User Reviews (1,168)

Add a Review

  • Well, it has all the components - say his name five times, the hook for a hand, and the bees! And the 'puppet' animation, especially over the end credits is amazing! But the story seemed very muddled, and I'm not even sure I understand what happened at the end. I like the idea of the hive, and of Candyman standing for all the racial injustices suffered in this country, I just found the story itself to be very confusing.

    But that puppet stuff - true works of art!
  • kuarinofu19 September 2021
    'Candyman' 2021 is a mess on every level included in the film.

    It's a tonal mess, where the supposedly scary parts are mixed with parody-level dialogue (and delivery), satirized or serious social commentary, flamboyantly gay characters played as they walked right of the set of 80s or 90s comedy show and more. This was kind of anticipated after 'Us' 2019 though.

    It becomes clear that there wasn't enough story for a feature film, hence the short run-time by modern standards.

    Even with a lacking story and the film constantly pulling away into different themes and tones, there were no characters or character development in the film. There is none, trust me.

    Acting-wise it was also very reminiscent of 'Us' 2019 since almost everyone was acting like they were trying to do an impression, a parody. I think the initial idea was to make the African-American cast act like rich white people, probably. If not - they were barely believable. The inclusion of the same-sex couple was also more comical for some reason. Again, maybe intentional.

    All the political stuff was extremely overexaggerated to a point I wasn't sure if they were serious. I laughed at most of the police brutality scenes just because they were delivered this way.

    To summarize the story, it seems like the Candyman is a passing spirit that protects the hood from white people's police brutality by violently murdering them for being extremely stupid and goofy.

    I'm planning to see 1992 original, since this one acts more like a sequel, maybe it's better.

    And yeah, there's also a theme of gentrification but the film abandoned it just like most of the other ones.

    From a positive standpoint, I did like some of the shots and it was nice to see Tony Todd, even in his CGI state.

    It is impossible to perceive this as horror since 90% of the murders are obscured behind the scenery. It is also impossible to view this as a mystery film since there is none. And since there were no characters or character development...it's hard to view this as a film altogether.

    At first, I thought this was going to be a style-over-substance film with all the allegories to the world being upside down, even the music felt like it was playing backward, but in the end, it was just a gimmick, because mirrors, yeah, ok.

    I'm looking forward to seeing the 1992 film and forgetting about this one as fast as possible. At least it was funny in places.
  • The original Candyman already suffered from muddled mythology and unclear rules, and this film does nothing to fix that. The lore is messier and more confusing than ever, and that's not helped by the fact that this movie has ZERO character development for anyone involved.

    It's established that the lead character, Anthony, is estranged from his mother. But we never learn why and this plot thread is never resolved. Other than that, we know nothing of substance about any of these characters and thus do not care when they are in danger or die.

    Despite this, the actors really do give it their all and they make all of the scenes sufficiently watchable. The camerawork and direction are creative and also elevate the clumsily-written material to be watchable...but it's still not worth watching.
  • The story didn't really work for me. I found it disturbing, but not thrilling or scary. It was quite slow paced, and lacks suspense.
  • Nia DaCosta/Jordan Peele's "Candyman" sequel ("Candymen" might have been better title) breathes new life into the 30 year franchise by finding a new angle to the story. It keeps the same type of classy direction of Bernard Rose and Bill Condon of the first two films, while tackling themes of gentrification, police britality, and artists' mindless appropriation of violent tragedies. It links to the first film, while incorporating mythogy of the second film.

    This movie is best appreciated at night with the lights off, and with headphones or a good sound system. John Guleserian's cinematography is great, the narrative shadow puppets were cool, and Lichens' score is consistently disturbing, while incorporating Glass' score of the original.

