BLM interpretation from Nia DaCosta. In the same year, a similar film project Lovecraft Country was released. A mixture of horror and the pain of the African-American people, which no longer seems to be called that. The whites drove the blacks into the ghetto and then stripped them of that. But the spirit of revenge will never die. And in this concept, the maniac and killer Candyman is not a villain, but an antihero. A mixture of meat, monster and bodyhorror.
Plot. A talented but not very successful artist, in search of inspiration, awakens the urban legend of Candyman. The weird guy with the hook who comes out of the mirrors and opens his throat wasn't always like that. He was once an urban fool who was accused of molesting a girl and lynched. Since then, the spirit of this poor fellow has turned into a demon and appears to those who say the name Candiman five times in front of the mirror.
The movie is made more or less normal, but all this BLM theme completely kills horror and looks quite boring. Although, as it should be in the original, but here somehow the accents are too accentuated.
You don't have to look.
The story, shown in the original "Candyman", based on the story of Clive Barker about an African-American who was brutally killed for interracial relations in the 19th century, which prompted the ghost of him to return to our time to become an urban legend, so relevant lay on the tracks of real events of his era that made the film not just another horror movie about a villain who kills all those who in front of the mirror 5 times say his name, but a real reflection of the oppressive despair that occurred in the black quarter of Cabrini-Green in the 80s. In addition to a rather intricate detective story with a touch of a thick layer of mysticism, the tape and the truth very openly paid attention to all the ongoing social and social horror of this god-forgotten place called the Ghetto, inadvertently touching on many painful topics. Racism, lawlessness, poverty and, as a result, the general panic mood of the population living on needles. The killer with the hook appeared there as a natural product of some evil that could not but arise in this hellish haven.
Given that the problems of racism, despite the active fight against it, have not been eradicated (taking into account some events, as well as the claims of African Americans themselves), the topic remains relevant to this day. In addition, over the years, new problems have arisen that require attention and have entered the agenda of major studios, such as the rights of sexual minorities. And if you add to all this the endless love of filmmakers to pull out of mothballs original projects and redo them in every possible way, then you are not surprised that the choice fell on the Candyman, the story and message of which, based on all the above, are definitely suitable. I want to praise the authors that they did not become lazy and rivet the remake, and came up with a full-fledged sequel to the film of 1992. And, by the way, the plots docked kind of nicely. The sequel takes a couple of decades and from the ghetto, which once existed in Cabrin Green, almost no trace remains. There are still abandoned one-storey buildings waiting for their renovation hour, but the main multi-storey buildings, in which evil was once done, were demolished, building decent apartment buildings in their place. In one of these apartments live our heroes. A black couple working in the arts. Or rather, only a girl works here, while her boyfriend, being in a creative crisis, still can not find himself in art. Once in the laundry room, he accidentally meets a guy who tells him a story that happened here once, with Candyman appearing in it - a certain man who gave children candy stuffed with blades. In search of inspiration, our hero goes to the scene of events and gradually begins to fill his work with a new meaning, simultaneously feeling the grave breath of someone who can only be seen in mirrors.
Everything looks really interesting on paper. I really want to learn more about this mythical phenomenon, together with the characters plunging into the abyss of bright mysticism and existential nightmare, as it was when watching the original film. But in fact, alas, the authors are so much fixated on the agitation, and moreover, sticking the ubiquitous agenda (now rarely any movie does without a same-sex couple), that under the weight of obsessive moralism, the tape cracks at the seams and ceases to be fascinating by the first third of timekeeping. It would seem that the first film raised very important topics and fit perfectly into the plot, without interfering with the concept to remain structurally strong. Here, behind all these hypertrophied hints of spitting towards white society, racist policemen shooting without warning and any other “cries of Yaroslavna”, the main plot of the film seems to fade into the background and looks background.
As for the visual, you should not expect anything special either. The only thing that really liked - it is original and very creatively shown pictures at the time of the story about the past of Candyman, as well as retelling the history of the previous film. Murders, of course, where they can be seen, because basically everything interesting happens behind the scenes, look faded and somehow unideal, which also does not add brightness to the visual. But at the same time, it impresses the development of the main plot through the work of the main character-artist, who finds new inspiration in the legend of Candyman, at first not knowing how deadly his creative rise can become, which threatens to lead to something destructive and terrible. Art requires sacrifice - that's a saying. However, especially deeply all this is also not disclosed and by and large is used as a convenient binding. Well, unlike the original, in which, in addition to all the horror goodies and other interesting conceptual solutions, there was a very fascinating detective component, in the end leading to such a good shocking plot twist, there is little that really catches or surprises the sequel. Yes, it kind of looks boring, but somehow smooth, languid and as for a horror film is not very atmospheric.
P.S. By its idea quite curious sequel can already say classic horror. And the sequel, continuing the story of the original with respect, without changing anything. But, unfortunately, it was implemented very rudely. The message about racism and inequality, which in the tape of 1993 was woven into the narrative subtly and neatly, is presented here in such a hypertrophied form that it makes the cheekbones very narrow. Horror elements are served dryly, and the characters do not shine with interesting characters.
In recent years, it has become very fashionable to return to old, once popular and cult horror films. At the same time, shooting something between a modernized remake and at the same time this direct continuation (ignoring the events of the sequels) of the original film. Almost immediately recalling the relatively recent Halloween reboot. Go the same way and decided the creative union of Nia DaCosta and Jordan Peel.
