Benutzerrezensionen

"Candyman 3: Day of the Dead" is a prime example of a horror series going to the well one too many times. At the time of its release in 1992, the original "Candyman" was one of the most ferociously nasty horror films in a number of years, and while the 1995 sequel, "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh," wasn't quite up to par with the first film, was at least watchable. The disappointing "Candyman 3" isn't utterly horrible, but it is, at best, unnecessary.

Tony Todd (and his cool-as-hell, gravelly as grave dirt voice) returns for a third go-round as the hook-handed, ghostly maniac, and this time he's brought back to life by his last surviving relative, his great-great granddaughter "Caroline," an artist who lives in the Barrio section of Los Angeles. Caroline is inexplicably portrayed by former "Baywatch" babe Donna D'Errico (of all people!), who can't act worth a damn but boy, does she look good running around in a tight tank top and black panties, so I honestly had no complaints about her performance. After she displays Candyman's paintings at a local art gallery, Caroline makes the mistake of saying her ancestor's name five times into a mirror and soon Candyman is running around the streets of L.A., popping up amidst swarms of bees, carving up her friends, asking her to "Be...my...victim," et cetera, et cetera. A pair of racist cops are convinced that Caroline is behind the string of murders and are intent on putting her away for the crimes, so in order to clear her name she has to stop the Candyman once and for all (with some help from an actor friend and his adorable young daughter), set against the backdrop of the annual Dia de los Muertos ("Day of the Dead") celebration in East L.A.

On paper it sounds OK, but the film unravels quickly. The movie is so cheap looking compared to the other two entries in the series that it could pass for a SyFy Channel or Lifetime Original Movie. Apparently the film was shot in a mere 20 days, mostly during daylight hours as the budget wouldn't allow for nighttime shoots, so even when scenes are supposed to be dark and scary, they look far too bright and unrealistic. Tony Todd does the best he can with what he's given but even he looks like he's simply going through the motions. As I previously mentioned, D'Errico can't act, so her Minnie Mouse-ish screams of terror will provide tons of unintentional comedy. There's a few decent gore scenes and some T&A sprinkled throughout but overall "Candyman 3" never comes close to giving you the feeling of darkness and dread that the original had in abundance.

I suppose if you're a fan of the series, "Candyman 3" is worth a look as long as you can find it cheap (like I did) but unless you're a Candyman completist you can safely give this one a miss.

I realized that I had never seen any of the Candyman movies, so I rented all three, and watched them one after another. The first two were really good. But this? The dark atmosphere has been thrown out the window. The awesome Phil Glass score is gone. Having a Baywatch chick as your lead?!! C'mon. This movie has no class. It was obviously thrown together by hacks. Heck, there's a shot of a building, where they obviously threw an orange filter over the sky in color correction, but it covers up the top of the building as well! This movie just looks cheap, which is a shame considering how well the first two were made. Candyman says "Be my victim" so many times it borders on self parody.

I was kinda looking forward to seeing how they ended the Candyman trilogy and the story actually looked entertaining. I remember when I was younger getting a peek at the movie on HBO, but I think I remember falling asleep, so it was at least something I could put to rest of what the rest of the movie was about. Candyman 3: Day of the Dead turned out to be an ordinary sequel with nothing to remember and it wasn't up to par with the original Candyman.

Caroline, the great great grand daughter of Candyman, is still haunted by the dreams of what her family and Candyman had to go through. No one believes her of course that he is still real, Candyman is back though and he is murdering her friends one by one while she gets the blame. She tries to uncover the legend and figure out what he wants from her, but she might end up loosing the only true friend of her's.

This film was sadly typical and even for a horror movie it was plain pathetic, I do like a little cheesiness every once in a while, but for a great story like Candyman, this was really sad. Well, I can see why they didn't make a fourth installment to the Candyman series, big surprise there. Well, at least I'm done... or am I? *Insert cynical laughter here*

2/10

'Candyman', itself a well done adaptation of Clive Barker's excellent source material, still holds up very well. Find it well-made and genuinely scary with great performances from Tony Todd (terrifying) and Virginia Madsen (in a difficult role) and a goosebump-inducing score from Phillip Glass. Didn't find myself though caring very much for 'Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh', where almost every component (though there were redeeming merits) was executed the opposite to the original.

As much as it pains me to say it, for me 'Candyman: Day of the Dead' is even worse. It is as far removed from the first 'Candyman' as one can get, if it weren't for the title character and Tony Todd it could easily pass for something else entirely because it sure didn't feel like 'Candyman' and more like a knock off from SyFy or The Asylum. 'Candyman: Day of the Dead' also is an insult to Clive Barker (saying this even when trying to take it on its own terms), is even more pointless than 'Farewell to the Flesh' and it doesn't even have the redeeming qualities that that sequel had (the setting, score and Todd).