    The screenplay however is uneven. The conversation of gentrification is intelligent amd balanced. So is the coverage of artists being insensitive and uncaring about the victims of the violence they depict, while focusing instead on their own fame. But the police brutality story is uneven, and some references to recent events ("Say his name") feel tacked on. The events depicted do match real life stories and can elicit empathy and rally against injustice. While Chicago police do disproportionately intervene African-Americans, and fheir is a history of brutality, an all-white modern day large Chicago police squad does not correspond with reality.

    I dismiss others' complaints that 'all the victims are white'. No, not all are, and it is similar to the victim make-up of all the other "Candyman" movies: mostly white teen girls and white intellectual snobs, with the non-supernatural violence done by modern-day African-Americans against others, and in flashbacks, by racist whites. I will agree that the kill scenes themselves are inconsistently executed.

    The bigger issue is that the story itself feels rewritten by people who did not agree on what was going on, and it falls apart in the last 20 minutes. The journey of Anthony's character makes no sense, nor does that of Billy, his guide into Candyman mythology. His girlfriend Brianna, the wealthy art exhibitor, has a distrubing backstory revelead halfway that is never developed. Mutliple variations of the Candyman are described, but only a couple are shown. If there was a succession and another variant took over 45 years ago, then why do we instead have the original in the previous films? Shouln't it had been the next one? At times they keep the original concept of Candyman as an urban legend of an atrocity that should not be mocked within ita community nor trivialized by outsiders, but then it is switched to a vigilante dishing out justice. The rules as to what happens when the name is called out are quite variable.

    The acting is variable. The great Tony Todd is barely in the film. The child actors are good. Most of the snobby supporting cast overacts. Yaya Abdul Mateen II continues his streak of mixing in great acting with forced, overly conscious acting. Teyonah Parris does well with what they give her, and Colman Domingo is fine. Vanessa A. Williams steals the scene in which she is in.
  • LIKES:

    The Creepy Atmosphere: Candyman's latest installment shows a gentrified Chicago hood that holds the modern splendor of modernization, built over the ruins of the past in an attempt to bury the culture that might be less attractive. In these ruins is where the legend starts to rise again and the fact this "curse" spreads into the wealthier districts is the true horror of the movie. Candyman uses a brilliant amount of non-special effects to set the stage, a blend of subtle light changing filters, use of ear splitting violins, and the sound mixing of other elemental pieces that suggest the doom that is about to take place. That atmosphere sort of lying beneath the surface of calm is definitely something that makes this movie have a little more nontraditional bite.

    The Acting: Again no award winning roles in the terms of Oscars, but don't knock Candyman's performances until you give them a shot. The lead is done extraordinarily well by Abdul-Mateen II, as he takes on the transformational role of the aspiring artist looking for inspiration. Like many great tales, his journey is not linear, and seeing the changing mindscape and what was demanded of him was awesome to see brought to the levels that were balanced between overdramatic horror we expect and a realistic portrayal of horror. Teyonah Parris gets a nod for her performance in the manner of someone watching the legend unfold from her dynamic. The rational role was quite well and I had just wished for a little more integration. Nathan Stewart-Jarett was okay for me, the comedic relief role that is there to try accomplish reducing the tension at times, while also a potential set up, but he needed more time and development instead of the token role he did. Everyone else did a fine job with the roles handed to them, but as they were not the fully integrated components, can't spend too much time calling out other performances.

    The First few acts: Candyman's biggest surprise comes in the form of the story that they actually focused om in this time vs. Just the horror/slasher aspects that other franchises try to accomplish. The importance of the lore is heavily emphasized, and piece by piece starts to build up the characters trapped in the Candyman's tale, all while integrating a few kills into the mix. Elements of traumatic back story, relationships that may be tested by the pressure of the Candyman's tale, and lots of things to address if possible. It was this element that really had me ingrained into the story to see what would emerge when the monster came for them.

    The Shadow puppets: I loved the storytelling of the legends through the use of shadow puppets as seen in the Japanese art of storytelling. In addition to being unique, the impressive display of art goes with the theme of artistic display in this movie, and also be kind of creepy at the same time. The end credits will show you more of the origins of Candyman at the end, and I really liked that element instead of another live action tale that they could have done.