The plot of this film revolves around a young and talented artist from Chicago Anthony McCoy, who in search of ideas decides to study the history of the district, where he recently moved with his girlfriend. The study introduces him to a local who tells him the urban legend of Candyman, who kills those who say his name five times in front of the mirror. Anthony becomes infected with this idea and begins to create. I don’t even know what it will lead to.
As mentioned above, this film is both a full-fledged remake and a continuation of the original tape of Bernard Rose. At the same time, completely ignoring the events of two frankly weak sequels and this decision can definitely be called the most successful and correct decision of the authors of this tape. The second and third films of the original trilogy had many weaknesses that perverted the original story and its essence.
In this case, we have quite an interesting story, which not only does not repeat its predecessors, but also in my opinion - develops the mythology of Candyman further and wider. Telling the story, albeit predictable, but no less interesting story of the transformation of the main character. As one of the producers and screenwriters, Jordan Peele introduced into the history his usual social agenda about the oppression of blacks and police arbitrariness. But what is pleasing is that these themes are implanted in the script absolutely “painlessly”, not noticeable and not as flashy as 99.9% of modern films on these topics.
At the beginning of the past, Nia DaCosta filmed and posted to the audience a three-minute short film about Candyman, which caught the attention of Jordan Peel. At the same time, Peele not only entrusted Nia DaCosta with directing, but also retained the position of one of the producers and writers of this tape. Looking at the picture, it becomes clear that the creative union has definitely taken place.
Many viewers accuse this film of being far from scary. At the same time, forgetting that even the original film by Bernard Rose did not set itself the goal of scaring the viewer with various screenmers and BU moments. Betting on an anxious, tense and hypnotic atmosphere. DaCosta returned this mood to the picture, but at the same time, brought an emotionally devastating mood to the picture, which is only enhanced by the beautiful and picturesque camera work of John Galeserian.
Yahya Abdul-MatinII played a very worthy role and looked very convincing in the image of an artist obsessed with the idea. Very well played and Teyona Parris, who closer to the finals were able to develop their heroine outside the traditional role of “girlfriend of the main character”. The performance of all the other actors left an absolutely "even" impression. The main pearl of the picture can be called albeit momentary, but still bright cameo Tony Todd in the title role, which loudly concludes this film.
7 out of 10
Candyman is both a remake and a direct continuation (ignoring the events of the sequels) of Bernard Rose’s cult Candyman, which in my opinion definitely succeeded. The authors of this tape did not repeat their predecessors, supplemented and expanded the mythology of Candyman. Having created at least a picturesquely beautiful, atmosphericly fascinating and quite interesting film on the screen, watching which is not a sin to spend an hour and a half of your time.
And this movie has 6.1 points on ImDb???
Candyman's coming back! One of the cult horror films of the 90s about a man with a hook instead of his right hand, like many other slashers, has found a new life after a long time. But this life is hardly worth envying.
The film is directly related to the very first “Candyman” of 1992 with Virginia Madsen in the title role, bypassing the events of the second part – “Farewell to the Flesh” and the third – “Day of the Dead”. Although the plot of the new film borrows some themes from the third film - the murders in the art gallery after the premiere of the exhibition of the main character.
According to the new project, Candyman returned to Chicago (where the events of the first part unfolded) in the Cabrini Green district, a poor area of the city in which black people used to live. Now this block is behind a metal fence, almost no one lives in it, but of those who remained, everyone believes in a killer with a hook. In search of inspiration, the artist Anthony McCoy (Yahya Abdul-Matin 2) once wandered here, who was immediately bitten by a bee and then the murders began.
To be honest, it is better to limit yourself to watching the first film (and with a stretch of the second), because the third part of 1999 in its quality is approximately comparable to the new “Candyman”. Only if in that film, in addition to the script, there were big questions to the acting, then here a significant part of the claims is related to the plot of the picture.
And he's a prick. The film blatantly exploits the theme of BLM and does it so pretentiously and visually that it becomes disgusting that the cult horror film of 30 years ago eventually leaked into this. Before watching this film, I had the indiscretion to read several reviews and was surprised that the viewer is so actively indignant about the dull movie reality. I thought, ‘Is the movie so bad?’ Alas, but yes. The beginning of the picture still gives some hope, tries to re-present the story of Candyman, even a new image exploits (although the image of Tony Todd was ten times cooler than the current one).
But in the future, the film decided to play back on issues of racial discrimination and add fuel to the fire. The Candyman story was based on a black guy’s love for a rich white girl. In fact, because of this began the legend of a man with a hook instead of a hand. The creators of Candyman 2021 decided that there were few problems in the script and decided to add even more.
Directed the film “Get Out” Jordan Peele together with Nia DaCosta wrote the script and, obviously realizing that the script turned out to be frankly weak, decided to give the director’s chair to DaCosta. I thought, “I will not remove this consumer, because I will tarnish my pink palms with this slag.”
The film is not shy about exploiting everything that is possible and what is heard today. The BLM movement alone is not enough, and black gays are on the move, whose presence in the plot is not supported at all. They were brought here just to be there! They do not play a decisive role, they do not play any role at all, except for two appearances in the frame. Well, before homosecs at least killed in the movies, but now they have become unattractive and now it is unlikely that someone will swing at them with a knife or a hook (especially a black gay man)!
