NOTE IMDb
5,3/10
15 k
MA NOTE
Le Candyman arrive à La Nouvelle-Orléans et cible une jeune femme dont la famille a été ruinée par le tueur immortel des années auparavant.Le Candyman arrive à La Nouvelle-Orléans et cible une jeune femme dont la famille a été ruinée par le tueur immortel des années auparavant.Le Candyman arrive à La Nouvelle-Orléans et cible une jeune femme dont la famille a été ruinée par le tueur immortel des années auparavant.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Avis à la une
It has a good story line and also a fantastic musical side to it as well that adds to the atmosphere of the film...does anyone know if there is a soundtrack? Highly doubt it. Kelly Rowan is well sexy (in a girl next door kinda way)and plays the lead really well. Each to their own on this film I guess, but it's good to see that I'm not on the only person in the world that rates it....Just something about it, the whole New Orleans/Mardi Gras thing just adds that special something to it. The first film is cool as well, def a little more freaky, especially the last couple of scenes. But this one is my fav and it does sound as if I'm not missing much when I say I haven't seen the third film.
The Candyman legend moves on to New Orleans, and has a whole new set of victims. Annie Tarrant (Kelly Rowan) is a school teacher. Her father was killed by the Candyman. Her brother Ethan (William O'Leary) is wrongly accused of murders, the latest being a Candyman denial writer.
The change in setting concerns me, but New Orleans has some great potential for urban legends. It goes into the life of Daniel Robitaille a little bit more with maybe a possible way to kill him once and for all. But it's not as creepy as it needs to be. The movie lacks any tension or fear.
Kelly Rowan is playing a typical scared victim. At least she has the skills to back it up. But the atmosphere isn't up to the original. It's all a weaker version of itself. It certainly doesn't have as powerful of an ending as the original.
The change in setting concerns me, but New Orleans has some great potential for urban legends. It goes into the life of Daniel Robitaille a little bit more with maybe a possible way to kill him once and for all. But it's not as creepy as it needs to be. The movie lacks any tension or fear.
Kelly Rowan is playing a typical scared victim. At least she has the skills to back it up. But the atmosphere isn't up to the original. It's all a weaker version of itself. It certainly doesn't have as powerful of an ending as the original.
Ok, before I begin I'd like to clear up a little squabble. This sequel to the early 90s original is called Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh. NOT Candyman 2. Anyone who disagrees with this statement might as well have said the aforementioned killer's name a certain number of times. The film, obviously, loses any sense of the originality that made the first in the series so breathtaking, but so what? People who claim sequels of this kind are ALWAYS bad should not watch them, because they never will be as good as their originals. This outing sees the hook-handed serial killer return for another gut-wrenching, blood-soaked dose of supernatural shenanigans, with the emphasis on BLOOD. Because there's lots of it, which is not a bad thing, cos we'd die without blood. If that makes sense. Final verdict: watch if you're a fan, don't if you hate sequels. Oh, by the way, i liked it. But that's maybe just me.
Personally, I loved the movie Candyman 2. I thought it was very well put together although most don't agree with me but that's OK. I mean, compared to the other two Candyman movies, this one definitely tops them off. The first one was hardcore blood and guts. It was DISGUSTING!! The third movie was so bad that I couldn't watch past 30 minutes of it. The second, I thought, had the best storyline of all of them. It was all around really good! Definitely my favorite movie of all times. The first movie wasn't too bad but that was, like i said, hardcore gore. I was pretty grossed out by the end and I'm really into slasher flicks, that should tell you something. I urge everyone to give this movie a chance. It had a great story (even though it was basically the same as the first movie, I think this one was way better as in location), great actors, great everything! The end was the best, very suspenseful. I thought it was all around great!
Schoolteacher Annie Tarrant travels to New Orleans, to investigate her father's death, foolishly she summons The Candyman, and faces an almost impossible challenge to stay alive.
Farewell to the Flesh is actually a pretty decent follow up to the original, classic horror. I'm surprised to read a few comments where people say they prefer it to the original, no way on Earth, some elements are better, but the overall package just isn't in the same league.
The best thing about this film, and where it scores over the original, the storyline, it's actually a great story, we've got the origins of The Candyman himself, and a good backstory for Annie, our central character.
Tony Todd, what can you say, he's just got something, when he's on screen, you watch, he just has a natural charisma, mix that in with the dark elements of the character, it's winning mix.
Unfortunately, it looks a little cheaply made, and some of the scares are lacking, neither are enough to stop this from being a rather enjoyable sequel, just don't bother with the third.
6/10.
Farewell to the Flesh is actually a pretty decent follow up to the original, classic horror. I'm surprised to read a few comments where people say they prefer it to the original, no way on Earth, some elements are better, but the overall package just isn't in the same league.
The best thing about this film, and where it scores over the original, the storyline, it's actually a great story, we've got the origins of The Candyman himself, and a good backstory for Annie, our central character.
Tony Todd, what can you say, he's just got something, when he's on screen, you watch, he just has a natural charisma, mix that in with the dark elements of the character, it's winning mix.
Unfortunately, it looks a little cheaply made, and some of the scares are lacking, neither are enough to stop this from being a rather enjoyable sequel, just don't bother with the third.
6/10.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesBernard Rose originally conceived a sequel to his 1992 hit Candyman (1992) as not featuring the eponymous character at all but instead continuing to explore the nature of urban horror myths. This was quickly scotched when the producers figured that audiences would show up because they wanted to see Candyman eviscerate his victims.
- GaffesAs Annie's brother falls down the steps, he is obviously replaced by a stuntman with long hair.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 6 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 13 940 383 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 6 046 825 $US
- 19 mars 1995
- Montant brut mondial
- 13 941 216 $US
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant