That was an excellent one.

Good concept, poorly executed.

An Exercise In Nonsense

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

If ever there was an underrated horror classic of the 90's that is unfairly looked over or even often looked down upon, it's the beautiful and haunting film "Candyman", inspired by the stories of famed author Clive Barker. The 1992 original is one of the few true classics to emerge from the genre in its decade of release, boasting moody visuals, clever writing, fantastic characters and a unique point-of-view with its leaning towards being a sort-of dark "urban" fable. It cleverly used African American culture, commentary on racism and social unease to its benefit, crafting a thoughtful and heinous story revolving around the urban legend of a devious figure that emerges should you call his name into a mirror five times. A figure with a hook for a hand that was birthed from the dreadful murder of the son of a slave... a man who had fallen in love with a white woman and was hunted down and tortured to death as a twisted form of retribution from the racist townsfolk that surrounded him.It was in many ways a perfect horror film. It was filled to the brim with tragedy and heartbreak. Demented scares and horrific visuals. But also well-developed and well-rounded characters and strong visual storytelling. Even to this day, there are people who are too frightened to say the name "Candyman" into a mirror because of the fears that the film has left with them.It should come with no surprise then, that a sequel was soon commissioned and delivered just three short years later. "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" is very much a highly entertaining and enjoyable sequel, building the lead villain into much more of a classic "boogeyman" figure and piling on the scares (and bodies) to new heights. With some good direction and the continued grand performance of the devilish Tony Todd as our antagonistic vengeful spirit, the film has a lot going for it. However, as is all too often the case with sequels, bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. And despite the fun that is certainly to be had with the concept and execution, it does unfortunately come at the cost of a developed story and thought-out characters. The original "Candyman" was horror as art. "Farewell to the Flesh" is horror as junk-food. Just satisfying enough to be worth a go now and then... but not as fulfilling or as high-quality as you'd probably prefer.Set in New Orleans just before the city explodes with Mardi Gras fever, we follow schoolteacher Annie Tarrant (Kelly Rowan), a young woman whose life has been shattered by the myth of the "Candyman"- her father murdered in the fashion of the mythical killer and her brother accused of murdering academic Philip Purcell (Michael Culkin in a fun-but-short-lived reprisal of his character from the original), who had written a book based on the myth and the events of the first film. Trying to prove to herself that the urban legend of the Candyman cannot possibly be true, Annie inadvertently summons him forth, setting off a chain of events that will not only reveal his dreadful origins in shocking detail, but threaten to tear Annie's life apart, piece by piece.The thing that really throws me for a loop with this particular follow-up is just how often it seems to both hit and miss the mark in each and every scene. Director Bill Condon is certainly adept when it comes to moody, stylish visuals, and he seems to be having a grand bit of fun behind the camera. And he often does help elevate sequences beyond the shaky writing, giving us plenty of scares and jumps that will keep the audience entertained throughout the proceedings. But it never quite amounts to much outside of being general movie "fluff." It's not substantial, it's just shallow entertainment. This is mostly because of the script courtesy Rand Ravich and Mark Kruger, which is so focused on bringing us blood by the bucketful that all sense of story and character is often lost in the rush to get to the next horror set-piece. And while I am perfectly fine with horror as entertainment and "fluff" (it'd be hypocritical for me to say otherwise, as I do like mindless entertainment quite a bit), the issue is that this is a sequel to a highly artistic and deliberate original. It feels like too much of a step backward.Still, I can't say its not a fun ride to take. Those stylish visuals and constant attempts at scares make it a breezy watch. Tony Todd once again delivers the goods with his continued chilling presence and phenomenal performance as a tragic villain with a dark history. There's a lot of interesting things to explore with its setting in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. And it even occasionally does some really cool things with the concept. At its core, there's just enough going on here to make it well worth checking out. It may be a bit of a shallow retread of the much better original. But you'll have a blast watching it, and you won't regret giving it a shot.I'm giving "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" a slightly above average 6 out of 10.