The narration, which begins with health, ends with repose (...Lord the souls of all white men who have ever looked obliquely at black men!) The scenes look crumpled and torn, docked very ineptly with each other. Because of this, the plot idea is lost and you try to understand: how the main character was just in his mother’s apartment, and after two scenes he was in church and changed so much? Where do such unfriendly cops come from (as in the end of the film), why the main character does not seek help in the hospital, although even a moron understands that something is wrong with his hand, where the attempts of the main character to correct something in himself and understand what is happening to him (especially since he kind of went to the library, took smart books to read)? ?
It is possible that the creators of this picture could not agree with those who shot the first two parts and the creators of “Candyman-2021” had to get out of the “original” way. Instead of scenes of the real massacre of Daniel Robitail, we see a shadow theater with figurines and are forced to watch this animation for a few minutes. How Robitail became Candyman, how people hunted him, how his hand was cut off, how he himself began to kill - all this the viewer is forced to learn from idiotic scenes with the shadow theater! Candyman himself is very few here (he appeared infrequently in the first film of 1992, but this fascinated and added sinister things to himself), his murders are shamefully removed by the creators to the background (on the first topic of racial discrimination and homosexuality), which makes one death occur almost in pitch darkness, another at a considerable distance, two more occur in a semi-dark environment.
Thank you for bringing Tony Todd back to the role of Candyman. It turned out to be tiny here, but still. Candyman doesn't appear without him.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
About the maniac from the other world preferred to forget forever. On the site of the impoverished quarter, new, expensive houses are being built, and the ghetto is fenced with steel grilles and constantly monitored by the police. It would seem that Candyman has sunk into oblivion. However, the interest of the black artist in the events of 20 years ago, forces him to plunge deeper and deeper into a frightening world, in many ways against the background of a crisis of ideas and a desire to become famous.
The sequel to the original 1992 film is inferior to the original in many respects, but does not seem passable due to a couple of interesting ideas. “Candyman” 2021 really looks unusual: an interesting protagonist, gradually sinking into the abyss of madness, his woman and at the same time the popularizer of his art, as difficult as the artist himself, creepy, stylishly staged murders, an interesting development of the plot. The manner of shooting looks as if the schools of two decades were crossed in front of us, and the palette is gradually drowning in a dark yellow (bee) shade.
To be honest, I was waiting for the sequel, and expectations were fully met, and even more. Showing Candyman as a collective image was not a stupid idea, but the continuation of the development of racist themes strongly pushes away from this film. And if Quentin Tarantino put an end to the issue of oppression of black people, the “Candyman” raised the issue more modern – another oppression of the rights of black people by white people: the police use bullets for no reason, the art critic expresses his dissatisfaction with the works of the main character, the maniac himself from the other world kills only white people, in general – quite tired. But the stylish production more than crowds out my displeasure. The film was strong, but somehow underrated. A score from the top to adjust the rating.
'We wanted the best, but it turned out as always' or BLM cinema is coming
I am not a racist and I am extremely loyal to people of color, origin and religion. But I have a very negative view of BLM and related movements, because I think racism is not black oppression. It is oppression on the basis of race of anyone, regardless of color. That’s it, now it’s the movie.
The film meets with a retelling of one of the interpretations about the slate guy Candyman, with all the ensuing. The character himself has not changed globally, and by the standards of horrors, he has gotten cute bees and a shabby appearance - not to be allowed to take, the chief slasher. Oh, that's who he is! This, in the film, which is characteristic, you will not say.
In fact, if in the 1992 work of the same name, the candyman is definitely a villain, and his actions committed during the film to achieve his own goal are cruel and terrible, then here at the sight of him the characters (blacks, which is important) give out howls of horror rather for proforma. All cones are white.
You see, they built a ghetto for the blacks themselves, and by this they made a ghetto (not kidding, quote from the film), and in general the poor and unfortunate are oppressed. For this, in general, they are not a sin and an expense to let, and in the course of the appearance of the name of Candyman, he turns into a kind of blm-Robin Hood. But let's finish it.
There are no questions for shooting and editing, in the end, universals worked. The sound is great too, even more so. Bloody scenes are quite bloody, but clear acts of violence on the screen - once two and fucked up. Suspense is overtaken by howls, cries and streams of blood flowing from behind the scenes. Good or bad, everyone has the right to judge. In general, I did not go, and the blood in a number of scenes is frankly fake.
Mystifying the themes of urban legends is also great, even in the format of a story about an offended black guy. The idea of the candidate worked out, refined and logically substantiated his next appearance. And this adds to the franchise elaboration and foundations for future paintings. From the bad, as I mentioned, the urya-blm direction of the picture. Without constant whining about the injustices of life and ghetto reservations for black people would look clearly easier. It doesn’t bother me at all that 80% of the characters are black, on the contrary, would be a glorious story about urban legends of the ghetto, as it was in the first picture. Here - the ideological message overshadows the message of horror, tightly breaking the plot and perception of the picture in principle.
It seems to have worked, it seems to have worked. But disgusting and intrusive propaganda spoils everything. From the claims to the video series, as I said, the lack of scenes of real cruelty and rampage of Candyman, in favor of behind-the-scenes murders and shaming. If you think about whether to go or not to go - perhaps, it is still worth going, but with a clear understanding that in addition to a more or less decent slasher, you will receive a portion of zealous BLM propaganda.
5 out of 10
That was bad. Very bad. Another film classic, milled in the frantic millstones of a modern Hollywood remake machine.
The only advantage of the film can be called its visual component. Successful selection of colors, skillful camera work, gloomy urban landscapes - thanks to all this ' Candyman' 2021 looks very good in technical terms.
