Watch Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh For Free

Touches You

Memorable, crazy movie

hyped garbage

Excellent but underrated film

Set in New Orleans this sequel opens with a lecture on the Candyman myth, presented by Professor Philip Purcell, who doesn't believe that he is real. Afterwards he is confronted by Ethan Tarrant, a young man who blames Purcell for the death of his father. He was obsessed with the Candyman and a series of murders some believed were committed by him before being killed in a similar fashion himself. Soon afterwards Purcell is killed by the Candyman and Ethan is arrested. Ethan's sister Annie, a school teacher is called and soon finds herself dragged into the Candyman story. To prove to her pupils that he is just a myth she says 'Candyman' five times while looking into a mirror. Nothing happens at first but after a visit to her old home, an abandoned plantation house, she is faced by the hook-handed man. He kills her husband and tells her that she will be with him. Trying to find a way to stop him she starts to look into the history of the Candyman and discovers a shocking link to her own family.This isn't as good as the original film but to my mind it is still pretty good. I liked how it further explored the origins of the Candyman and his link to Annie. Tony Todd does a great job bringing the character to life; he has a real presence and manages to be menacing and sympathetic at the same time… the more we learn about Candyman's origin the more sympathetic the character becomes. That doesn't mean he doesn't do some very unpleasant things; when he kills with his hook it is brutal and bloody. The way bees come from his body is also rather disturbing. Kelly Rowan does a fine job as Annie and the rest of the cast are pretty good too. As with the first film the music of Phillip Glass adds to the atmosphere. The tension mounts nicely towards the end but the final way Candyman is defeated is a little disappointing and requires us to accept that a certain item has been hanging on the wall of an abandoned building for well over a hundred years! Overall though I'd say that this is a solid enough horror sequel with some good scares.

Blah. Did they even know they were filming? First Candyman, badass. How you gonna improve on that? Technically speaking the sequel should be about Helen, who defeated him in the first movie. Also, technically the sequel should be in Chicago. OK fine I'll let them do it in New Orleans, as if I have any control over this movie other than not watching it or pressing fast forward, pause or rewind. Yeah, other than that I can't control how this movie was written and neither can you, only the crazy people who made this movie had any control, and y'know, I'll bet while making this movie it's creators probably only had limited control over the project. You struggle in life and then, ultimately, in the end you fail, because in the end we all must fail. Guitar solo.

I was not a big fan of Candyman (1992), as I did not find the movie scary or creepy at all and Candyman did not scare me at all.I saw this movie last weekends, I Can not think of a single think that really stood out in the movie, i can't remember much about the movie at all.I found this movie really boring at times but I did find less boring then first movie, i don't know why, i the felt candyman was just little bit more creepy this time around.The acting was good from the whole cast but the ending was little rushed, I think however it fitted in with rest of the movie. I gave first Candyman 5 out of 10 and the same goes for this movie.

The only way I can think of that anyone would prefer this to the original is, as much as I hate to use that cliché, that they did not understand it. There is infinitely more to that brilliant film than "black dude kills people with hook". However, if that was what you liked about it, heck, you might enjoy this. Bigger, not better. The first carefully built up, this goes through the motions. This begins with a dull retelling of the myth(which, as you may remember, took time to get to last time around... and no, that wasn't an accident), and then, perplexingly, proceeds to go over it again(and showing flashbacks to what we already know happened... does a different way of saying the exact same thing count as creativity now?). This spells out what the first hinted at so expertly. Is it really such a tough concept? If we are not told a lot, we will fill in the blanks, and what we imagine will be lightyears past what can be put on a screen. I love this medium, but you can't possibly think that one set idea is superior to each individual viewer's imagination. This tries to explain things that ought to remain unclear, and the effort is boring. Todd gets increased screen-time(and is given lofty-sounding BS to spew, half of it doesn't make a lick of sense... and yes, of course he can deliver it impeccably), and as you probably already know, the man can not look bad regardless of how he is presented. Still, it isn't satisfying. We become used to it, obviously. This awkwardly forces in kills by him, in spite of the strict rules related to that. The continuity is screwed over repeatedly, unless you consider this to be an alternative to the '92 one(it needed no sequels, it was *perfectly* self-contained). This is utterly predictable, it is no longer clever or layered, and the script increases in stupidity at an exponential rate as it progresses, until it spins out of control and then blissfully ends, on what you know is a low note. They didn't even bother to experiment, this uses the same score, and a ton of other things that worked in the film preceding this, without nearing it in atmosphere at all. The plot exists solely to provide a follow-up. A slasher? Arguably, though this is lousy regardless. This has boo-scares that don't pay off by the truckload. The FX are poor(and not necessarily convincing), including the make-up. Acting is decent at best(the kids are *atrocious*). I also personally couldn't stand Kingfish, absolutely painful, and he just would not shut up. What is memorable about this? Name me one thing that is remotely interesting in this, that was introduced in this. There is a lot of disturbing content, bloody(at times gory) violence, a little strong language and sexuality, and brief female nudity in this. The DVD comes with a theatrical trailer. I recommend this purely to those looking for bland horror that delivers what you'd expect and *nothing* else. 5/10