kid badly, cheats on his wife (his wife is naive and dumb it seems), and he talks like a gentleman even though he clearly isn't one. So yeah he's a good villain, a real grease stain with slick back hair. Darlanne Fluegel also does well as the sexy blonde villainess purely because she's a sexy blonde villainess, not much more to say there (stereotypical characters). The plot is fine but rather dull, silly in places and repetitive frankly. Naturally Westlake is still looking to create the perfect synthetic skin and naturally he's gotta fight these bad guys to succeed in getting around to that. Nothing special really, obviously he wins, obviously he doesn't manage with his ultimate goal leaving the franchise open for more. The action is fine but bland, effects are fine but uneventful except for one large explosion towards the end where I'm sure the stunt guys caught on fire by accident. It looks like the size and timing of the explosion caught them by surprise, but who knows.

This final film does really feel more like a made for TV movie than the other two. That's not to say its bad, it still carries the Darkman name well and carries on with the seedy, tacky, grim, trashy atmosphere which was started by Raimi originally. The main problem is it doesn't really offer anything new, nothing fresh is brought to the table here, it feels a bit stale and lacks real bite. Nonetheless it still feels like a solid throwaway comicbook flick, an easy going Saturday night in with a takeaway type flick. As a trilogy all three films are solid entertainment, with this final film being the weakest, but its still engaging and enjoyable.

5.5/10

Pretty bad sequel

[Bogey Man · 3/10 · 16 June 2002]

Darkman 3: Die Darkman Die is directed by Bradford May, the same guy who made the first Darkman sequel too. Darkman 3 is worse than Darkman 2, and is nothing special, in my opinion. Larry Drake is no more as a main villain, who is now played by great Jeff Fahey, whose character once again wants to get Darkman's work and create this time some ultra strong humans in order to get the leadership of the whole city. The film is pretty much the same in plot and execution as Darkman 2, but I was mostly irritated by the presence of many scenes from Darkman 2. These sequels were made in short time and with little money, so these kind of decisions had to be made. Couple of scenes are pretty stylish and exiting, but still this is pretty tired film and often irritatingly stupid, too. The characters scream and laugh too much and it is very annoying. There is no any philosophical depth in the film, and this is like a remake of Darkman 2 which it still cannot equal. Darkman 2 had many great scenes and stylish camera work, and Larry Drake's ability to play great villain. Darkman 3 offers only some nice scenes and moments, but mostly this film is tired and full of cliches. The few positive things in this movie are flashback edits (Westlake's nightmares) and couple of truly surprising plot turns and tricks. And worth mentioning is also pretty nasty death scene of the main villain which was pretty comic book like and inventive without any gore. Far more interesting than the death of main villain in part two.

Darkman 3 is worst in the whole series, and we must remember that these two sequels were made directly to video and they don't come even close to Raimi's original Darkman with Liam Neeson. Darkman 2 was okay actioner with plenty of great scenes and suspense, but this last (?) entry is tired and often stupid and boring piece of sequel. It has some merits as mentioned, but overall feeling is that this should not been made in the first place. May is talented director so hopefully he can get some more noteworthy projects in the future.

3/10

Better than the second try

[MSusimetsa · 4/10 · 5 November 2001]

This third Darkman was definitely better than the second one, but still far worse than the original movie. What made this one better than D2 was the fact that The Bad Guy had been changed and Durant was not brought back again. Furthermore there was actually some hint of character development when it came to the bad guy's family and Darkman himself. This made my heart soften and I gave this flick as much as 4/10, i.e. **/*****.

A good sequel!

[Movie Nuttball · 7/10 · 24 November 2002]

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.

A Rather Unsatisfying Conclusion

[Scars_Remain · 5/10 · 2 February 2008]

I watched the final Darkman movie last night and was entertained but I was also left wanting a lot more. I was very disappointed in the ending and I think it was a bad move on the writer's part, I won't go too into it to keep this review from getting a spoiler warning. The truth is, I had fun with this film, but was very let down.

I, once again, liked Arnold Vosloo's performance but the rest were mediocre at best, but mostly poor. The story is alright, but like I said, the ending really made me angry. It had pretty good special effects like the other films, but that's the only thing that was good about this one. Everything else was average.

See this movie if you liked the first two films but don't expect anything amazing.

