Candyman (2021) User Reviews

I'd stop at four times, myself...

[donaldricco · 6/10 · 18 December 2021]

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!

Clearly none of these reviews understood the original

[random_gyrl · 7/10 · 28 August 2021]

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.

A mess

[kuarinofu · 5/10 · 19 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.

Didn't work for me

[Gordon-11 · 22 September 2021]

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.

This isn't a reboot

[randygray-06576 · 7/10 · 27 August 2021]

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.

One Caveat: If you understand what Candyman actually symbolizes then you should appreciate this interpretation.

[ijaqvbfj · 7/10 · 28 August 2021]

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.

trailer person needs a raise

[jiannovoets · 1/10 · 4 September 2021]

The trailer was like 10 x cooler than the actual movie. Like, i was hyped to go see this for months and now i wish i never wasted my time doing so.

Plot: predictable yet incoherent. Character building: boring. And maybe the worse part is that the movie wasn't scary for a second when it could have needed a lot of that.

Good imagery and score. Inconsistent storytelling.

[demented_peruvian · 6/10 · 28 August 2022]

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.

I wanted to love it.

[BandSAboutMovies · 3/10 · 23 September 2021]

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.

Say His Name

[LeBallz · 7/10 · 17 August 2022]

A LOT of hate for this title in the reviews. Makes me wonder if IMDB has become the new battle ground of the ongoing social war or if many of the reviewers even watched the movie. As an adult you should be able to watch a movie which has politics that you disagree with fundamentally and not fly into a reactive rage but apparently this movie (or even it's existence) created quite a trigger for many viewers.

The original "Candyman" was far from a classic and the conceit at the heart of this reimagining is clever in that it links to the original story but puts it in context of a much larger tale of social vengeance. Agree with the politics or not, it is a deft reframing of a previously moribund villain.

The Good The cinematography is EXCELLENT. The fluid camera work, the transitions, the perfect display of Chicago by night, all add a fun and interesting tension to the movie and enhance rather than distract from the overall story.

The horror elements all work well without falling too far into tropes. The fact that the story slowly unveils the whole truth of Candyman and the use of shadow puppets to represent the exposition (ala the Babadook) was interesting. It's a good mix of slasher and paranormal and the motif of the mirrors works well to build tension and further the central allegory of the story. There were several scenes where the Candyman is present but not entirely obvious, leading to fun finds upon re-watching.

The acting is all pretty good and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II does well as he portrays a man who is slowly losing his grip on reality.

The Bad The social commentary is pretty heavy handed and plays to a pretty cliched view of black history. It makes sense that the producers and directors embrace what they know and write from their experience but it will turn off some viewers given how central the commentary is to the overall story.

The Acting Pt. 2 I don't intend to generalize but I've noticed that in many recent movies with social justice themes (Harriet, The Hate U Give, Wrinkle in Time, Billie Holliday) the directors seem to struggle drawing believable performances from any non POC actor. Part of it is the fact that the characters are so one dimensional and in this movie every white actor is effectively just fodder to be killed by the Candyman. It would be helpful for directors to move outside of their boxes and try to portray their characters with more empathy and beyond narrow stereotypes.

Conclusion Good horror movie with a unique style and some fun twists on horror archetypes. Would recommend for anyone looking for horror with something to say.

How did the critics give this film a good score?

[liamml-83553 · 3/10 · 31 August 2021]

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.

This is being review-bombed

[minabasejderha · 10/10 · 29 August 2021]

It's a good film. And I enjoyed it quite a bit. Peele was one of the screenwriters, but he was not directing on this one. Up 'til now, I was basically only familiar with his comedy, but I will be giving Get Out and Us a watch some time soonish.

As for what else I said, this is almost certainly being review-bombed by people with petty disagreements with Peele's politics, as with the politics of the film more broadly. They seem to think the *coughs* 'woke' racial message of this film is something the film added. And that's correct. The 1992 film DID add the woke racial message to Clive Barker's story, which was instead about social class in England. But the 2021 film definitively did not. If you don't remember, watch it again. You must have missed it. Regardless, if you are upset that the film is about a ghost of a man who was lynched and now seeking revenge, you have the 1992 film to blame.

