Candyman 2

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.

I think the original Candyman is a very good horror film and builds upon the mythos of such urban legends as "Bloody Mary" and so on and so forth. It didn't feature the best acting in the world but it was suitable and the atmosphere was very scary.

The sequel, "Candyman II: Farewell to the Flesh," is as most horror sequels typically are -- inferior and less scary. It's like "Halloween II," "Friday the 13th Part II" and "Psycho II": not as good as the original! Yet for what it is, "Candyman II" is quite entertaining, and still manages to remain rather atmospheric. The film takes place in New Orleans around the Mardi Gras and it's got some good scary segments. Some aren't so scary but are fun to watch. We know what's going to happen but it's still entertaining.

No this isn't expertly made but it isn't mind-numbingly bad as some of the genre are. Basically it's loads of blood but it also retains its creepy cinematography and the direction is better than expected.

Overall this kept me entertained, which is all I expected in the first place.

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.

They had to do it. They had to make a sequel to one of the greatest horror movies of the 90s. But it's always sad to see how much difference in quality there has to be. I have to say, as far as sequels of slasher movies go, this ain't that bad. It has good production values. But of course the great acting performances of the original are gone except for Tony Todd's, who is almost equally as good as he was in the original. But also gone are the great editing and photography, the gritty realistic feel of the original, the eerie and moody score of Philip Glass. Candyman just continues ripping people up with motives that are standard in slasher movies. The bees are involved more in the gory scenes, but are still underused.

Not half as good as the first movie. I haven't seen the third nor am i interested in doing so.

In New Orleans during the Mardi Gras festival an author who wrote a book about the legend of the Candyman is murdered and someone who he had a confrontation with that night is accused of the act. Although the accuser's sister a schoolteacher tries to discover who actually did kill the expert and learns that the legend of The Candyman is for real. She has conjured up the mythical serial killer by repeating his name in front of the mirror five times. This is where the horrifying nightmare begins and some surprising revelations occur.

The sequel to the underrated original you could say its just another slasher because it lacks the psychological edge, but I thought it was a reasonably good one and above the usual routine slasher. Sure it doesn't have the hypnotic power and impact of the original, but it still delivers enough well arranged shocks and has an mildly interesting plot that delves a little a bit more into the Candyman's background. With it showing us flashbacks of the painful ordeal he faced and how he became this legend. The plot isn't entirely focused on the Candyman legend (like the original was), with the investigation leading more towards the sister finding out about her family secrets while trying to get her brother of the hook and basically the legend is woven into it. Though, it's not as smart, or incredibly gripping this time around, with it leading more towards graphic violence and having some tedious moments slowing down the pace. It starts off rather slow, but it gets better as the story moves along and some moderate surprises pop up, but really it isn't that hard to guess to where the story is heading and some things just don't add up. The cloud of mystery around the Candyman just seems to be gone, or I should say far less evoking, with it seamlessly rehashing a lot material and ideas which were done so more effectively in the first film. On a whole it just doesn't capture the intense power and poetic tussle of the original's subtle plot and elegant dialogue. The material seems to want to force-feed us the information and the narration by the damn DJ was really starting to get on my nerves after awhile. But nonetheless, it's a bloody treat (literally) and at least it's not just another slasher involving horny/drunk teenagers with a shallow plot.

The look and direction of the film was alright, but it lacked the polish production values and the touch of detail and class. Atmosphere was slightly disappointing, because the dreaded build up is only effective in short pockets because it's was replaced by too many jump out scares that eases the tension. Although saying that it did provide some freaky sequences, but that was on the behalf of Todd's towering presence. Also there's a nice amount of nasty deaths and blood splattering for gore fanatics. Great makeup achieved and you got to love those special effects. The score from the original is used again and it creates that sense of mystic and doom that flooded the original. On show again is strong camera-work that truly catches your eye. The performances are fair with two reasonable standouts. Easily Tony Todd as the harrowing Candyman, who lives the part as the tormented soul perfectly and Veronica Cartwright turns in a surprise performance. Kelly Rowan as the heroine isn't bad either. The dialogue isn't that riveting, but Todd's echoing voice causes chills to run up your spine. Something about this fictional legend is quite impressive in my eyes. He lives on the pain and the people's fear of him. This is what gives him power and keeps his legend alive. Really, he is nothing but a heart lorn soul.

Overall, it doesn't hold up to the original, but as for a sequel, it's not all that bad.