The Candyman (Tony Todd) arrives in New Orleans and sets his sights on a young woman whose family was ruined by the immortal killer years before.So, how did this sequel come to be? Bernard Rose, who had made the original film, had written the first draft of the script, and it is interesting because Candyman never actually appears in it. (Apparently about this time he was also working on a script for "Midnight Meat Train", but the eventual film was written by Jeff Buhler, so it does not seem any of Rose's ideas made it very far.) Director Bill Condon actually came in late, only a few months before shooting began. By then, it had gone through multiple drafts and at least three writers (after Rose, Rand Ravich and Mark Kruger were on board). Condon shared an agent with Clive Barker, which helped get him in the director's chair. As he puts it, he was in "movie jail" and had been stuck making made-for-TV movies for a few years. (As of 2016, he has become wildly successful with "Dreamgirls" and some "Twilight" films, just to name a few.) As for the setting, after Cabrini Green, where do you go? Well, there is another impoverished place where the desperate might believe in Candyman: New Orleans. And, this film offers him an origin story that was barely "fleshed" out in the first film. Perhaps we can feel some sympathy for this monster? Although not as strong as the original, this is a solid sequel that keeps the same feel and relies heavily on the same Phil Glass theme music (much of the original soundtrack is carried over). The sequel is more traditional in its approach to horror, being more of a slasher than a mood, and where Candyman was something of a myth in the first film, we now know he truly exists as a flesh and blood being. The mirror theme is brought back, both literally and in new, subtle ways. The lead character has trouble painting her self-portrait… this is, in a way, the failure to see herself in a mirror.There are a few too many jump or "bus" scares, but also plenty of decent gore shots for those who need the blood. Roger Ebert noted this, writing, "It's got one of those soundtracks where everyday sounds are amplified into gut-churning shockaramas, and where we are constantly being startled by false alarms." Even Condon concedes the point; he calls them "boo" scares, and is sort of embarrassed about them in retrospect, not realizing how they might play outside of a theater audience.The film has something to say on race and slavery, though it is not heavy-handed about it. So far as I know, Candyman is the first black horror villain to have a sequel since Blacula. With the third installment, he may be the only black horror icon ever to have three films. Although not black myself, it is interesting how the black community has latched on to Tony Todd as their horror icon – conventions that are typically 90% white male have a bit more color when Todd is a guest.As always, Scream Factory provides some great features on their blu-ray for a film that mainstream movie watchers would not think was worth the trouble. The Bill Condon audio commentary is very insightful, though Condon does tend to stutter and stammer a bit. Along with that are new interviews, including with the Candyman himself, Tony Todd. He deserves the attention.

A good Philip Glass score – albeit one that's rehashed from the original – is the only good thing about this lacklustre sequel that's more like an endless slasher flick than the evocative and atmospheric ghost story of the first film. Here, Candyman is given a back story (and the flashbacks are the only effective part of the production) while going after various characters who may or may not be his own descendants.This is a lifeless and vapid film, one that it's genuinely difficult to watch while keeping your eyes open. Every signposted death is familiar from the original, and no extra lashings of grue are going to change that. The story delivers an uninspiring lead actress (Kelly Rowan) and gives her an equally uninteresting brother (William O'Leary), neither of whom do much to elicit sympathy in the viewer. Tony Todd, of course, is exceptional, but it takes more than a single actor to make a great film.Bill Condon later won plaudits with GODS AND MONSTERS but I found his direction here to be stultifying – and dated in the worst, mid-1990s way. Aside from those aforementioned flashbacks, I can't think of a single moment of life or energy in the entire plot. It's merely uninspired, with Candyman whittling off one character after the other, while way too much time is given to one of those awfully clichéd sub-plots about the police suspecting an entirely innocent victim of the killings. Throwing in some 'name' character actors like Veronica Cartwright and Bill Nunn doesn't soften the experience, either.

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