Ralph Breaks the Internet
Mission: Impossible - Fallout
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No consensus yet.
Tomatometer Not Available...
No consensus yet.
All Critics (6)
| Fresh (2)
| Rotten (4)
Definitely suffers from flaws, but it's an enthusiastic, tense, and exciting finale...
Suffers from the normal low-budget sequel afflictions (spotty FX, lesser actors, skimpier action, lamer dialog).
Perfect for USA Network's Up All Night.
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.
This third Darkman series is not great than the second one with Arnold Vosloo who returns again as the title role.
Vosloo seems alternatively bored and exuberant from scene to scene, to be honest, he still does okay, and Jeff Fahey, while a joy to watch as an over-the-top villain, just doesn't quite fit in with the series.
The use of OTT visuals and nightmare vision scenes is retained and very like Sam Raimi'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.
ok but not as good as the first two
This should have been named Go Away Darkman and please don't comeback, its about as good as Rocky 56 would have been, Its been over 10 years so I guess we will not see anymore of Darkman. Not with this crew of actors anyway. Now that I have seen all 3 Darkman films I like the 1st one best. Liam Neeson made the best Darkman, when making the sequels they should have either waited for Liam or offered him more money and maybe this Trilogy would have taken off. Larry Drake Made the best bad guy in this series and it also sky rocked him in the bad guy roll. But again he didn?t return for Darkman III after all how could he arise from the dead a second time. At the end of Darkman 3 you can see where there is the possibility of a Darkman 4 but it never happen, Thank the Stars. I wouldn?t put Darkman in the class of Indiana Jones , Nightmare on Elm Street, or Die Hard when it comes to Movie Collections, If you get the trilogy as I did for under $10 go for it, if not I wouldn't pay for a copy of this nor would I rent it.
View All Quotes