Better Than The First Sequel

[breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com · 9/10 · 17 December 2011]

What makes Darkman III better than Darkman II? I would say the amount of substance makes the cake in this movie. Sure, all the elements stay intact from the first and second. Durant is finally dead (for good) and now Darkman has another villain to subdue. So what makes it different? Doesn't Darkman defeat his enemies like he's done for the past two movies? Yeah but Peyton Westlake becomes involved with another situation that actually hit a soft spot for me when I saw it.

Darkman III: Die Darkman Die, was directed by Bradford May whom I think did a pretty good job directing Darkman II. Not many Direct-To-Video sequels end up as good as their originals but Darkman II was very satisfying. I was expecting to see something mediocre but ended up seeing something worth my time. In this third installment in the franchise, Arnold Vosloo reprises his role as the face changing super hero. This time instead of just trying to get rid of a gang leader, he also tries to save a mother and child from utter destruction.

Playing the villain (Peter Rooker) in this film is Jeff Fahey. The character of Rooker is really selfish. He is hardheaded and has a sick twisted mind. If he were paired up against Robert G. Durant, I still think Rooker would come out on top. Rooker's wife, Angela, is played by Roxann Biggs. Truly I don't understand how they even fell in love at the start but my question is irrelevant since we're never really told about how they met.

Just like its predecessor, Darkman III does contain some witty dialog that the first Darkman film did not have. Credit to Bradford May for keeping most of the content the same but not all of it otherwise this film would not be better than Darkman II. There is even a scene that pays homage to the first movie. I won't say because what because its pretty obvious. The beginning of this film was the only thing that confused me. In Darkman II, we were explained about Darkman's past which is fine and all but then it's explained again in Darkman III in the beginning. They didn't do that for any other movie franchise; Batman, Superman, X-Men, RoboCop, or Terminator. Is that really necessary?

This film does contain good action but it also contains some very heartfelt drama scenes. It was at these points I felt like something better was added to this movie. It wasn't just Darkman doing what he did for the past two movies - just trying to get rid of his past. This was about Darkman helping someone else get rid of their problems. This is what distinguishes this film from Darkman II.

Bradford May's final installment of Raimi's Darkman series takes a better turn and adds a little more feeling than the usual to its story. Although it still does not measure up to the original, it surpasses Darkman II with triumph.

On third sequel a humanized Darkman!!!

[elo-equipamentos · 6/10 · 20 April 2019]

As previous ones the Darkman trilogy deserves to be revalued by the IMDB's users in this last one has the same level as such as Darkman 2, Jeff Fahey replaces Larry Drake with praise, a cool bloody man, in other hand a Darkman more susceptible to deceive and still more humanized, thus Sam Raimi could take ahead a forthcoming series, will be easily accepted by the general public, back to the picture worth to talk about the actress Roxann Dawson as Peter Hooker's wife, his beauty is breathtaking overcomes in miles Darlanne Fluegel as Fahey's mistress, the screenplay settle a fair condition to anti-hero of darkness, still no available on DVD format on brazilian's marquet yet, perhaps coming soon from an independent label!!!

Resume: First watch: 2019 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 6

" Crime has a new enemy and justice has a new face"..., (3.5/5)

[disdressed12 · 4/10 · 29 October 2007]

OK,but does that make this a good movie?well,not really,in my opinion.there isn't a whole lot to recommend it.i found it very slow,tediously,in fact.it's also predictable pretty much through and through.number one and two were somewhat predictable,but not as much.i also felt this movie was quite campy at times,which i didn't really think fits this series and the character.Jeff Fahey plays the main bad guy in this installment.he's a decent enough actor,but i felt he played his character too over the top.i guess that fit with the tone of the movie,which would have been great if i had liked the movie.plus,there were some pretty bad one liners.Arnold Vosloo returns in the title role,but is given little to work with in this movie.the character has not really evolved,as i had hoped.oh well.this is just my opinion.anyway,for me,while this movie is not abysmal,it is pretty bad.my vote for Darkman III: 3.5/5

Not as good as the first, but better than the second

[nighthawk77 · 12 June 2002]

The first Darkman movie was awesome. The 2nd was stupid. Durant comes back from the dead to torment Darkman once more, please. If you're in the kind of chopper crash he was in, you're dead and you stay dead.

This sequel however was pretty good. Darkman is tricked by a doctor into allowing a procedure to reconnect his nervous system, but instead it's connected to some kind of electric shock device. She uses it on him if he doesn't obey her.