The least bad thing about 'Candyman: Day of the Dead' is Ernie Hudson Jr, who comes over as quite assured. Sadly, he is not in it an awful lot.

One cannot appreciate the setting, which is nowhere near as colourful or atmospheric here, because the film looks so cheap, even for direct to video. Everything looks so drab, while the editing nauseates and the gore and effects are so afterthought-like in how they look. There is nothing goosebump inducing about the score, which came over as monotonous and repetitive. Even Todd isn't a redeeming quality here, describing his performance as going through the motions is being far too kind, he actually looks and sounds like he had gone a long period of being sleep-deprived.

He is nothing though compared to the catastrophically bad Donna D'Errico, who has no presence and is supremely irritating. Again, the characters are uninteresting and unrootable, with motivations that are either vague or illogical (both at times too). The dialogue is repetitive and long-winded, with the cheesiness far too much that you feel like you're being assaulted by it.

The story is the biggest problem, and for the same reasons that doomed the storytelling of 'Farewell to the Flesh'. The complete lack of risks and originality further adds to the constant feeling felt throughout the film "why does this exist?" Furthermore there is no tension, suspense or dread, killed by a deadeningly sluggish pace, the mind-numbing and quite insulting stupidity and everything being so predictable. Not only does it feel watered/dumbed down because of this lack of atmosphere, but the over-reliance of cheap-looking gore gives the film a cynical, mean-spirited edge and cheapens the atmosphere.

To conclude, despite not caring for the second film this was even worse and something of a disgrace to Barker. 2/10 Bethany Cox

The Candyman returns once again to torment and kill a distant relative for further undisclosed or vague reasons.

This time it's Baywatch alumni Donna D'Errico taking the lead and boring the hell out of us for the films 90 minute duration.

Granted this is a marginal step up from Farewell To The Flesh (1995) but still spotlights why the Candyman franchise died such a death.

I've never understood how Tony Todds Candyman became so iconic, how do people place him alongside the likes of Freddy, Leatherface and Jason when he had just 3 rather mediocre films to his name.

I'd like to see Candyman reborn, whether a 4th film or a reboot I don't mind but we a) Need Todd to remain the titular role and b) New writers.

The Good:

Wade Williams

Donna D'Errico is far better here than I've seen her before

The Bad:

Plot is still pretty messy

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Remaking the origin scene and making it different makes about as much sense as nipples on men

Donna D'Errico is allergic to bra's

Saw this for the first time since I am on Candyman marathon.

Of course it was on fast forward mode.

This is the third installment in the Candyman series and a direct sequel to the 1995 film Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh.

Surprisingly the movie was made in 1999 but the events takes place in 2020.

Wow this one has good amt of nudity n since Tony Todd is the producer, he gets to kiss the nude woman. The first two has zero nudity inspite of a shower scene in part 2.

In part 2 they show that his hand was chopped off by a rusted saw n his body was rubbed with honey so that bees can wreak havoc on him n he was not tied on a crucifix/pole but he was on the ground.

In this part he was shown as tied on a crucifix n then the honey n bees stuff.

We have Wade Williams before his Prison Break stint.

This is definitely the worst film in the series but not the worst film ever. The story is still (at least) somewhat interesting and even the the execution it lacking, it still tries to explore worthy topics that are still relevant today.

Taunted by numerous stories and rumors over the years, a woman's attempts to disprove the Candyman legend inadvertently releases him upon her friends and forces her to try to stop him from continuing on.

This actually turned out to be quite a bit of fun and is much better than expected. One of the better elements here is the fact of this one managing to tie in the family legacy incredibly well, perhaps even better than any of the other entries throughout here. The relationship itself is one thing, but bringing in the visions of the mother as well as the connection through them makes this one so entertaining and manages to really connect this one quite well. That brings up the main storyline point here with this one brining the blood and gore through some rather inventive and enjoyable encounters here. The more chilling and enjoyable ones are based on the nightmares so this one's more thrilling moments come from the supernatural elements like the opening attack in the bathroom, the confrontation with the deformed mother coming from the bloody tub despite being in the public bathroom and the finale in his hive-home for the final struggle causes this one a lot of fun as this all comes off as exciting, extended action scenes build around pretty big scares. Other scares, as in the patrol car ambush or the gallery attack show-off the ability of this one to use the supernatural antics in the real works do it makes for a series of pretty intriguing and chilling scenes that also bring about some nice fore as well. It does have a few flaws, the main one being the rather overdone manner where the killer's targets toward the main victim here spends the whole film tormenting them instead of actually doing something about it. Despite the repeated claims of wanting her as one of the victims, he never really makes any effort to go after her and instead utilizes the psychological torment of going after her friend and family to get the job done which really makes no sense since he clearly has plenty of time to go after her instead. Otherwise, this one comes off just fine as it is.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Nudity, and a brief, mild sex scene.

