-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Candyman Review Thread (Currently 85% RT)
- Thread starter digitalrelic
- Start date
- Entertainment
You're not wrong. The movie has plenty of holes and that 90 minute run time feels like a studio edict, because there are numerous scenes from the trailers that I didn't see in the flick. With that ending, it could have really REALLY used ten more minutes at least.
Everything I mentioned also happened in the finale 10 to 15 minutes. The film broke its neck with that speed.
I don't really like horror but yes seeing Peele's name attached has me interested as I've really enjoyed Get Out and Us. I didn't know the director and don't want to diminish that, just explaining why this interested me in the first place. I would guess a lot of people feel that way. That's simply the power of his name right now.
That said you kidding me with theater only releases? I'm fully vaccinated and not a chance I'm going to a theater anytime soon.
That said you kidding me with theater only releases? I'm fully vaccinated and not a chance I'm going to a theater anytime soon.
So does this movie ignore the ending to Candyman 1 and the retcon of the backstory in the other movies?
You mean with Helen?
She doesn't show up as a specter herself in this but she is referenced quite a fair bit. She even gets her own spooky name in "Bonfire Helen."
I can't remember what changes they made with Candyman in 2 or 3 but I would imagine they've just been ignored basically.
I can't remember what changes they made with Candyman in 2 or 3 but I would imagine they've just been ignored basically.
Liked the 1st and 2nd act, third act was very short and weak. Fell apart after
Loved the use of mirrors and back ground for creepy effects. Wished the ending was stronger
Brianna gets abducted in the laundromat and awakes in the church.
Loved the use of mirrors and back ground for creepy effects. Wished the ending was stronger
In Candyman 2 and 3 they moved the character away from being the son of a freed slave who's father had become wealthy and lived in Chicago, to a child slave who lived in New Orleans and fell in love with a white woman after painting her portrait.
One was written by Clive Barker the others felt more like "black people are in New Orleans"
i was excited for this. i love the original candyman. i'm sad to say that my faith based on it being co-written by jordan peele was misguided.
i can't underscore enough that as a huge horror fan how disappointing it was to be clubbed over the head with the dialogue in this 2021 sequel. if you've seen the killing of a sacred deer, this film is more or less the scene where barry keoghan's character gives his "it's metaphorical" monologue on repeat. i don't disagree with the points this candyman makes, but it is so hamfisted where it's killed all my excitement for nope.
angelica jade bastien says it better in her review than i ever can. there's spoilers here, so beware if i haven't already deterred you.
if you are interested in this movie, do yourself a favor and watch/rewatch the original instead.
i can't underscore enough that as a huge horror fan how disappointing it was to be clubbed over the head with the dialogue in this 2021 sequel. if you've seen the killing of a sacred deer, this film is more or less the scene where barry keoghan's character gives his "it's metaphorical" monologue on repeat. i don't disagree with the points this candyman makes, but it is so hamfisted where it's killed all my excitement for nope.
angelica jade bastien says it better in her review than i ever can. there's spoilers here, so beware if i haven't already deterred you.
if you are interested in this movie, do yourself a favor and watch/rewatch the original instead.
Last edited:
Nice.
That draft of the script needle drops Philip Glass' theme tune from the original right at the moment he appears here in this moment, does that still happen? I thought it was pretty badass to be honest.
The first wasn't written by Barker, but director Bernard Rose, who changed a ton about the original story in adapting it, not least of which was uprooting the tale from Liverpool in the UK to Chicago. Barker wrote the actual treatment the script was based on for Candyman 2.
One thing that felt cheap and lazy in this film was
Everyone who Candyman kills has to be a dick right before they die. Just to remove sympathy.
Art girl who spoke a single word in the scene prior? Dick.
School girls who speak his name in the bathroom? Dicks.
The dude's sister being an ass to him right before she summoned him? Dick.
Art dude + critic girl were already dick-ish, but they full on took the mask off prior.
The cop scene speaks for itself.
Art girl who spoke a single word in the scene prior? Dick.