Darkman's skin formula and diskette the forumula's on are stolen by the doctor's boyfriend Rooker. Darkman has to try to get them back, but while he's doing this, ends up falling in love with Rooker's emotionally battered wife and child.

The movie would've been better if it wasn't done on a shoe string budget with lowgrade special effects (like garbage cans sailing into the air when they explode, please). But it's still a step up from the 2nd movie.

Die Dorkman Die

[Ripe Peach · 1/10 · 29 May 2001]

Normally I'm quite disposed to like low budget gonzo films, but Darkman III is so appallingly unengaging that I feel nothing but contempt for it.

It looks and feels like a TV show, and a particularly shoddy one at that. The sets are sparse, the lighting flat, the score and effects disjointed, and the camerawork is film school 101. There's no plot to speak of, the characters are one dimensional, and the actors are sleepwalking. Most of the cast look like they should be doing soft core porn..... In fact, the only reward that I got from this mess was spotting the startling squint faced Roxann Biggs-Dawson (B'Elanna from Star Trek: Voyager) without her Klingon bumpy head makeup on. Her skin tone is about two shades lighter than it is in Voyager; either she's been bleached down for this role, or blacked up for Voyager. Very strange either way.

OK, just OK!

[Gunnar_Runar_Ingibjargarson · 4/10 · 20 June 2008]

I wont take too much time here, just wanted to state that Darkman 3 is awesome. I have all 3 on DVD, added these to my collection of DVD movie sets. Darkman ranks up there with the best, like Indiana Jones, Aliens, Star Wars, Die hard, you get the point. There isn't too many good horror, thriller, sets out there. Many thanks to the whole crew, and set for giving us the Darkman trilogy. By the way if your wondering how I came across this one on DVD. I purchased it through the internet, it is however region 4, as you know most US DVD players are region 1. If you own a Sony Playstation 2, you have the best DVD player since it is an all region player. Just go to set up then choose witch region setting you want ( 1-9 ).

Appropriate Title

[utgard14 · 4/10 · 8 January 2014]

Another cheap straight-to-video sequel to Darkman, This time Darkman finds himself up against drug lord Jeff Fahey, all the while developing feelings for Fahey's mistreated wife. Cheesy dialogue, terrible acting, poor action and effects. Vosloo continues to unimpress as a replacement for Liam Neeson. Fahey is a weak substitute for the hammy Larry Drake from the previous two films. Filmed back-to-back with Darkman 2. As with that mess, this has none of the creativity or craftsmanship of Sam Raimi's Darkman. The writing is truly terrible. Some of the lines will make you wince with embarrassment for the poor actors who have to speak them. The title is appropriate because this was the death of Darkman as a viable movie franchise.

Darkman screws with a family

[BandSAboutMovies · 4/10 · 7 May 2023]

Shot at the same time as the second Darkman movie, Darkman III: Die Darkman Die is directed again by Bradford May and written by Michael Colleary and Mike Webb, who also wrote Face/Off. I wonder if all the synthetic skin masks that Dr. Peyton Westlake (Arnold Vosloo) wears as Darkman inspired that movie?

This movie also has a Cannon-style reason for its order, as it was shot as the second movie and the return of Durant was to be the third film. That makes way more sense.

Our hero is helped by Dr. Bridget Thorne (Darlanne Fluegel, The Eyes of Laura Mars), who helps stabilize his formula. However, she's also the mistress of his new enemy, Peter Rooker (Jeff Fahey), who works with the doctor to treat Darkman like a lab rat, all so he can gain superhuman strength.

Then, well, Darkman uses his skin to superhumanly cuck his enemy, spending time with his neglected wife Angela (Roxann Dawson) and daughter Jenny, even going to see her school play. This all culminates in the bad guy abducting and threatening his own family before his Darkman-assisted death, Jenny's face is burnt in the ensuing fire, so our hero gives the last of his new skin to her and he's back in the darkness, never to know love.

A fourth movie - and that still promised Fox series - never happened. Vosloo claimed he would never do an effects-heavy role again and hey, he went back on that and was in The Mummy and played another face-swapping character, Zartan, in the first G. I. Joe movie.

Pocket Books also published four more Darkman books - The Hangman, The Price of Fear, The Gods of Hell and In the Face of Death - while Marvel published a movie adaption and a six-issue miniseries sequel. In 2006, Dynamite Entertainment published a crossover between Ash from Evil Dead and Darkman.