At this point, the pros end and it is time to talk about the cons. And the main ones are black feminist and BLM-girl Nia DaCosta, who sat in the director’s chair, and Jordan Peel, who wrote with DaCosta the script of the remake.
Yes, we are talking about the same Jordan Peel, fondled in the United States by liberal film critics, who, being black, raises themes of racism and social injustice in his works. Tom Jordane Pile himself, who under the guise of entertaining horror films shoots conceptual films with embedded in them ' deep meaning'. Not escaped this fate and the new 'Candyman' - in the worst sense of these words.
In the DaCosta and Jigsaw script, a sinister black guy with a hook instead of a hand from a bloodthirsty monster hiding behind a reflection in mirrors mutated into an innocent victim of police brutality. Since all the cops shown in the film are white, he also kills exclusively whites, thereby personifying the secret anger of the long-suffering black people at the age-old injustice that caused (and, according to the authors of the script, continues to cause) blacks white-oriented American world. This anger, based on the logic of the film, lurks in the soul of every African-American (including those who live in luxuriously furnished apartments and argue about what expensive wine to choose for dinner), from time to time burst to the surface and bringing human sacrifice and destruction. Hence the people killed by Candyman, and also, if you transfer this logical chain into real life, the pogroms organized by BLM-sheep. Both, as the remake hints to us, are solely the fault of whites, whose hegemony still dominates the country. 'White', 'White', 'White'—this word will sound in the film more than once or twice, but never in a positive context. As soon as a white character appears in the frame of the new ' Candyman', then rest assured that in a minute he will begin to behave like a scoundrel and / or a rabid racist, for which he will be punished by a hook kick on the throat. The only exception is the boyfriend of one of the black heroes, who is himself gay, and apparently passive, thus atonement for his guilt before the oppressed black people.
It should be noted that the actor who played Candyman looks like an exact copy of George Floyd, who was killed during his arrest in Minneapolis. Such a cast was clearly not accidental, for which the filmmakers had to almost completely remove Tony Todd from the picture, to the great chagrin of the latter, cutting his presence to a cameo in a few seconds. Fighting oppression requires sacrifices, sometimes even African-American ones.
What are the implications of the new 'Candyman'?
As a sequel to the 1992 film, it's downright bad. Although the original also raised the issue of racism, the creators of the remake took the topic to the absurd, putting the story of a monster with a hook instead of a hand in the service of the BLM-inspired agenda. In general, it seems that the authors of the remake took up its creation not so much out of love for the primary sources, but because they simply needed a recognizable franchise in which the role of the main villain would be played by a black man in order to shovel it to their ideas.
As a horror movie new 'Candyman' absolutely unafraid. Jordan Peele, who built a career on comedy TV shows, and Nia DaCosta, who shot a single detective film until 2021, frankly do not understand how to create frightening and tense films, which in the case of Peel was noticeable even in his previous works. As mentioned earlier, Candyman is not a monster but a victim. And this is presented not as a plot twist at the end of the film, but as a straightforward statement at the beginning. As a result, any footage, where there is a monster & #39, are not able to cause even a small bit of fear, because at best the appearance of a mystical killer pushes the viewer to sympathy, and at worst (and most often) to yawn.
And finally, as a conceptual film ' Candyman' overly simple and straightforward. 'Deep' the meaning embedded in the picture by its authors is served so superficially and oakishly, with the use of clichés knitting in the teeth, that instead of a thoughtful flirtation with the popular genre, saturated with elegant hints of metanarrative, we see an ax BLM agitta wrapped in a wrapper from Hollywood film classics. DaCosta and Pyla frankly did not have enough imagination or intelligence to create a really witty and multi-layered picture like ' Parasites' Pon Jun-ho, and this is sad, because absolutely devoid of talent these people still can not be called.
'Candyman' confirmed what became obvious after the release 'We': Jordan Peel is, although not a talentless, but still quite a mediocre film director and screenwriter, pushed by liberal Hollywood only because he has the right skin color, professes the right agenda and, importantly, is an active supporter of the right political party. As for Nia DaCosta, everything indicates that the young talent is following in the footsteps of Jigsaw and has every chance to build an even more successful career in Hollywood, because she is not only talented and black, but also a woman. Well, for now 'Candyman' 2021, deserves your attention only if you like to put a black fist on your avatar.
The fashion trend to put direct sequels of famous films, ignoring all other parts of the franchise, reached the 1992 Candyman – a film not that wildly popular at the level of Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween or Friday the 13th, but quite a cult and undeniably high quality. The film version of Clive Barker’s short story The Forbidden, directed by Bernard Rose, effectively combined urban mysticism, gloomy romance, atmospheric horror and a sharp social message, which turned the Candyman into a spectacle that has not lost its relevance to this day. So no one was surprised when Jordan Peel wanted to revive this story, given his non-trivial ability to approach public problems in America with fiction and ingenuity. In the director's chair this time he did not sit down, limiting himself to the role of co-author of the script and gave the helm of the project to Dame Nia DaCosta - a girl creative, but, as can be seen from the result, not yet too experienced in the genre.
What distinguishes the approach to the creation of a new "Candyman" from other sequels, is the desire of the authors to expand the legend of the killer and develop the ideas embedded in the history. Many viewers probably nod to too transparent references to the death of George Floyd, only work on the picture began in 2019, which, on the one hand, makes it almost prophetic, and on the other hand, once again proves how little the situation in the country is changing. Candyman himself is no longer so much "Freddy Kruger of Harlem" performed by the charismatic Tony Todd, now he can become any victim of injustice and abuse, which arose as an embodied revenge, animated the anger of the popular anger, which is better not to fall under the fire. The film itself is also very beautiful - DaCosta deftly alternates exquisitely filmed urban landscapes with no less interesting scenes of murders, built in the spirit of art installations that seem at the same time stylish and creepy.