This film maybe does has a more nuanced take on issues of housing discrimination and gentrification (my field of study) than the original, but that's because the actual historical and sociological writing on gentrification advanced in the last 30 years, and the 2021 film (surprisingly) kept up with current research.

Yes, the film is racially conscious. Yes, it has interesting things to say on the matter. But no, it is not anti-white. There is a singular joke at white-people's expence, and it is just that the black characters are much more cautious than the white ones, and they consequently live longer.

What IS the film's political message, then? Well, a couple of scenes, one early on and one toward the end, depict the police as trigger-happy. The latter of the two depicts that they will lie and cover up each other's mistakes, and pressure witnesses into backing them up. This is called the "blue-wall of silence", a well-documented phenomenon that even some ex-police have complained about, saying they were bullied into playing along.

I would not say this is the "point" of the film, but it is a clear perspective that the film has. It is a secondary point to the main characters' stories. You can easily enjoy this movie even if you disagree with it's politics. If it helps, just tell yourself the police in this movie were bad apples.

Disappointing

[cooperbrown-10309 · 6/10 · 17 September 2021]

As a child I watched the original film and was frighten to my core. As I got older, experiencing the sequels I have yet to have that feeling I had with the original. In saying that, I was very disappointed in this film especially with twist in Candyman's narrative and failure to build upon the character of the characters in that guy's life. The film should have been longer and should have worked a bit harder on the narrative, especially through transitions. The only good element was the physical evolution into Candyman. Meaning the bee sting, and the hand, arm, and face thing was disgusting in a good way. Anyway, I feel Jordan Peele underperformed. After he floored me with Get Out, I expected Candyman to have me pissing my pants. Us wasn't wow either. He set his own bar with Get Out. This movie really fell short. Also, I wasn't looking for propaganda. I was looking to be frighten and possibly temporarily traumatized.

WOW!

[jackaries · 3/10 · 11 October 2021]

That was absolutely awful.

It was handsomely filmed but there was not one single likable character in the whole damn film and, of course, Jordan Peele insists on battering you over the head with the WHITE PEOPLE BAD agenda he trots out in everything he makes.

The original already had something to say about racism and the mistreatment of the poor in society but managed to weave it into an engaging story with a degree of subtlety whilst maintaining its primary focus on crafting a genuinely scary film that is still effective to this day.

Stick with the original.

Abysmall... Candyman takes the background seat to political propaganda

[sumtim3s00n · 26 September 2021]

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.

Great horror, widely understimated

[elehiguera · 7/10 · 15 November 2022]

I love horror and I loved this Candyman. It won't make you not sleep at night, but it is definetely going to make you suffer.

The gore bloody elements created the tension for me. I love gory films and I am used to enjoy them, but this movie made me close my eyes at points.

The cinematography is beautiful, even too beautiful for a horror movie (I found that a bit distracting).

Is it the best horror movie I have ever watch? No. Is it a good horror movie? Yes. Jordan Peele is amazing, I feel this one got lost between the catalogue just because his other movies are better. I can't wait to see more of his work.

I see bad reviews about the lack of dept in the characters. Well, this is a horror gory film, and the characters have all the insides that you need in a horror film.

I believe as soon as you read a review of someone annoyed at the political view of the movie, you know from that point that review isn't about the film, but about the political stands of the people writting it.

Loved watching it. The political plot adds very cool twists to the movie. I recommend to give this a watch.

Candyman Has a Sweet Opening, But The Razor's Cut The Finale Off Roughly

[rgkarim · 6/10 · 27 August 2021]

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.

politically motivated movie

[laurmanolescu · 1/10 · 22 October 2021]

Weak storytelling,no heart,no soul. Just another revival for some political induced reasons without asking the real issues in the black communities.an excuse to kill some white people on screen.

If you like the original you'll enjoy this one

[wookiedacat · 7/10 · 27 August 2021]

First and foremost, watch the movie yourself so you can give your own opinion. Don't let these wannabe critics persuade you not to watch it. Just go on and watch the movie and take it for what it is, a movie about Candyman. Nothing more nothing less.

