Darkman III: Die Darkman Die - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Darkman III: Die Darkman Die Reviews

Page 1 of 8
½ September 8, 2017
Much better sequel then Darkman II
June 15, 2017
Funny but I actually liked this one more than the second. Jeff Fahey did a terrific job playing a smooth, suave, charismatic villain.
Super Reviewer
½ November 22, 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 cliches, 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 [i]Darkman[/i] 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.
Super Reviewer
June 22, 2016
The final chapter of the Darkman trilogy, Darkman III: Die Darkman Die, is a generic action film that's full of clichés and one-dimensional characters. When Dr. Peyton Westlake teams up with another scientist to reverse his nerve damage he begins to hope that he could be made normal again, but it turns out to be a trap by a drug lord who's looking to harness his powers. Jeff Fahey and Darlanne Fluegel both are pretty good as cartoonish villains, and future Voyager star Roxann Dawson gives a strong performance that helps to bring some emotional weight to the story. But the plot is overly complicated and the characters aren't developed very well. The directing too is incredibly bad; featuring bizarre dream sequences and poorly staged action scenes. Darkman III: Die Darkman Die is a disappointing film that does nothing new or interesting with the character.
June 19, 2016
I was quite surprised as the quality of the Darkman direct-to-video sequels. They're not brilliant, but they are tonally very true to the original, even if they're lacking the budget and star power of the original. The original film's writer/director/producer is still on hand here as producer and I think that helped the film greatly. Robert Durant is finally dead after being the villain in the first two films, so Jeff Fahey takes the reigns as the slick new villain who Darkman, Arnold Vosloo, must take down. The story is genuinely interesting when Darkman poses as Fahey and inadvertently finds himself being a better father to Fahey's family for the short time he was with them. Director Bradford May apes Raimi's style and has some clever visual moments, though it's still far short of Raimi's level of inventiveness. Overall, this is nowhere as good as the original, but it's pretty entertaining if you liked the first film.
February 15, 2016
What about that tattoo on your chest? Doesn't it say Die Darkman Die?

No, that's German...for The Darkman, The.
June 14, 2015
The Final Installment In The Series See's Arnold Vosloo Return As Darkman. Vosloo Once Again Gives A Decent Performance & Villain Jeff Fahey Gives In A Decent Performance Also. The Film Itself Is An Average Action Thriller, With A Better Plot Than The Previous Installment. This However Was Filmed First & Was Originally Intended As The Second Movie, & In Some Ways You Can Tell Especially Since As Sequels Go On The Generally Get Worse, & This Was Better Than The Second Film. An Enjoyable Action/Thriller.
January 21, 2015
And I thought the second movie was bad..."Darkman III" is really bad, even though I want to like Jeff Fahey, I really don't. The movie is just hard to get through, and you are just counting down until the nonsense is all over. It is a shame this series couldn't sustain itself without Raimi.
½ April 19, 2014
It felt like a really long television episode, with meager effects and reused footage from the previous film. The plot is still pretty thin, but it's climatic and thrilling enough to sit through. The final scene is a bit lackluster though, and the entire film still doesn't compare well with the first.
January 20, 2014
I remember this from my childhood. The last scene is scarred in my brain forever.
½ May 28, 2013
you either like darkman or hate it. overalll the whole trilogy in my opinion was pretty good. i love the old school way of making special effects with claymation or other lil' tricks. This last installment to the trilogy thankfuly stayed true the darkman style although lacked any really good action scenes. im happy that they however did not wreck the trilogy and ended on a good note. i'm sure eventually darkman will be remade and hopefuly succesfully. Still better than any spider man movie i'd say,
January 22, 2013
Better than Darkman II! But still not as good as Darkman I.
January 8, 2013
As if one of these wasn't enough!
December 7, 2012
Could be worth a viewing, would like to see it sometime in the future.
October 16, 2012
Great movie series, Must See On Blu-Ray to appreciate....
September 17, 2012
Darkman III Die Darkman Die, originally planned to be Darkman's direct sequel but pushed aside because Larry Drake became available to return as the villain, is slightly better than the film that postponed it. It's not a whole lot better, but it at least has a few scenes worth watching, and didn't bore me to tears. It tried to develop Darkman (again played by Arnold Vosloo) as an actual character, playing to his human side instead of keeping him at arm's reach from everyone, and it has a couple of points with genuine tension.