However, here her main puncture comes to light, as a director - DaCosta has a very bad sense of rhythm. Possessing an undoubted talent to inventively build a mise-en-scene, as a director, she can not in any way collect all the fragments into a single and organic canvas, constantly failing the pace and destroying the sense of tension, which makes the movie not overgrown with the necessary suspense, the transition from stage to stage looks too careless, sloppy and some kind of ragged, as if each episode put a separate person, and someone else collected them together later at their discretion, without any relationship. This, for example, includes unnecessary dreams with Brianna’s dad, a mass massacre of schoolgirls in the toilet and a poorly implemented chip with Anthony’s mother, designed only to remind of the connection of the characters with the original film and demonstrate how elegantly preserved the performer of this role Vanessa Williams.
Rejecting the dark romance and hypnotic narrative of the original, the new “Candyman” seems more like an imitation of art satire in the spirit of “Velvet Chainsaw” than a deep parable, simultaneously stuck between a banal slasher (the killer buzzing with bees no longer plays with the victim, but quickly cuts everyone who calls his name) and not a particularly elegant social agitation, in contrast to Rose’s work, giving manifestation ideas too straightforward, completely lost in this sense of meaning and interpretation.
The title explains why the review is neutral. The film caused somewhere pleasant emotions, somewhere negative, but in sum they extinguish each other. On the way out of the cinema, I had more positive emotions, with the claim that the film was strongly disliked. Later, my thoughts subsided, and I came to the conclusion that as a horror film I did not like such a movie.
Actually, as for the horrors, blood and other attributes of the genre, there are almost none. Yes, a horror film in which there are almost no attempts to scare, do not try to show inventive murders, create tension and atmosphere. Almost all murders (maybe all) remain off-screen or are shown from afar. Yes, the murder scenes are ingenious, but too sterile. The main villain himself openly loses to Tony Todd, and it would be better to keep the old one. And the villain is almost not shown in the frame, do not reveal him as a person, and the background raises too many questions. In general, horror movies are a huge minus.
The plot seems good. Nice references to the first movie. The titles open the same, or how the story of the characters of film 1 is shown. Again, there is a connection with the past part and at the level of the characters, that is, it is not a replay, but a direct sequel. But what the plot loses is the agenda. Yes, it seems ridiculous to rely on the agenda, but only white people die in the frame, and the degree of their guilt is very questionable. Even the actions of the policemen are more understandable and logical to me. I would call that pretty much racist. And it is clear for which audience this film is made, and why critics will praise it. And this is one of the reasons why the movie about the avenger to white people does not fit into the canon of the old and contradicts it. The first film was about a legend who lives as long as people remember him. It wasn’t even close to that.
The picture is good. The cameraman shoots great. The picture is unambiguous plus and there is nothing more to say here.
So it turns out that we have a visually perfectly shot movie, which has not the worst plot, but stumbles over the lore of the first film and burys itself in the sand, while absolutely not able and does not try to scare. Not a horror movie, not a social drama, just a sterile product for critics and nothing more.
Candyman is a remake of the original 1992 film. For the new sound took Jordan Peel, director and screenwriter of the Oscars “Get Out” and “We”. These tapes are acutely social and significant for the African-American population. Tapes that reflect the pain of the past in trying to rethink it. Becoming a new voice in the new era of African-American cinema, Peel took on the production and writing of scripts in a similar vein of the manifesto, which, trying to find its language, often hits directly in the forehead without sentiment.
The story follows an artist in a stupor who finds inspiration in the urban legend of a Maniac who kills his victims with a hook. Saying the name Candiman five times, you summon him, effectively dooming yourself to death.
“Candyman” is in the same cohort of films of acute social kind. However, resonates not so strongly and does not differ in the subtlety of conveying thoughts. The film was extremely ambiguous. It is about everything and nothing.
Candyman, as a symbol, becomes, in fact, the personification of the collective pain of the African-American population, faced with racism, violence and social pressure. An urban legend that has lost its true meaning after all these years. People without a second thought pronounce his name, not understanding what is behind him. It is pain that has no cause, which is difficult to express in words. Therefore, our protagonist is an artist who expresses this idea through colors and emotions.
And the director of the film came up with the same problem. In attempts to comprehend this concept, in the end, I could not find the right approach to history.
It's a visually elegant movie. Operating and playing with reflection are particularly fascinating. The director is not interested in violence in the frame, she rather inventively avoids these moments. On the other hand, the picture sometimes goes into body horror, from which I just wanted to turn away. The elegance of the visual is punctuated by an uneven pace and a blurred message. That's the whole tape. A lot of enthusiasm and little specificity.
Therefore, the film has such a gap between the ratings of the audience and critics, who praise and scold the film for a bold statement, or for a spectacle opportunistic cliché about the fact that white is bad again.
The movie caused me zero empathy, after watching there was nothing left but a feeling of confusion and missed potential.
I write a positive review of a cool film, which the audience in the cinema hated from the first minutes of viewing, and at the end hinted at the stupid abstruseness of what they saw. The idea comes to lure the reader of the review to view through verbal baits, but I do not know how to do this. I believe the film will find a man whose heart is open to the amazing world of cinema.
