An accomplished horror reboot with a sting in its tale
What is the deal with these Hollywood reboots? It seems like they all have one common goal - to cash in on nostalgia. But why do these movies always seem to suck? Is it the reused footage or the terrible acting that makes them so bad? Or is it just that they’re all so forgettable?
The original Bernard Rose movie, Candyman, was one of the best horror movies of its time and far better than the sequels that followed. It didn’t necessarily need another follow-up but courtesy of Nia DaCosta (Little Woods), we have been given one anyway. Thankfully, it’s not a lazy retread of what has come before as DaCosta makes a valiant attempt at doing something new with the Candyman mythology and for the most part, she delivers an entertaining horror piece that should please fans of the earlier film.
Anthony’s story is about how he moves into the gentrified Cabrini Green and begins to learn about the legend of the Candyman. After hearing about it, Anthony uses what he has learned to create a piece of art, but soon realizes that there is more to this story than meets the eye. The past terror that has been lurking in his neighborhood starts to surface and Anthony must face it head on if he wants to protect himself and Brianna from it.
Tony Todd’s Candyman is over. Sherman Fields, the innocent hook-handed man who was murdered by the police in the 1970s, has become the focus of Anthony’s attention and his visions. This new version of the iconic figure is a catalyst for a new version of the classic figure whose name we dare not speak five times in front of the mirror.
This update is about how racism still exists in our society and how we can work to address it. Jordan Peele, who produces this movie, is clearly interested in holding a mirror up to the racism that exists in our society and he previously incorporated racial themes into the works of horror that he directed. We need to be more aware of what we’re saying and doing and make sure that we’re not contributing to the problem.
Despite its heavy themes, “Candyman” is still a horror movie. The killer, known as Candyman, still murders people by ripping them apart with his makeshift hand. Interestingly, the killer is not always shown on-screen. This may be because he exists in a mirror dimension that only his victims can see. ..
The direction and acting are all above average here, so this is a quality production through and through. Candyman’s kills are all stylishly shot and DaCosta manages to do something original with each one of them. Abdul-Mateen II is terrific as the artist whose works of art are rejected and as his fate becomes entwined with that of the Candyman, he manages to showcase different sides of his character as he evolves throughout the film. ..
The 1992 movie, Candyman, was a classic and its reboot/sequel is just as good. It might focus on a different telling of the Candyman legend but there is more than one connection to Bernard Rose’s original. It would be wrong of me to go into specifics here as it’s advisable that you watch it if you want to know the sting in the tale, but needless to say, you should be satisfied by the revelations that are weaved into the plotting.
This macabre movie is a well-made, intelligent horror film that rivals some of the more popular titles on Netflix. I’m not sure if it’s better than its gruesome forebear, but it manages to match it at times in terms of underlying menace and heartbreaking tragedy.
Despite its many strengths, there should be no sequel to Candyman. Executives at Hollywood studios should not keep resurrecting the character for financial gain, as this horror film is already superior. ..
Candyman was a horror movie that was surprisingly good but there are also those that are horrifyingly bad. Michael Myers’ power to chill has long been diluted so it’s time to let him rest in peace now that he has made a triumphant last stand.