    The Makeup: Several of the injuries and changes to characters in this movie involve some impressive alterations to anatomy. Sure CGI fills in some of the work, but the makeup and prosthetics for this movie are super impressive in terms of execution. Great blending, diverse textures, and levels of impressive growth are to the point to match levels seen in the Walking Dead. While not the biggest seller for many, I have to give props for the amazing work they did in the characters who appeared on screen.

    DISLIKES:

    Not Scary: Part of this is going to be due to my desensitization to violence and horror that I've developed from my time as reviewing. Candyman's atmosphere is the creepiest element at times, that sense of being alone and having to deal with the pressures that life and supernatural can throw at us. Yet, the movie sort of adds that Peele twist to the film and begins losing the scare factor for more of that cheaper thrills that he sometimes brings. I'd have liked a little more suspense and execution into the element of Candyman's hunts, but that did not seem to be the focus of this feature.

    Political: If the legends are indeed built upon what a character says, I supposed I should not have been surprised. However, Candyman's modernization holds a lot of political undertones and agendas that you will either appreciate or be annoyed with. While not the worst thing to happen in a movie, there are times when that focus gets a little stale for me and starts to throw off the horror element for me. When you see who the victims are, who gets passed by, and especially the ending, it suddenly starts to show a different face that kind of threw off the story for me. And when the kills start to become cheap bouts that happen in the background... it only further shaves off the thrills you were hoping to see.

    The Story Element in the third act: My buddy and I both agree that the first acts engage and show promise, but it's the final act where the baton is dropped and the race sort of comes to a quick end. Candyman's twist is crammed in at what feels like a last minute surprise, taking all that build up and sort of dousing the fire too quickly for my tastes. Other characters also show signs of some interesting background stories, especially the female lead who held a lot of trauma in her story and yet we barely got any of that. All the other characters with names held potential to be integrated into the tale, but alas, they seemed to have run out of time and needed more politics vs. Execution of their story.

    The Rushed Pace At the End: Sadly, the other elements also suffer at the end, all the horror elements again compressed into a 20 minute finale that feels sort of disrespectful to the work they put in at the movie. The hunt becomes sort of off camera focus, the impasse is rather laughable in how easy it is solved, and the political component being the primary focus. It feels very much like Peele's writing, only without the finesse that he did in Get Out and Us. Thus, this finale may have some moments that will have some happy, but for me it was a bit of a letdown given the potential that was hinted at the early parts of the film.

    The VERDICT: Candyman turned out to be better than I anticipated at many parts given the trailers and modern take on cinema. The first few parts of the tale show promise, a fantastic display of artistic decisions to build up the potential and hint at some deeper levels of horror lore the film has needed. Great acting, alongside tributes to lore with other elements keep the tale interesting, with enough horror moments mixed in to snack on in the midst. Alongside the great makeup and use of a style not seen, there were some great things to celebrate in this film. However, it's the final act where the movie crashes down, and the rushed finale does little to drive that full punch that I think they wanted. A laughable impasse, dropping the story and other characters, and so many other elements are minimized in order to just put something out there and wrap things up. Candyman almost could have used another thirty minutes or maybe a second act to keep the promise going and that was disappointing to me. As such, I think this movie is best left to a home viewing or with a group than alone.

    My scores are:

    Horror/Thriller: 6.5 Movie Overall: 5.5.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Someone on my social feeds posted the other day that they still couldn't get this movie out of their mind days after watching it and I wondered, "Where did they get the version of this film that I so desperately wanted to see?"

    Because after what feels like years of delays, this film finally was released and I'm struggling, quite honestly, to remember much of it. And what I do recall isn't that good. It felt unfocused at best, scattered and boring at worst.