Personally, I know the story about Candyman since childhood, even then my grandmother said that you can not take candy from strangers (meaning white heterosexual men of course). I once mistook his grandfather on the bus for Candyman, but the lack of caramel blades cleared him of all suspicions.
The film's canvas is a generational legend about a mysterious killer and unfortunate victim of circumstances in one bottle, a crazy man who treats children with a deadly treat, and instead of a hand he has a hook for murder. It looks creepy and mysterious. But the stick of mature curiosity is once again ready to disturb the nest of truth.
The main storyline is currently taking place. The main character is a young artist Anthony, lives with his girlfriend Briana, she is also a curator of exhibitions. Anthony wants to find himself in the world of conceptual art, his attempts to fit into the artistic party are very disappointing. But one evening breaks the way of young people.
Anthony has found the key to the new art, everything happens spontaneously, the involvement of the protagonist is insane, he does not realize that he has become the object of his work and his former essence can no longer be.
The aesthetics of the film catches thoughtfulness. The camera scrupulously seeks the benefit of the perception of scenes, and the variety of spaces does not let the eye get bored. There was a pleasant immersion in the shell sound + graphics. The narrative of the legend is synthesized with the theater of shadows. Everything looks fresh and modern.
A man like me, with a rich imagination and a wily imagination, happily jitters in a chair at the discovery of numerous meanings and subtexts in the film. Whether you want to see them or not is up to you. But I, what sin to hide, interpretation of beatings adore, it is painfully traumatized me grandmother fairy tales.
I recommend watching this film for unfortunate artists and people who were frightened in childhood by Candyman.
Tripophobes are forbidden to watch!
The new "Candyman" topped the American box office last weekend, and its director Nia DaCosta became the first black woman whose picture was on the first line of the US box office. What was the reboot of the 1992 film of the same name?
The film was created by director Jordan Peel, who worked on “Get Out” and “We”. This time he was responsible for the production and the script. Social and racial injustice, hipster heroes - immediately feel the approach of Peel, when the problems of society are broadcast through horror.
In relation to the original, the film is a cross between a sequel and a remake. Contemporary dark-skinned artist Anthony (Yahya Abdul-Matin II) stumbles upon the legend of Candyman in search of a theme for future creations, who kills everyone who summons him. Living in the other world, the maniac remains invincible. The only way to see it is to look in the mirror. After Anthony shows his installation to the public, the killer goes hunting.
Peel and director DaCosta (for her this is the second big project) focus on the horror component, but the picture itself suffers from problems with structure - too abrupt transition from a long set to a climax. It does not feel very accurate work with the source. Peel, having decided not to abandon the original story of Bernard Rose, created a new plot and found himself in a situation where the origin of the characters is completely unclear. At the same time, a good picture and classic horror receptions here coexist with good social overtones, and jokes over the genre sometimes dilute the tense atmosphere. A controversial sequel for lovers of the most real monster among us.
Anthony McCoy is an artist who has lost his gift for writing masterpieces, and his student work at a solo exhibition is a thing of the past. The only thing he has not lost is the muse and love of his life in one person, although he stumbles upon daily jokes from both her brother and other acquaintances that while his wife earns, he seeks inspiration from sitting at home and living at her expense.
Tired of such an attitude towards his person, he decides to change his career for the better. He finds inspiration. He is hooked by the story of Candyman, an African-American man with a hook who will kill you and leave behind the bees who love his wounds and now the wounds of his victims. One by one, McCoy creates masterpieces, unaware of what it is fraught with. While his career is flying uphill, domestic problems do not let him go. Soon he learns that the usual legend from his native slums is not fiction. It's a reality.
Actors: Yahya Aboullah Mateen II At first enthusiastically supported by Candiman's story as an inspiration, makes his career surface. And while he is afloat, he tries to lose his temper, but immersed in this legend, risks learning the truth, from which it is not so easy to recover. The actor first plays a wildly busy man, then a zombie, and then it grows into an obsession with someone who used to be a fairy tale hero or a simple urban legend. But having plunged headlong into mystical events, they force him to act in an extraordinary way. Unable to resist these forces, he has one desire: to protect the one he loves.
Teyona Parris, impressing me with her former heroine Monica Rambo, was able to surprise me in this current film. She acts as a wife, an ideological inspirer and an artist looking for new talents. When her character Brianna Cartwright notices that strange things are happening to Anthony, she blames the insanity of the legend of his district and distances herself from him. Subsequently, she begins to suspect that this is not just an illusion, but a real threat.
The film crew: of course, the film based on the story Clive Barker "Forbidden" is completely different from its predecessor (Barker did not touch on the racial topic), in which the main acting antagonist was Tony Todd (we remember him from "Destination Point") and remained so to this day. It could be assumed that it all began with the famous story of the 92nd Bernard Rose, inscribed free film adaptation of Anna Karenina. As if a specially told story by a gay brother (let’s be tolerant, friends), not shy about creating uncomfortable topics for discussion, was going to happen (inserts with shadow theater I liked). But the most important villain - and he is not the one whose name cannot be called - will be the one we did not suspect, but from this strange feeling of inexplicability, for what purpose he performed it, or how Ligon in The Storm of the Century sought a replacement for a dying entity. But our main enemy is ourselves. This is what the director wanted to show, making it clear that there will always be misunderstandings between white and black and black. Especially, it is noticeable how African-Americans are skeptical of everything unfamiliar and they live straight, without going into details, say, legends. As they say, “These are white problems.”