School girls who speak his name in the bathroom? Dicks.
The dude's sister being an ass to him right before she summoned him? Dick.
Art dude + critic girl were already dick-ish, but they full on took the mask off prior.
The cop scene speaks for itself.
A bit underwhelmed, to be honest. Strong production values and solid acting but the script treats its interesting themes in disappointingly shallow fashion. Also I think most films are too long but this felt really rushed and could've benefitted from a bit more breathing room. 6/10 at most for me.
Critics are being suuuuper generous with that 85% Tomatometer.
Critics are being suuuuper generous with that 85% Tomatometer.
Though I did like it, it really lacked the horror and scares of the first one.
Will not see this at theaters, will wait for streaming.
However, I have wanted to watch the originals again and can only find the first one via streaming (for free) on Peacock. Wish the others were available.
Edit: Nevermind. I found Candyman 3 for free on Hulu and part 2 is strange, it has like three listings on Amazon. One has only a trailer. Another has rent for 3.99 and a third is free for another 4 days. As far as I can tell, between the rental and free versions, there isn't a Director's Cut, extended, limited or something similar between the two.
However, I have wanted to watch the originals again and can only find the first one via streaming (for free) on Peacock. Wish the others were available.
Edit: Nevermind. I found Candyman 3 for free on Hulu and part 2 is strange, it has like three listings on Amazon. One has only a trailer. Another has rent for 3.99 and a third is free for another 4 days. As far as I can tell, between the rental and free versions, there isn't a Director's Cut, extended, limited or something similar between the two.
Last edited:
I really enjoyed it and thought it was better than 95% of the other horror films I have seen in the past year or so. It is not perfect by any means, but most horror movies are really sloppy.
Ok so it's not as good as reviews first seem. It's not terrible but it falls apart as a horror film, as it's not scary at all.
It's shot well, the acting is good, it has a few decent moments and a few nods to the original but the main subject matter is delivered pretty heavy handed and takes over the movie but not in a good way. I'd give it a 6/10.
It's shot well, the acting is good, it has a few decent moments and a few nods to the original but the main subject matter is delivered pretty heavy handed and takes over the movie but not in a good way. I'd give it a 6/10.
Tony Todd fans will be disappointed. No idea why they felt the need to focus on this new random Candyman, he has zero personality and is a waste. They should have just let Tony Todd do his thing and be awesome, instead we get his face at the end for less than a minute ffs.
If they wanted to go with the hive thing, why not have more than one new Candyman ? It could have been way more interesting than just one random guy, so it just felt like an excuse to replace Tony Todd.
Also leaving the kills mostly off screen sucks. Not something I want from a Candyman film.
If they wanted to go with the hive thing, why not have more than one new Candyman ? It could have been way more interesting than just one random guy, so it just felt like an excuse to replace Tony Todd.
Also leaving the kills mostly off screen sucks. Not something I want from a Candyman film.
I thought it was pretty good. Definitely works on the lore of the character. I'm not sure what to make of the different theories about the "new" Candyman, I have my own thoughts and I'm sure one of these is probably pretty close to the mark. Maybe the Blu-ray will have a good commentary or something on it to break it down.
I love digging into the lore of stuff like this. And I'm glad that the film completely ignores the sequels (which were, IMO, garbage) and only references the original 1992 film.
I didn't mind the "new" Candyman at all, because I knew going into it (from the trailers) that it was a different take on who/what he was, but that OG Tony Todd was still in the film somewhere. I don't know that I put too much stock in what William said about what he is (the whole damn hive). Even if he's partially right, it's all still inspired by the original story of Daniel Robitaille. I think the spirit of Candyman (the whisper in the classroom) took on the form of Sherman Fields because that was the story that Anthony was told by William, who specifically stated that Fields was "Candyman for me". Anthony's revival of the legend was based on this, so he was kind of "powering" this aspect of Candyman. But the OG character is still very much real, because of how he appears to Brianna at the end, despite her never having heard his specific story. Robitaille's plan appears to have come full circle, by using Anthony to further his legend and keep himself "alive", even if it took thirty years longer than he planned. Him telling her to "tell everyone" is part of that, the same motivation he had in the original film, he only wanted to stay alive as a story told forever.