    Which is a shame, because Candyman is one of the most unexpected and near-perfect horror films I've ever seen, a movie that effortlessly combined menace, terror, social commentary and reflected the world outside, all things that this movie shoots for and watches the ball circle the rim without ever scoring.

    But hey -- what do I know? It made $68 million worldwide against a $25 million budget.

    The story of the first film has become exactly what the Candyman promised it would be, as Helen Lyle is now a legend and the unrelenting blight of the Cabrini-Green housing project has been cleaned up and gentrified, which is mirrored by how Anthony McCoy takes the stories of where he grew up and sells them as art.

    Yet the story of who Candyman is moves his origins to 1977 and a man accused of placing a razor blade in a child's candy, which takes away from the power of the true origins of the character. The Sherman Fields version of the character takes away from the story until we finally get back to the Daniel Robitaille character and then gets further diluted by the concept that there is a hive of Candyman which discovers a new host every few years.

    A bee's sting and the push of a man named Billy Burke push McCoy toward becoming the next version of the urban legend, even as the kills that surround his story seem pulled from the worst Platinum Dunes-style 90s and 00s remakes of past horror films, particularly a scene in a girl's bathroom that seems tonally at odds with some of the wonderful moments of this film, like the animated origins that punctuate the narrative.

    I like so much of what director and writer Nia DaCosta -- along with producers and co-writers Win Rosenfeld and Jordan Peele -- are trying here, but the exact moment that the movie seems to be ready to mean something -- as McCoy's girlfriend must bring the avenging power of the Candyman to bear against the uncaring might of a white police force is the end of the film and then seemingly gets to what we really want to see. But by then, it's too late to do much.