Everything else: The three-fold structure of the script is observed.
The film provokes a chain of deaths, and it will not fail stupid whites (including the girls in the toilet), who intend to call “him” five times by saying the name. It seems that the film has almost nothing to do with the 1992 film (or this is another Sadaka cassette from the iconic Hideo Nakata, traveling in search of those who will look at the film and take the curse on themselves), except for the connecting thread - the story and the location of the action is moved from Liverpool to Chicago, affecting the events from the 77th to the present, but transporting us back for two years. And Candyman's story can become so multifaceted, reflected in different people of color, at different times, showing true cruelty, not so much people of any nation, but banal - mixing marriage and not accepting what African Americans do for whites. For whites, blacks are good at work and have no other value. It reminded me of the movie Antebellum, how physical slavery and personal discrimination have been tested for years. Apparently, the innovation forced the whites to build a ghetto, and then demolished when they realized that it was a ghetto.
I am glad that Jordan Peel was co-author of the script.
Impressions: The visually beautiful beginning of the film tells us that our whole world is upside down, no matter how we try to change it, it is still repeated, and racial oppression or subtle hints of sarcasm over colored people will still be, even if not tolerated in modern society. Not tolerant. And the city, shrouded in fog, resembles the opening credits of the mystical horror of John Eric Dowdle, in which also New York was terribly intimidating. But no less intimidating were people who could not change even in the face of death, and only one could change himself. So will the hero of the new story, who decided that his legend should tell everyone.
Cinema uneven, one that promises a lot (the best in it is the opening credits and the flight down the street: inverted skyscrapers sink in the fog of the sky to divine music), and in the final leaves with nothing - an attempt to shoot a social, not just artistic cinema has ruined so many that it seems that beginners should already know about it and bypass such ' artistic decisions' (remember 'People under the stairs') - after all, art, even genre, should pose social problems. For art there are no classes, no races, but individual destinies, individual sufferings, and only through them can you show society and its mores. The film by Bernard Rose had flaws, but there was a beautiful fairy tale about the acquisition of immortality in human rumor, which can only be obtained by dying in terrible agony. There was the fate of the main character, from which everyone turned away and even her husband betrayed her. The main problem of the new film, beautifully shot, with a beautiful main musical theme is the plot. Having made the main character an artist, raising the theme of art, imagination, the authors just lacked the latter to beautifully and harmoniously link everything. The personality of the protagonist ceases to excite the creators, they do not know how to show her transformation - and then come to the rescue ' crutches' - template social assessments, and genre clichés. It is not that they did not foresee the claims to their film - they even inserted an auto-review into the mouth of the critical character, but such tricks, of course, do not save. ' And hurtful, and annoying, but come on, anyway'.
Candyman is a case where there is a feeling that several different people were writing a film at the same time. Each was responsible for his part of the picture, because with a good tie, a little sagging development, the climax is absolutely failed. I want to exclaim: 'What?'
In a month, I watch the second failed film marked ' Horrors' (' Don't Breathe 2' - action movie), both won't scare you once, Candiman will make you flinch a couple of times, but no more. In the film, except music, nothing captures, does not pump suspense, does not force any muscles to contract.
The main claim to the film is its plot, which is very ragged, does not give a holistic understanding of what is happening even at the very end of the film. The basis seems to me to be the immortal Stephen King and his 'It' since Candyman has a lot in common with him, although at first glance it does not seem so. A sensitive viewer will notice that the film is traditionally replete with modern issues of minorities, because from the first frames you are exposed to people of non-traditional sexual orientation, and all the victims of the candidate, people belonging to a very specific social layer, with a very specific skin color. After watching, I had a very strong feeling that it was for this social problem that the film was shot, it was for her that money was allocated, the plot, logic, suspense were in tenth place.
Well, according to the tradition of any modern cinema, you can find an abundance of illogicality, stupidity and cliches that pierce the picture from beginning to end.
I can easily paint everything that I didn’t like much more in detail, but for this I will have to touch the plot, and I only write a review for those who think ' to go or not to go, that’s the question!' and not a review of the film for YouTube channel.
In 1992, the horror film Candyman was released, based on the story of the British science fiction writer Clive Barker “Forbidden”. In it, a young urban folklore researcher examines the legend of Candyman, a mysterious maniac whose spirit dwells in the looking glass and kills anyone who says his name five times in front of a mirror. The relative success of the film and unsuccessful sequels could, in principle, put an end to the whole idea, but the director and producer Jordan Peele, the author of the legendary “Get Out”, decided to breathe a second life into this story, releasing the eponymous restart.
Talented artist Anthony McCoy is looking for inspiration for a new cycle of his work. To do this, he goes to the abandoned quarter of Cabrini Green, where, according to rumors of former residents, the vengeful spirit of a maniac nicknamed Candyman lives. Soon Anthony becomes literally obsessed with Candyman, and meanwhile, a wave of brutal murders sweeps through Chicago, the victims of which are found next to mirrors.
Despite the genre component of the film, it is distinguished by a very good game of actors, in the sense that it lacks classic stamps, so characteristic of films of this genre. Yahya Abdul-Matin II, who played Anthony, largely replaced the image of the heroine Helen Lyle from the original film, becoming another victim of a vengeful spirit who, using the body of a young man, decided to remind the living of his existence. You can safely note Teyona Parris as Anthony Brianna’s girlfriend, who tried her best to stop Tony from making an irreparable mistake, but she herself was involved in a dangerous supernatural game.
