Darkman, needing money to continue his experiments on synthetic skin, steals a crate of cash from drug lord Peter Rooker, attracting the gangster's attention. Darkman III: Die Darkman Die is the 2nd sequel to the original 1990 Darkman and once again we see the return of Arnold Vosloo as the title character and perhaps except him the film doesn't offer anything else except alot of boring and how explosions, some action here and there and a stupid plot about synthetic skin that takes like forever to be made. The first Darkman for it's time was very well made but the sequels are just stupid especially this one. (4/10)

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

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.

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.