It also has a killer villain. The first film had two villains, the most memorable of which was Larry Drake's. Drake came back in the sequel, but phoned in his performance, especially when compared to his over-the-top antics in the original. This time, we have Jeff Fahey, playing Peter Rooker, a drug lord similar to Drake's character in the first film, except there's no twist regarding whether or not he's the top dog. He seemingly owns and knows everything, and is so powerful that even his neglected wife and child won't leave him; they're too scared.

Anyway, Darkman has actually started to go through his whole "I'm going to be a vigilante" routine, and begins the film stealing money from the wrong man: Rooker. I suppose his definition of "vigilante" might be slightly different from yours, but he's morally in the clear because the money was gathered from selling drugs. Anyway, Rooker now knows about Darkman, sends a female scientist (Darlanne Fluegel) to seduce/trick him, and before you know it, the two are feuding. And "feuding" is putting it lightly, because either one is willing to kill the other if they ever meet again face to face.

Things take a more dramatic turn when Darkman impersonates Rooker and learns about his broken family life. And then, after that touching scene, a surprise birthday party brings us laughs that haven't happened since the original. A bit of humor is added here and there, and in tone alone, Darkman III feels a lot more like a sequel than the second installment.

In fact, since nothing happened in the second film that carried over to this one, it's almost like the filmmakers -- director Bradford May was behind the second film as well as this one -- decided to more or less ignore its existence. It didn't have anything happen within it that had to happen, and none of it carried over to this one. And since this was the planned second movie anyway, it makes a lot of sense that this one feels much more like a proper sequel.

Really, save for a couple of questions that could be raised at the start of the second movie, this could be set between the first and second films. 800 days passed between Drake's villain being defeated and waking up from his coma, and we don't get a sense of what Darkman was up to during that time. Maybe this would fit properly in that place. I'd have to wonder or not whether he forgot about the family he met and started to care about in this film, but considering his solitary nature, that wouldn't be hard to write off.

This is also the first chapter in the trilogy to attempt to develop Darkman as a character. It's not completely successful -- it's hard to believe that Darkman would suddenly just start caring about a mother and child out of the blue like he does -- but at least there's an attempt made here. I liked the scenes in which he and the mother or child interact, as they're sweet and sometimes funny. And seeing him start to have an emotional side -- even if it's not going to stay at the end -- is fun to watch.

Some of the scenes actually generate suspense and tension. While few of them use the time limit imposed by the synthetic skin masks, some of them actually do. That was missing entirely from the last film. And because an emotional side has been exposed, it's possible to actually care for Darkman in a way that hasn't been available to us since his name was Peyton Westlake, and he was the victim of tragedy. It makes everything that happens feel a bit more like it matters, and that's something the series has missed.

The main reason that Darkman III works as well as it does is because of Jeff Fahey, taking on the over-the-top villain role with gusto. He's so much fun, and it's clear that he's enjoying himself, that you want to watch him intently whenever he's on-screen. Arnold Vosloo still doesn't seem to be enjoying himself in the Darkman role, but he's given a bit more time to show us his acting chops, as Darkman puts on Vosloo's face more often this time around. All other roles are not worthy of mention; this is a film centered on the fight between these two people.

Darkman III: Die Darkman Die is perhaps the most enjoyable of the Darkman trilogy. Sure, it's still missing the style of Sam Raimi's original, but this one explored the emotional side of the character, provided us with a fantastic villain, and actually had a sense of suspense for much of its running time. Jeff Fahey is the main reason that the film works and is as enjoyable as it is, and if you want to see more of Darkman's story after watching the original, this is the one to go after. Skip Darkman II and go straight to this one.
September 3, 2012
The was a let down!!!
½ August 20, 2012
Rami need to do more than produce this crap, he needed to be back in the chair and bring back some original people, not these pathetic excuses.
August 6, 2012
The worst of the Darkman sequels. Feels so rushed and lazy, it's not even funny. Rooker is a very bland villain, and never really takes control of the movie like Robert G. Durant, hands-down Darkman's best nemesis. It's a shame because there are some good ideas here. The film offers Darkman a fleeting opportunity to have something he could never have--a family. But between subpar acting and pretty lame action sequences, this film is a disappointing trainwreck of a film.
½ June 21, 2012
Better than the second, certainly, but incomparable to the first.
Page 1 of 8