For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

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.

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

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.

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.