I love digging into the lore of stuff like this. And I'm glad that the film completely ignores the sequels (which were, IMO, garbage) and only references the original 1992 film.
Beautifully filmed and compelling but the central story unravels toward the end and doesn't quite manage to pull itself back together. Which is a shame as up until that point it's built on strong themes and the rising undercurrent behind the what and the why is well formed. It just gets derailed on the last bend and loses a lot of that momentum right when it needs it the most.
Aspects where it shines include the cast, with characters and their interactions being the main pull-through amidst some of the shakier scenes. Nathan Stewart-Jarrett is just magnetic throughout. It really is beautifully shot too, which is the one element I think really manages to stand above the rest of Peele's work. There were many moments where it was hard to feel any sense of rising dread when you're busy admiring the composition of the scene.
To that end - it's not particularly scary either. As someone who's absolutely useless when it comes to horror films I was watching it like a regular movie. So don't let that aspect put you off if you're interested.
Stay for the credits too. There's no scene afterwards but they are themselves a distillation of the movie before them and they're strong for something so simple. Definitely gives you a moment to sit and digest a lot of the themes that did work in the film.
Aspects where it shines include the cast, with characters and their interactions being the main pull-through amidst some of the shakier scenes. Nathan Stewart-Jarrett is just magnetic throughout. It really is beautifully shot too, which is the one element I think really manages to stand above the rest of Peele's work. There were many moments where it was hard to feel any sense of rising dread when you're busy admiring the composition of the scene.
To that end - it's not particularly scary either. As someone who's absolutely useless when it comes to horror films I was watching it like a regular movie. So don't let that aspect put you off if you're interested.
Stay for the credits too. There's no scene afterwards but they are themselves a distillation of the movie before them and they're strong for something so simple. Definitely gives you a moment to sit and digest a lot of the themes that did work in the film.
Last edited:
If you liked the original you will like this one is all I can say. I think alot of the themes in the first were very ahead of its time so they seem cliche done again now. The directing itself was fantastic, I think alof of the hamfistedness was in the marionette scenes which I think is a byproduct of that kind of storytelling? I think the Peele name set expectactions unrealistically high. Interesting how the first had very mixed reviews but was considered a classic over time. We'll see about this one.
Gonna cross post my thoughts from the Horror OT
I like how they went all in on the idea Candymanis a black urban legends first and foremost, and that like with any urban legends he's an amalgam of multiple stories combined, and when retold, they're not accurate. Its something that was introduced in the original and was expanded on in this one.. Writing got a little dodgy in areas but I think the film worked as a whole. Also enjoyed that they put the Tony Todd cameo in at the very end. And damn has Vanessa Williamsnot aged a day
also pretty funny that they make it clear black people don't fuck with this and most of the victims end up being white people disrespecting the black community in some way, shape, or form. I think they nailed what they were going for
I really do think they did a good job of expanding on the original idea that the first film put forward about how he's an amalgam of all the horrible shit that happens to the people who live in that area. Even the thing laundry man said about how only the stories about white people ever gain traction was sort of referenced by them skipping the one story about the kid who got mutilated in the bathroom. It's the only Candyman story told in that film (and this one) that doesn't involve any white people so I think it was deliberately left out to prove his point. Amalgam Candyman was always a thing though.
And I mentioned before but I really like how they intentionally get Helen's story wrong the first time around to show how urban legends are what we shape them into
Also damn was every cop in the world just waiting to break into that apartment? There were two fuckin cops in that car and 20 dudes showed up to get that guy
also pretty funny that they make it clear black people don't fuck with this and most of the victims end up being white people disrespecting the black community in some way, shape, or form. I think they nailed what they were going for
I really do think they did a good job of expanding on the original idea that the first film put forward about how he's an amalgam of all the horrible shit that happens to the people who live in that area. Even the thing laundry man said about how only the stories about white people ever gain traction was sort of referenced by them skipping the one story about the kid who got mutilated in the bathroom. It's the only Candyman story told in that film (and this one) that doesn't involve any white people so I think it was deliberately left out to prove his point. Amalgam Candyman was always a thing though.