Overall uninspiring

[hellholehorror · 4/10 · 6 October 2017]

Nothing amazing here. This trilogy went very evenly downhill after the first. There was a distinct lack of anything new. There were some good sets but we have seen them all before. It felt like whole scenes were lifted from the first and especially second film. Overall uninspiring and unimaginative sequel. The weakest in the series suffers because it clones the second and not the first.

Not a complete waste of time but our lead takes a lot away from it

[DarthVoorhees · 6/10 · 26 August 2006]

There is only one Liam Neeson and I'm not asking Arnold Vosloo to deliver a performance as good as Neeson because I know he can't but I do expect a performance that isn't wooden,stale and with zero charisma. Vosloo is practically reading cue cards for the bulk of the film! Darkman worked because Peyton Westlake was such an interesting character and here all of the life the character had is pretty much stripped away. Die Darkman Die works somewhat despite Vosloo being horribly miscast. We have one character horribly miscast and one character perfectly cast,Jeff Fahey is outstanding as Peter Rooker.

Like Vosloo Bradford May has very large boots to fill but he exceeded my expectations. Die Darkman Die is very Raimi like and we get some outstanding visuals for a DTV movie. The Make up effects here are even better than they were in the original Darkman.

I really think that if Vosloo was not Westlake I would have enjoyed the film a lot more,everything else works in the film but him.

Story's End?

[AaronCapenBanner · 3/10 · 1 September 2013]

Bradford May once again directs this third(and last?) installment, again starring Arnold Vosloo as Peyton Westlake/Darkman, who gets mixed up with more gangsters after stealing their money to fund his continued experiments to perfect his synthetic skin grafts. The gang leader(played by Jeff Fahey) decides to set a trap for Darkman in order to study his superpowers, and use them to become even more powerful and rich. Darkman must defeat this gang, and complete his journey once and for all.

Filmed at the same time as Part II, sequel is no better or worse, since the plot and story elements are so familiar. Not very credible either, with an inconclusive ending, though it has yet to be continued...

A direct to DVD sequel to Darkman II, that takes my favorite anti-hero against a new villain that he hasn't faced before.

[HunterCandelaria · 8/10 · 20 July 2013]

As I have said before I love Darkman, he's who I feel like becoming without wanting to go through the trama (fun fact, my original birth names were to be either Peyton and/or Wesley and Darkman's name is Peyton Westlake). But the problem with this movie is of its reuse of stock footage from both the 1990 and 1995 films and the over lapping continuity errors. The reason for Darkman's strength is because his nerves were cut so his muscles would have to become stronger to protect the body, but in here they say its about his DNA. The film has Peyton struggle with his emotions about weather to live his life as crime-boss Peter Rooker so that he can take of the family Rooker doesn't care anything about, or retrieving his skin and research. In the film, there are a series of plot points that lead nowhere in the story (like a nerve reconnecter (which is heavily advertised in the trailer) and the love interest with Rooker and Dr. Thorne. But in the end Darkman III is a good movie with a stupid subtitle and some weak points, but because I like Darkman I like it.

Running Out of Steam

[refinedsugar · 4/10 · 8 February 2024]

When 'Darkman 2' recapped the major events of the first film, I didn't mind. They even inserted footage of Vosloo taking over the role. I tell you this because 'Darkman 3' does it all over again and it doesn't stop there. Shots from '2' get reused too painting a picture of low budget, low on ideas, running out of places to go. Die Darkman Die' feels tired.

Dr. Peyton Westlake / Darkman (Arnold Vosloo) continues to take down baddies and use their cash to fix his artificial skin creation drawing the irk of mobster Peter Rooker (James Fahey). One of the trauma surgeons that originally helped Westlake in the hospital tracks him down and is able to reconnect his sense of pain, ability to feel and get him one step closer to solving his problem. Heading towards a final showdown with Rooker, he develops a care for the man's neglected wife & daughter which complicates matters.

The best thing going on here is Darkman (thru Fahey) being a loving husband & father. This element gives the flick heart that's been missing since the original in addition to the usual shtick of light action & humor. A subplot about mining Darkman's abilities isn't as interesting and only surface level. 'Die Darkman Die' comes off feeling generic and those reused scenes hinting at it's low budget don't help.

Welcome to Rookerworld!!!

[alfred_zamora · 18 June 2000]

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