    The main problem, at the end, is that the original film remains vital decades after I first saw it. This lost its potency while I was watching it. And that doesn't make me happy at all, because this was a movie that I was rooting and hoping for, as I feel that the character and mythos remain a vital canvas on which to paint deep lessons upon.
  • jboothmillard8 September 2021
    Warning: Spoilers
    When I saw the trailer, I assumed this was going to be a remake of the cult 90s scary movie (that's what happens when filmmakers use the same title in recent years. In fact, it is a direct sequel, which was delayed by COVID, I was very excited when it was finally released, written and produced by Jordan Peele (Get Out). Basically, in Chicago, it has been thirty years since the events at the Cabrini-Green housing project. Anthony McCoy (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is a visual artist who has recently moved into an apartment with his girlfriend, art gallery director Brianna Cartwright (Teyonah Parris). One night, Brianna's brother Troy (Misfits' Nathan Stewart-Jarrett) shares the urban legend of Helen Lyle, a graduate student who went on a killing spree in the early 1990s. Her rampage culminated in a bonfire outside Cabrini-Green when she attempted to sacrifice a baby. The residents were able to rescue the child before Helen perished in the fire. Following a scathing meeting with art critic Finley Stephens (Rebecca Spence), Anthony is desperate for a creative spark to turn his career around. He becomes interested in this urban story and goes to Cabrini-Green for inspiration. Exploring the abandoned part of the project, he encounters laundromat owner William Burke (Colman Domingo), who introduces him to the story of the Candyman. When Burke was a child, he was frightened by an encounter with Sherman Fields (Michael Hargrove), a hook-handed man whom the police believed was responsible for putting a razor blade in a piece of candy that ended up in the hands of a white girl. Burke inadvertently alerted the police to Sherman hiding behind the walls of one of the tower blocks, and the racist officers beat Sherman to death. When children continued to receive candy with razor blades inside, Sherman was cleared of the accusations, and the legend implies that if somebody says "Candyman" in a mirror five times, Sherman's spirit will appear and kill the person who summons him. Anthony is inspired by this story and develops an art exhibit called Say My Name, based on the Candyman's legend. It consists of a bathroom mirror containing a bloody lair inside and showcases it at Brianna's art gallery. He is dismayed when it does not get a positive reaction from audiences. That night, one of Brianna's co-workers and his girlfriend are slaughtered by the Candyman after saying his name five times in front of Anthony's mirrored exhibit. The legend spreads, and more people are killed after repeating the Candyman's name, including the art critic and a group of teenage girls at a school. While exploring Cabrini-Green, Anthony was stung by a bee on his right, which develops into a huge scab, and since then he has undergone a physical transformation spreading across his entire body. He goes to a hospital, where learns that his mother lied about where he was born, and when he confronts his mother, Anne-Marie (Vanessa Estelle Williams), she reluctantly reveals that he was the baby Helen rescued from the fire the night she died. Daniel Robitaille (Tony Todd) was the first Candyman, Anne-Marie never told Anthony about these events because she wanted him to have a normal life. The community had vowed never to repeat the Candyman's legend after that night, and she fears what will happen now that someone has broken the pact. Worried about Anthony, Brianna goes to Cabrini-Green to find him and Burke, who she realises first told him about the Candyman. At the laundromat, she is attacked and subdued by Burke, who takes her to an abandoned church where Anthony, his body continuing to deteriorate, is waiting. Anthony starts blacking out and tries to save Brianna as Burke reveals that he not only witnessed Sherman's death, he also saw Sherman's spirit returning as the Candyman and witnessed him murdering his older sister and her friend, who summoned him. Burke plans to have the police gun Anthony down to create a new legend with the Candyman as an instrument of vengeance rather than a symbol of Black pain and suffering. To complete Anthony's transformation into the Candyman, Burke saws off his right hand and replaces it with a hook. Brianna manages to escape the church and is chased through Cabrini-Green by Burke, whom she viciously stabs to death. Anthony appears and collapses into her arms as the police, called by Burke, show up and shoot Anthony dead. Brianna is arrested and handcuffed, an officer in the police car attempts to question her and agree a story that Anthony provoked the police into shooting him. Brianna uses the police car's rear-view mirror to summon the Candyman. He appears, now in Anthony's guise, and massacres the police. As more police arrive at the scene, Anthony's body is swarmed with bees, changing momentarily into Burke, and then taking on the appearance of Robitaille and instructing Brianna to "tell everyone". Also starring Kyle Kaminsky as Grady Greenberg, Troy's boyfriend, Brian King as Clive Privler, and Virginia Madsen as the voice of Helen Lyle. Abdul-Mateen gives a terrific performance as the artist who becomes obsessed and possessed in equal measure striving for his art, the story of the original is cleverly interwoven, and this follow-up is more politically charged. It has many clever aspects in amongst the main story, from the creepy shadow puppetry in between the action to the origins of another Candyman (who actually has candy haha), it is superbly atmospheric, gory at the right moments, and to be honest, I think it's almost better than the original, a fantastic supernatural slasher horror. Very good!
  • I saw the original 'Candyman' film back when I was very young. I remember being completely bored by it. It wasn't scary then, and it certainly isn't scary now. A good test would be to go to the mirror after seeing this and say "Candyman" five times over. If it's easy to do then the movie has not done its job.

    It felt like this version of 'Candyman' was so intent on giving a political message that it forgot to be an enjoyable film along the way. It's ridiculously preachy and self-righteous. It's not ever what I want out of a horror movie (or any film for that matter).

    The characters are extremely bland, the scares are more or less non-existent, the concept is stupid and the film refuses to get off its high-horse. There are far better ways to spend your time and money than this film. Not recommended. 4/10.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I really wish people understood that this movie wasn't a reboot but a sequel. Used some of the original cast and story which was about racism if you knew the original story not just the murders. It seems like from what people are saying they're upset because they missed the racial undertones of the first 3 films. Good job on the continued story but the kills seemed tame compared to the original movies.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Candyman is horror movie remake with forced social commentary that bores from start to finish.

    First of all, the plot line isn't particularly intriguing. The story is very predictable, the minor twists and turns are unconvincing and there is a surprising lack of atmospheric and scary passages.

