Candyman

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.

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.

Candyman dragged its hook to the bitter end, a very slow movie with a decided lack of slasher action. This read as more of an artisanal horror movie rather than a true killer horror film. The acting was decent and the effects worked, but too darn slow and not enough scares.

This sequel expanded on Candyman's muddled fictional mythology and mixed this mythology with some real people and events to give sociological and political background on some hot topics like racism and injustice to African Americans in the United States. I found it strange that they mixed some real-life racism-related crimes and their victims with a classic horror movie's fictional story for social commentary, but it's just my personal opinion. There are too many problems in this sequel, and I think the biggest problem is that this movie is definitely not as scary and thrilling as the first one. It's narrative is also unfocused, and that makes the story hard to follow because they crammed too many things into the script, which makes the script kind of messy, drawn out, and convoluted. I wasn't also impressed by the acting. The main guy's acting is really wooden; the character he played is also quite bland and hard to empathize with, and the supporting actors and characters aren't better than him. The movie is also quite slow-paced. It lasts 1.30 hours, but it feels much longer because of its slowness. Overall, I found this movie less scary and less enjoyable. It's a well-made movie; that's why I didn't give a low point, but it just couldn't give you the first movie's suspense, thrill, and horror.

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.