After watching the reboot this is oscar material in comparison. Stick to original 3 movies, if you dont like 2 and 3 stay well clear of last one.

Definitely the worst one mainly for the acting being so bad! Donna D' Errico is gorgeous looks more like a pornstar, the other main actresses have the charm and better acting chops. Day of the Dead is solid for its sexuality and horror is pretty good for sure; I kinda like cheesy I wouldn't recommend this much unless for fans of the genre. I must say I've seen worse movies this is entertaining for the way it is don't get me wrong, I love the editing and terror is amazing!

For some reason, the third part of a trilogy always disappoints me, if only slightly. And that's just what Candyman 3: Day of the Dead does: slightly, not heavily, disappoints.

It seems that Caroline (the now-grown-up daughter of Annie from the second film) is on her in LA. She owns Daniel Robetaille's (the Candyman) paintings which she has chosen to show at the gallery of an aspiring artist.

Tempted by her friends, she says the Candyman's name five times because she feels she'll be doing him justice by proving his supposed non-existence. Although nothing happens while she is at the gallery opening, her life later begins to unravel as she finds the vengeful spirit slaughtering everyone around her (he killed her mother years before), with only Caroline appearing to be suspect.

Co-produced by Tony Todd, this somewhat hokey (and hopefully FINAL) entry to the Candyman films is not that bad. Although I consider anything to outwit its bland and tepid predecessor, this is not much better with acting (Donna D'Errico's Caroline is a shrieking wimp at best), and our heroine seems to exist only to scream, fill out a tank top, and see her friends slaughtered in extremely gory fashion.

The Latin "Day of the Dead" festival has almost no relevance in this film, as its concept is only used in one scene I can think of, but then again, it wouldn't have been wise to just call this entry "Candyman 3" and leave it at that. Let's hope after this fairly decent entry that film makers will do what they should...leave it at that.

Rating: **1/2 out of ****

I liked the first one.the second was poor and not helped by the narration by a DJ.This is far worse with a very low budget,a terrible script.and for a horror film minus scares chills and thrills.The acting is bad and the movie is just rubbish.1 out of 10

while i actually liked the first two Candyman movies,i didn't' like this third and(so far Final)installment.i found it boring and repetitive and i didn't like the story very much.there's a lot of filler here,which suggests to me that the filmmakers didn't have enough of a story for a complete movie.i also wasn't too impressed with the acting.there was a lot of overwrought theatrics.as well,there were some things in this movie that did not fit with the previous movies,basically throwing out certain aspects of the lore.maybe i'm just imagining things,but this is my opinion on things.finally,this movie has none of the style of the second movie.adding it all up,this third installment in the series is much lower in quality on all counts.my vote for Candyman 3:Day of the dead is a 3/10

And so we have the second sequel to a film that worked best as a stand-alone horror outing. Clive Barker's mix of fairytale and the macabre made 1992's CANDYMAN a splendid little movie, evocative and atmosphere and a breath of fresh air amidst the latest NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET or Friday THE 13TH sequel. Sadly, the rules of movie money-making never change, and so two unnecessary sequels followed that added absolutely nothing to the story and served only to besmirch the original's reputation.

CANDYMAN 3: DAY OF THE DEAD offers by way of story a straightforward repeat of the first film's plot: a young woman is haunted by a ghostly killer who nobody else believes exists. She's subsequently blamed for the murders carried out by this ghost, and she must find a way to stop it before either a) she goes mad, b) she faces a life in prison or c) she herself dies. The law of diminishing returns means that everything on screen is a lesser imitation of that which has come before, and the excruciatingly predictable script means that there's nothing in the way of originality or genuine scares here.

Director Turi Meyer had little experience of filmmaking before this, but the direction can't really be faulted – even if it is a little bland. No, the biggest problem lies in the casting of former Baywatch starlet Donna D'Errico as the heroine. D'Errico is a horrible actress, excruciating when it comes to her 'fear' scenes, and she's just paraded around in a variety of tight-fitting vest tops and knickers. Nice body, shame about the talent. The supporting cast are all very bland, with the exception of the sorely underused Ernie Hudson, Jr. – son of the GHOSTBUSTERS actor – who seems to have inherited some of his dad's talent. And then there's Tony Todd, who is menacing and brilliant as the Candyman, and the only real reason to watch this. Todd is one of those actors generally stuck in B-movies who always give a decent performance, and Danny Trejo is another. He isn't required to do anything other than stand around and whisper 'be my victim' but he even does that well.

There are some repetitive gore sequences here, generally involving people being impaled by Candyman's hook, as well as a plethora of nude scenes in a bid to attract some (male) attention. Sadly, these don't distract from the crappy script and general tired air surrounding the proceedings. CANDYMAN is a good film, but the sequels are best forgotten about.