If you're white your dead

[caponetone14 · 1/10 · 28 October 2021]

This movie was slow and wasn't even scary the whole focus of this movie instead of horror is racism. This movie only victims are white people if a white person was on screen you can predict they were gonna die the fact that this attacked one race made me sick to my stomach because if it was the other way around about a movie where a white killer only killed black victims there would be outrage from the black community it's a complete double standard and made me give this a low rating I wish I saved my money.

Sloppy and rushed Editing ruined it for me

[Shazam1303 · 6/10 · 26 August 2021]

I was traumatized by the first two Candyman Movies as a child. Something that has stuck with me through the years. I went in super nervous and expected to be reminded of the trauma I once had. But after the movie was over I felt more like my trauma was healed. I felt relieved. Because of the social commentaries and the focus this movie has, it kind of shy's away from the intense horror and goes more into themes of trauma and social injustice. I went in expecting to be frightened but got more of a drama about the traumas of a black man in America (which I am by the way, so I could connect to a lot of topics). Those topics are frightening if you can really relate to them. So kudos for talking about important things, but the Candyman used to strike way more fear into me. This movie just didn't do and responsible to me are certain decisions that the director and team made... The movie felt rushed and a lot of scenes didn't make sense. You don't know why certain characters choose certain actions and therefor the movie is full of plot holes and unrealistic behavior. The kills are just not frightening because you don't feel for the characters that are killed. They just appear in the movie to be killed. There's nothing personal to these characters and the main plot. There's just not enough time built to invest in them and what happens to them. And the Candyman just didn't seem scary to me. Neither did his look or the way they staged the kills. I really don't want to spoil anything but it's hard to get into the issues without details.

But put it like this...

My Wife, which is usually scared of horror movies and hates me for a week, after I take her to one, left the theater loving the movie and not scared at all. She complimented the movie and the topics and felt sad...not scared.

So yeah! Maybe this comment will help you to set the right expectations.

I hope we get another sequel because this movie gave me tones of ideas where you can take the future of the franchise and I really want them to take the movie into scarier and more intense directions than this.

Boring

[copabm · 3/10 · 31 August 2021]

Spoilers

I loved Get Out, and enjoyed Us, even though it left me with many questions. I'm a fan of the original Candyman, so I was excited about seeing this movie. It started out good, but then it went downhill. Too much boring talk, no suspense, and I didn't care about any of the characters, except for the brother. Then it leaves you at the end with, "Huh?" I loved seeing Tony Todd's beautiful face, but why was he resurrected, and not Yahya's character?

I gave it three stars because I got to see Tony Todd. I liked the fact Anthony was the baby from the original, and Vanessa Williams reprised her role. I would have loved more of a story surrounding Anthony being the baby, and less about his bee sting infecting his body. More of Vanessa's character would have been great too.

The original made you terrified when Candyman appeared in the movie, however, in this one I yawned. I am hoping for another movie with Tony Todd as Candyman.

Well directed, not too heavy handed

[hogwarts16 · 8/10 · 28 August 2021]

Although the argument can be made that this new entry in the Candyman series is not as subtle as the first film, it is no less contemplative. What it lacks in nuance, it makes up for with fantastic directing from Nia DaCosta. I can promise you it is leagues better than anything the first 2 sequels dished out.

Some of the visuals are truly haunting, especially the shadow puppetry anytime it comes into play; sit through the end credits is all I'll say. On top of the directing, the cast here is really good, with Coleman Domingo being a particular standout. It interestingly shirks cetrain tropes and cliches. One character in particular I was certain had slasher victim written all over them yet they narrowly avoid a grim fate; you'll know who it is when you see the film.

Best of all the film has it's own identity whilst building on the story and themes of the original. At barely over 90 minutes it is a breezy, albeit abruptly short sit. It may come off of preachy to some, but DaCosta and producer/writer Jordan Peele have made a chilling new entry for the horror classic, in the same vein as Halloween (2018), that will definitely have audiences talking.

Cringe worthy like a bad Netflix original

[epicbrowniez · 6/10 · 1 September 2021]

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.

Doesn't want to entertain, just wants to ram a message down your throat

[jtindahouse · 4/10 · 16 September 2021]

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.