The second sequel to Darkman is action packed but lacks the greatness ofitsprequel, Darkman.The action scenes are good and the acting by thereturningDarkman played by Arnold Vosloo are good.This sequel is a good film but Iprefer the original Darkman first.

What makes Darkman III better than Darkman II? I would say the amountof substance makes the cake in this movie. Sure, all the elements stayintact from the first and second. Durant is finally dead (for good) andnow Darkman has another villain to subdue. So what makes it different?Doesn&#x27;t Darkman defeat his enemies like he&#x27;s done for the past twomovies? Yeah but Peyton Westlake becomes involved with anothersituation that actually hit a soft spot for me when I saw it.<br><br>Darkman III: Die Darkman Die, was directed by Bradford May whom I thinkdid a pretty good job directing Darkman II. Not many Direct-To-Videosequels end up as good as their originals but Darkman II was verysatisfying. I was expecting to see something mediocre but ended upseeing something worth my time. In this third installment in thefranchise, Arnold Vosloo reprises his role as the face changing superhero. This time instead of just trying to get rid of a gang leader, healso tries to save a mother and child from utter destruction.<br><br>Playing the villain (Peter Rooker) in this film is Jeff Fahey. Thecharacter of Rooker is really selfish. He is hardheaded and has a sicktwisted mind. If he were paired up against Robert G. Durant, I stillthink Rooker would come out on top. Rooker&#x27;s wife, Angela, is played byRoxann Biggs. Truly I don&#x27;t understand how they even fell in love atthe start but my question is irrelevant since we&#x27;re never really toldabout how they met. <br><br>Just like its predecessor, Darkman III does contain some witty dialogthat the first Darkman film did not have. Credit to Bradford May forkeeping most of the content the same but not all of it otherwise thisfilm would not be better than Darkman II. There is even a scene thatpays homage to the first movie. I won&#x27;t say because what because itspretty obvious. The beginning of this film was the only thing thatconfused me. In Darkman II, we were explained about Darkman&#x27;s pastwhich is fine and all but then it&#x27;s explained again in Darkman III inthe beginning. They didn&#x27;t do that for any other movie franchise;Batman, Superman, X-Men, RoboCop, or Terminator. Is that reallynecessary?<br><br>This film does contain good action but it also contains some veryheartfelt drama scenes. It was at these points I felt like somethingbetter was added to this movie. It wasn&#x27;t just Darkman doing what hedid for the past two movies - just trying to get rid of his past. Thiswas about Darkman helping someone else get rid of their problems. Thisis what distinguishes this film from Darkman II.<br><br>Bradford May&#x27;s final installment of Raimi&#x27;s Darkman series takes abetter turn and adds a little more feeling than the usual to its story.Although it still does not measure up to the original, it surpassesDarkman II with triumph.

The first Darkman movie was awesome. The 2nd was stupid. Durant comesbackfrom the dead to torment Darkman once more, please. If you're in the kindof chopper crash he was in, you're dead and you stay dead.<br><br>This sequel however was pretty good. Darkman is tricked by a doctor intoallowing a procedure to reconnect his nervous system, but instead it'sconnected to some kind of electric shock device. She uses it on him if hedoesn't obey her.<br><br>Darkman's skin formula and diskette the forumula's on are stolen by thedoctor's boyfriend Rooker. Darkman has to try to get them back, but whilehe's doing this, ends up falling in love with Rooker's emotionallybatteredwife and child.<br><br>The movie would've been better if it wasn't done on a shoe string budgetwith lowgrade special effects (like garbage cans sailing into the air whenthey explode, please). But it's still a step up from the 2ndmovie.