Where do I start? No characters at all, writing that makes me cringe, sequences where I'm like: What is happening, and an idiotic story. The one star I gave it is for Tony Todd, aka the only good part of this movie.

Ok I have it 5 stars cause I love the god Tony Todd so much. It gives Daniel Robitie a bit more story which I appreciate but in general o could definitely do without this one.

Things I like They talked about Daniel Robitie as a person not just a boogeyman.

How race and if someone could "pass" as white was a benefit.

Tony Todd is always a treat to watch.

Things I didn't like Basically the rest of the movie.

It relies too much on jump scares.

There's so much exposition it treats you like you're stupid. And you kind of feel dumber for having watched it.

The "bad cops" are so over the top that even in 1999 they would've been out in jail or at least fired.

Oh, how can I star? This movie was so awful. I love the first two Candyman movies, they were creepy, scary and they had a plot. In this third installment there is no good acting. Donna D'Enrico should leave her career. I was very sick of hearing her stupid screaming. The only one right in this movie was Tony Todd. Oh, and Tony Todd said in some interview that Candyman 3 was a load of crap. Leaving the awful acting, the stupid ending and almost everything about this movie behind, it was OK. Imean, I liked the gore and the performance by Tony Todd. God, they even missed the excellent soundtrack by Phillip Glass. Bad, bah, bad sequel. I know it was inevitable, but now they should make a Candyman 4 to end the story, cause it's a shame that THIS CRAP was the end of the series. But, what can I say? What's the end of the series in Halloween, Hellraiser and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? They have been remade cause those series had no salvation. Look at Halloween: Resuurrection, Hellraiser: Hellworl and Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation. If you want a creepy, scary well-done movie, just watch the original Candyamn, and then if you liked it, go watch Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh, but stop right there. Candyman 3 is a big mess: 3/10

Candyman 3: Day of the Dead (1999) is currently available on Hulu. The storyline for this picture involves The Candyman tracking down one of his descendants and trying to convince her to join him in eternity. He will try to frame her for a series of murders so she has no choice. Can she escape the Candyman? This movie is directed by Turi Meyer (episodes of Buffy and Smallville) and stars Tony Todd (Candyman), Donna D'Errico (Brooklyn Nine-Nine), Alexia Robinson (Total Recall) and Lupe Ontiveros (As Good as it Gets). The storyline buildup in this one was pretty average, primarily because the main character's acting was horrific. The gore was still pretty solid and Todd was awesome as always. I actually really liked how this movie ended. The first 2/3rds of the movie was blah but the last 1/3rd was pretty solid and worthwhile. Overall this is an absolute must see, but a step down from the first two. I'd score this a 6/10 and recommend seeing at least once.

Caroline McKeever foolishly conjures up The Candyman, who just so happens to be a relative of hers. McKeever's nearest and dearest begin being slaughtered, and she is the prime suspect.

They definitely tried to sexy this film up a little bit, the second was farewell to the flesh, this third is very much hello to the flesh, that's about the only thing that stood out about this film, the rest is woeful.

I can't highlight many positives, as quite simply there aren't any, even the wonderful Tony Todd is just a little lifeless, given the material he was working with, you can understand it.

The story is actually not bad, but the films major failing, the production, it looks horrible, it's so cheap looking, like a budget made for TV movie, hard to see that any money went into it at all, nobody seems too interested.

The acting is shocking, Todd apart, Donna D'Errico is very poor, and it's a reminder that an attractive cast isn't always a talented one.

1 is great, 2 is decent, this third one, go and do some ironing or feed the dog instead, nothing to see here.

3/10.

Did this film really have a chance at beating the hook stabbing prequels? I was pleasantly surprised at how good the follow up to the first was, however the third...well.

After avoiding this movie for ages, not wanting to be disappointed, I finally popped by my local video shop ( I may have gone to see it at the flicks if I had been given the chance ). Sat down with a mate who hadn't seen the others and watched him squirm, not from the horror but from boredom.

A poor low budget remake of the others this certainly was. A gripping glorious gore fest this was not.

We now find that Candyman had time to do a couple of sketches of his voluptuous lover (he's no Picasso) during his slave(?) days. Thankgod the writers kept his horrible demise the same.

Well I wasn't expecting the Earth, but how about a complete self parody instead of this, at least we could have laughed aloud in the correct places, like Scream. Was it supposed to be funny?

Some good ideas: an insensitive lover who had to get it, a subway scene that didn't stand a chance against 'American werewolf' but was still enjoyable, a great cop death and plenty of honey.

Okay it was bearable. Just. Maybe they'll repair the damage with another; until then I'll conveniently forget this one. Watch the others again instead.