    The acting performances remain unconvincing as well. Lead actor Yahya Abdul-Mateen II is lacking charisma and doesn't manage to make viewers empathize with his character at all.

    The forced social commentary is getting more absurd as the movie progresses. The movie tries to be on the pulse of time but feels stiff, stereotypical and conservative in its desperate attempt to appeal to contemporary woke culture. The idea that Candyman eventually becomes a superhero that fights police violence and corruption is certainly bold but completely unfitting with everything that entity has done before in the movie.

    At the end of the day, one might give the film a few points for walking off the beaten path with its social commentary but that sociopolitical component makes the film tough to digest. As a horror movie, this film isn't even remotely scary and very few scenes manage to evoke tense atmosphere. I like many works of screenplay writer Jordan Peele such as Get Out and Us but Candyman must be considered a disappointment.
  • Loved Candyman back in the day. This version, however, steps it up a notch and is more visually terrifying. The "kill scenes" are somewhat mysterious and even more chilling.
  • Scrolling through these reviews, I saw a couple 5 and 6 stars, but mostly 1 and 2, all complaining about the movie focusing on racism rather than horror, and blaming Jordan Peele (even though this is not his solo film). All I have to say is these people have either never seen the original Candyman or failed to understand it. If you think the original didn't have anything to do with race I think you should watch it again. Nia Dacosta did a great job with this film and tying all the legends together, creating a "spiritual sequel" as planned. Candyman has never been cut and dry horror, and while I agree there could have been more chilling moments, this is not as bad of a film as these other reviewers would like you to think. If you walk into a black horror film expecting jason vorhees or michael myers, that's your fault, not Dacosta's.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This film was boring and the script was bland. The first kill was great and I was excited to see what other creative kills there would be but I was disappointed to learn that pretty much every other kills were off camera.....why? Completely ruined the film for me. The characters were also boring and had no real character development and the ending felt rushed. Terrible film overall and ultimately boring.
  • Is this really what movies are coming to... We watch movies to be entertainig, uplifted or perhaps even make us contemplate on something. This is nothing of that. It is not horror. It is not entertaining. It is another misguided and fabricated attempt, which Is unfortunate becaues Peele is talented, of propaganda. But last few films of this directors have all been in this direction. The title of the story is misleading and facade. This is plain one sided, fabricated truths, divisive instead of trying to portray a chance of unity. Just endless victimization and no responsibility taken for anything.

    Avoid.
  • I love the original film and I will admit I was excited to see this. But the writing was stupid and felt like it was trying to hard to be edgy. And so many of the scenes were just boring or awkward to watch. I didn't think it was too terrible but I am a bit bothered that this is trying to be a remake of the 90s classic.
  • In Chicago, artist Anthony McCoy and his girlfriend Brianna Cartwright are hosting a dinner for her brother Troy and his boyfriend. Anthony is looking for new inspiration. Troy recounts the story of Cabrini-Green and a bastardized urban legend of Helen Lyle, the woman in the original 1992 movie.

    Jordan Peele is doing more writing and producing. I really love the visual look. I love the shadow puppetry, the cold brutal cityscape, and the use of mirrored surfaces. Around the midpoint, I noticed that there is a lack of overtly scary scenes. It has the imagery but I'm not scared. I realized that the protagonist is a muscular black man. In a horror, the vulnerability of the protagonist is directly proportional to the fear generated. For a young black man, he's most vulnerable with the police or in a KKK clan meeting. This movie probably needs the protagonist to be a young vulnerable female victim. This could be a father daughter movie with Anthony being the father figure. While Anthony is always in danger, it's not the type of danger that generates real intensity. That's really the only missing element. The protagonist needs more vulnerability.
  • Amateur night.

    The bad: this movie looks cheaply made and is cheap. Way below average acting performances, silly story, even sillier special effects, mediocre photography.

