Darkman III

"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".

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' :)

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.

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!

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.