And I mentioned before but I really like how they intentionally get Helen's story wrong the first time around to show how urban legends are what we shape them into
Also damn was every cop in the world just waiting to break into that apartment? There were two fuckin cops in that car and 20 dudes showed up to get that guy
Last edited:
Probably won't scar you as much this time around but there is some truly haunting imagery in it
Well, it was a white girl that got the razor blade in her candy, and the guy they were looking for (innocent or not) was black, so....
I know, right? She looks amazing. I remember seeing the trailer and thinking there's no way there's enough of an age gap for them to be playing mother/son, but I looked them both up, and both of their ages are pretty much spot on for their characters (Vanessa's obviously, because the same amount of time has passed in the real world), but Abdul-Mateen's right about the right age that little Anthony would be today.
I liked it but Last Night in Soho trailer was better. Holy shit I wanna watch that.
Really liked the opening credits and it was all kind of chilling and scary until about midway. But we were in a super loud theater so that made some of the scares more intense. Heavy handed on the BLM stuff but oddly restrained when it came to commentary on art and art criticism. Maybe some people need that shit spelled out to them tho.
Really liked the opening credits and it was all kind of chilling and scary until about midway. But we were in a super loud theater so that made some of the scares more intense. Heavy handed on the BLM stuff but oddly restrained when it came to commentary on art and art criticism. Maybe some people need that shit spelled out to them tho.
US was so disappointing after watching Get Out.
I just couldn't take Lupita serious with that voice she was using and still don't understand the ending.
It would be a good idea. I rewatched the day before I saw the new one. Still holds up.
So there's the one shot in the trailers of the low rises, but how much else of this was filmed in the area of old Cabrini green?
I enjoyed it overall but the writing as incredibly heavy handed and I feel things get muddled in the final parts. Why would you want to bring the Candy Man back? He murders innocent people, black and white and everyone in between without making any differentiation. You summon him and you're basically fucked.
Oof this didn't land with me at all. Technically competent, well acted, and has some interesting ideas but lacking any sense of place, a weirdly flippant tone and and odd pace. Just goes from scene to scene where nothing really sticks and the kills are glossed over without any impact beyond disconnected setpieces. Its characters aren't very compelling and it feels like the movie needed time to let things breathe, because otherwise it's overstuffed and unfocused. And the fact that the Candyman himself isn't even trying to have any sort of charisma or character coming after the original is a real let down.
The row houses are the only parts left, so even if they shot in other areas around there, it wouldn't be recognizable (so they probably didn't bother). There are several scenes that take place at the row houses, though.
You can always report the first post to suggest a title change.
I'd rewatch it. The film actually does something pretty great with the OG.
Saw this last night and really enjoyed it! I'm not sure how well it holds together thematically (I'm reading various pieces about it, I just had a bit of trouble connecting the literal Candyman shit to everything else it had going on while I was watching it) but it was scary without relying on jump-scares and the way that a lot of the violence is more suggested than explicit is actually super effective. That bathroom scene whewwwwww
Yeah, I forgot to share my thoughts here but this is all incredibly solid aside from the script itself. The dialogue is downright atrocious in spots and the ending has all the subtlety of a wrecking ball.
Nia DaCosta has the juice, the script didn't. Overall, a 6/10. It's a breezy watch and has some incredible shots, the score is fantastic too, but this needed a big rewrite to really stand a chance at coming close to the original which was a success all around. Still the second best Candyman though!
Nia DaCosta has the juice, the script didn't. Overall, a 6/10. It's a breezy watch and has some incredible shots, the score is fantastic too, but this needed a big rewrite to really stand a chance at coming close to the original which was a success all around. Still the second best Candyman though!