    Simply no thrill whatsoever.

    Not any good? I honestly cant think of any. It's not laughably bad, but it comes close....
  • This film at first begins as a reboot, but the plot gradually reveals that it is not so due to the connections it has with the original film, especially taking into account that it takes place in the same place where the events of the first film occurred. The most surprising thing is when the connection that the protagonist has with the events of the original film is discovered and it was a revelation that I seriously did not expect. Unlike the original film that featured brutal deaths, this sequel focuses more on suspense, but at least it retained the element of the psychological breakdown that the protagonist suffers, just like the protagonists of the previous films. The other installments also had touches of suspense, but the deaths were always the best parts. In this sequel, on the other hand, the deaths are less noticeable. As for the Candyman character, here he is more mysterious. Don't forget that in the original trilogy, Candyman was played by Tony Todd and I think it's the best role this actor had in his entire career. I think it's hard to make a Candyman movie without that actor and despite the fact that in this sequel said character seems different from the one everyone knows, at least Tony Todd made his big appearance revealing that he is still Candyman, but he was hiding behind a different face from another vengeful spirit. In addition, this film, through certain clues in some scenes, dialogues and the end credits sequence, it is implied that Candyman is the manifestation of black people who were murdered for racial reasons throughout history. In this sequel it becomes clearer what this character represents and it does a good job regarding the representation of the character, expanding the mythology of him. In conclusion, Candyman (2021) is not a bad movie and I respect well both the canon of the original film and the essence of the character despite the changes. The story is not bad, but it is somewhat short and should have lasted longer or included more elements. My final rating for this movie is 7/10.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Note, this is not a remake - as I originally thought. This film is a sequel to the 1992 film, starring Tony Todd and Virginia Madsen, disregarding all the sequels.

    'Candyman' is full of ideas, but not so well executed. I blame the director...and a not so good script. There is no suspense - or emotion - whatsoever, and not a very good story either. Candyman is not as scary a character as he was in the original film (oh, how I miss Tony Todd as Candyman!). In this film, Candyman is there for the kill, and the bodycount only . He has no character. He is a one-dimensional character whose only purpose is to kill those who summon him. (Oh, and why would anyone want to "play" the Candyman game if there's a chance you'd be killed? It makes no sense.)

    So, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II stars as Anthony, an artist who becomes obsessed with the Candyman legend. His art then become surreal and disturbing, and he alienates himself from his wife, who doesn't understand his sudden change in character. Unfortunately Yahya wasn't all that convincing as Anthony, and as a result I didn't find the character believable. The film is also laden with unnecessary racist remarks. (Then again, Jordan Peele served as screenwriter and producer, and all his films have racial issues... and critics love him...).

    As it turns out, Anthony is the baby that was saved from the fire at the end of the first film. (I therefore suggest watching the original film prior to watching this, as it will make a lot more sense.) Oh, whatever, there was no need for this reboot sequel. The original film was so good that this film is almost just as forgettable as the sequels that followed. At times I was literally sitting there thinking WTF! In short, I was bored. The 'new generation' might enjoy this.

    Would I watch it again? No.
  • Understanding that this sequel is its own installment and it interprets what Candyman is will allow you to experience this film differently. If you are expecting a carnage filled experience carried by the brilliant Tony Todd, you will be a little disappointed. But if you reflect on what the Candyman actually symbolizes and what this ghost actually means to the world it inhibits you may appreciate what they brought in this installment. It's not a fun watch. It's creepy and full of imagery that will make you cringe. Solid movie all around.
  • elliotjeory18 September 2021
    1/10
    Awful
    No likeable characters, very wooden acting, no actual horror as mostly off screen, terrible soundtrack, plot was below par, should of never been made. Truly awful.
  • Original Sequel that respects what came before it. This new film not only adds to the mythology of this series, but brings back what made it great. Nia did a great job directing. The art themes stem from the original, and is very prevalent in this one. A full circle movie. As an adult this film wasn't very scary. Doesn't mean it was a bad film. Wonderful film score. Could be labeled "woke propaganda" but cant fault it considering the entire basis of this character.
  • "Candyman is a way to deal with the fact that these things happened to us, are still happening!"

