When I saw the original “Candyman” several years ago I thought it was an average horror film.
If I had to pick a horror movie to re-watch, “Candyman” would likely be at the bottom of the list.
Now, a few years older and after watching both the original and the 2021 “Candyman,” I have a greater appreciation for what the film is aiming to do.
I am a white man who honestly would not know the first thing about living in the projects, being profiled by the police or what generational racism is like.
There are several reviewers on the web that can provide a better insight into that aspect of the movie.
“Candyman,” is like an onion, it has layers of social commentary that made me feel as if I were sitting in a liberal arts class.
If social commentary is not your thing, maybe pick a different movie.
“Candyman,” directed by Nia DaCosta, is a direct follow up to the 1992 “Candyman” and there are several connections between the two films that I enjoyed.
In present day, many years after the last of the Cabrini towers were torn down, Anthony (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) and his partner Brianna (Teyonah Parris) move into a loft in the now gentrified Cabrini.
Anthony is a stereotypical artist who is lacking inspiration to create more art.
I will say the art community was borderline parody just because I thought to myself there is no way there are people this full of themselves.
It is the art community that mounds the pressure on Anthony to pursue inspiration and to do so he follows a dark path.
A chance encounter with William Burke (Coleman Domingo) exposes Anthony to the true story behind Candyman.
Anxious to use these macabre details in his studio as fresh inspiration for paintings, he unknowingly opens a door to a complex past that unravels his own sanity and unleashes a terrifying wave of violence.
The movie is a tad slow to start with as it spends time developing characters. I can appreciate this effort as a lot of horror films have characters that I simply do not care about.
The problem with the slow start is that film is around 90 minutes long and by the time things start to pick up I felt the movie was almost over.
It is ironic that I am reviewing a film that I would consider art and that there is an art critic that comes into conflict with the main character.
Once the films does pick up, I was glue in my seat and continuously shoveling popcorn into my mouth.
The deaths in the movie are as gruesome as one can expect but the way each shot is presented to the audience is what makes them so great.
This movie is perhaps the most beautifully shot horror film I have seen in a while and the cinematography should be studied in film school.
I was not the biggest fan of the ending though and there were some plot threads left unresolved.
In some instances, the “Candyman” ritual seems forced for the sake of adding another scare into the film.
I can say that I was not actually scared but I was entertained throughout.
I found myself looking into any reflective surface to see if the killer spirt would be in frame. Sometimes he was- sometimes he was not, it is almost a game within the movie.
If you are a fan of horror this film should for sure be on the watch list at some point.
Obviously, this is a film for adults so, please, do not bring your kids to see this one.
I review movies on a scale of one bucket of popcorn to five buckets of popcorn.
“Candyman” earns a four out of five buckets of popcorn for being a good sequel to a horror classic.
I sure hope a sequel is made as I am excited to see where this series could go.