    Candyman has visual artist Anthony McCoy explores a tragically horrific nature of the true story behind the urban legend. Anxious to maintain his status in the Chicago art world, Anthony begins to explore these macabre details in his studio as fresh grist for paintings, unknowingly opening a door to a complex past that unravels his own sanity and unleashes a terrifying wave of violence that puts him on a collision course with destiny. I've been wrapped up in the beginning of the semester among other things that I've forgotten to write this review, which is surprising considering how much I've been thinking about it ever since I left the theater. Candyman goes beyond a simple story of a urban legend. If you've seen the original, which I did afterwards, you'll know that it's a smart story that has much to say. And speaking of the original, this is more of a sequel than a reboot, which I didn't know going in. The movie knows that a majority probably hasn't seen it or at least for a long time, so it takes a few scenes of exposition to catch us up. I wish that it were more the case like Halloween (2018) where it was given that this is a sequel to the original two. Had this been the case, maybe it wouldn't feel so rushed. There are so many great ideas that are explored, and some are left unfinished making it feel jumbled. Still, I think this is a standout movie.

    Nia DaCosta has a hauntingly beautiful vision throughout and her voice shines through. From the mind bending visuals to the eerie score (that still keeps Philip Glass' iconic themes in mind), it's a visual and aesthetic feast. What really made me happy was the gore. Instead of sticking to visual effects 100% of the time, and the visual effects used needed some work, they use body horror. The makeup is convincing and cool to look at. One thing that you'll note in the trailer and the movie is the use of (and forgive me for not knowing the actual term) shadow art with paper cutouts. It's very cool to watch. Colman Domingo, Teyonah Parris, and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II absorb all the screen time they get and give us committed performances. In particular, Domingo's monologue of the story of Candyman is very good. Being the lead, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II gives it his all, I just wish his character were slightly more fleshed out. We see him go through a lot, yet not too much is known. That may be due to the rushed story. What they do is focus on subjects like gentrification, police brutality, and racism. It's a perfect time for the movie to come out. These topics are applied throughout, but sometimes it's a bit jumbled where it doesn't fully work or it's only half explored. A little more commitment to it would've made the movie that much better, but I can also see why some of it would be cut. Not everyone is going to like Candyman for certain reasons I won't get into. I for one enjoyed it and consider it to be one of the best of the decade. I like how this has also brought light to the original movie which still holds up to this day. I'd recommend Candyman to everyone. It's not necessarily as scary as you'd think, but it makes you sit and ponder afterwards. Now that I've used his name five times, I'll leave it at that.
  • I get the impression that Director , Nia DaCosta is an angry woman and perhaps she has a right to be but please don't call this a horror film when it's actually a film about social injustice and racial inequality. Nothing more , nothing less.

    This is the sequel to the horror film Candyman (1992) that returns to the now-gentrified Chicago neighborhood where the legend began and boy don't we know it's been gentrified.

    For years in horror movies it was black characters who were stereotyped and was killed off early in horror films. In Candyman the tables have been turned . In this , it's the white characters that die quickly and for idiotic reasons . Every white person in this , are either utterly stupid or just horrible . That might be a coincidence but I doubt it .

    Once we get past the political stuff there is actually a horror film that is trying to break out but sadly not a very good one .

    It's not at all scary , in fact it's incredibly dull and the best thing I can say about candyman is that it's mercifully short .

    I do like the last scene but it's nowhere near enough to save this movie .

    Candyman is a sequel I neither wanted or liked but you have to take into account that I find the vast majority of horror films dull , so this conclusion might be more about me than the film itself.
An error has occured. Please try again.