For modern Hollywood, the film is notable for the fact that it was directed by a female director, and even an African-American. However, Candyman is not an amateurish work, since horror and the element of horror are used here, rather, as a tool to expose the pressing social problems of America. It is important to note that Candyman is made specifically for Americans, because our person simply does not understand the symbolism and allegory that lies behind the plot of the film. To a certain extent, Nia DaCosta has a horror arthouse with a social background about the racism and hypocrisy of American liberals. Of course, now all this subject of racism, police lawlessness and xenophobia is a little tired in the light of recent news. However, if the film was released a couple of years later, the audience would only appreciate how this complex topic so subtly fits into the image of a vengeful spirit that punishes descendants for the sins of their grandfathers.
Although "Candyman" was originally announced as a remake, it is still a full-fledged continuation of the original film, which directly continues the storyline of the first part. The action takes place in 2019 in Chicago. Young and in-demand artist Anthony McCoy is experiencing a creative crisis. He recently moved with his girlfriend Brianna to a new luxury home built on the site of a former ghetto. In fact, the history of this area becomes a source of inspiration for the hero, and he goes to the former slums, where he takes photos for his paintings and communicates with the locals, about whom he learns the old legend of Candyman, a ghost demon who kills anyone who calls his name five times, looking into his reflection in the mirror. The hero is imbued with this mystical story and writes a series of paintings dedicated to Candyman. Immediately after that, strange things begin to happen to the hero himself. His hand, which was recently bitten by a bee, begins to rot and become covered with honeycombs. Anthony himself periodically falls into a kind of trance. Meanwhile, a wave of brutal murders is sweeping through Chicago.
Going into further details of the plot makes no sense. It is important to say that even after watching, the viewer will ask questions about what he saw for a long time, since there will be no clear clarity about the meaning and content of the film. On the other hand, this may be a key advantage of the film, because of which it was so highly appreciated by film critics (besides the fact that it was shot by a black female director, only whites are killed in the film, and the brother of the main character turns out to be gay with a white boyfriend). In any case, everyone will appreciate this film in their own way, so I just recommend watching it.
I don’t like movies that are based on mystical stories. But new 'Candyman' decided to look. And he did not impress me with anything special, I will tell you more about my claims now in more detail.
The film introduces us to an ordinary couple, and the girl earns money, and the guy is in a creative crisis, so he temporarily changed his brush to dumbbells. But everything changes when he is told the Candyman story. This is where the creative impulse takes place. But the scriptwriters unfortunately do not, since the plot moves do not surprise at all. A smart viewer can understand for one or two what will happen next. And from this 'Candyman' immediately loses its highlight and becomes a mediocre horror film.
In general 'Candyman' quite annoying. Well, how long can you pull this line, that black people are constantly harassed by white people. It really pisses me off. Irritating and acting Yahya Abdul-Matin II. For example, in another horror film 'We' it looked much more organic, and in general that film was much more interesting in the plot plan. Above 'We' Jordan Peele worked much more productively, and somehow everything went mediocre.
The degree of my irritation reached such an extent that the permanent mirrors and mirror surfaces began to infuriate, and the deaths seemed not terrible, but simply nasty. My negative impulse calmed down the editing of the picture a little. Here, yes, with the help of editing, the creators were able to arouse a certain interest in the viewer. You seem to get bored, but a sharp change of frames returns your look at the screen. Also in the plus picture can be attributed to the sound. The melodies fully correspond to the entourage of the film, which at least slightly adds some charm and attraction 'Candyman'.
In general, 'Candyman' is a fairly ordinary slasher, which does not have any special dynamics or attractive plot moves. Of course, you can see, but the effect ' wow' you should not wait.
5 out of 10
The story ' Candyman' dates back to 1985, when the famous provocative writer Clive Barker wrote the story 'Forbidden' and included it in his collection 'Books of Blood. Volume 5' Having introduced his audience to the legend of the spirit of a man who died a heavy violent death, Barker saturated the narrative with a bright African-American flavor and showed that the sinister past is actually very closely intertwined with the carefree present, and if you do not believe in ancient legends, considering them optional fairy tales, then this does not mean that they will not make themselves felt in the most sinister way. The story ' Forbidden' rightfully deserved its recognition and became one of the most memorable chapters of the absolute entire cycle ' Book of Blood', and therefore Barker was not particularly surprised that once producers knocked on his door and offered to transfer the story of a nightmare ghost from book pages to film. Debut film adaptation 'Forbidden' appeared at the box office 7 years after the publication of the story, namely in 1992 and almost immediately became legendary. The filmmakers managed to create a worthy alternative to horror under the auspices of Freddy Kruger and Jason Voorhees, presenting a unique maniac philosopher with refined manners and the ability to kill in the most cruel, uncompromising way. Thus, Clive Barker’s story gained a worthy visualization on the screen, turning out to be an attractive and gloomy industrial fairy tale that has repeatedly paid off all its production costs and showed how tragic and catchy African American culture can be, to which a fair share of mysticism, born in the dark corners of the most ordinary city streets, is added.
It would seem that after such a significant start, the story ' Candyman' on the big screens should continue for a long time and attract new fans, but after the first film in the franchise there was a serious decline. The sequel to the painting by Bernard Rose was already an order of magnitude less sinister and colorful. No, of course, there were interesting ideas in it, but they all looked completely secondary to what was presented in the original. The drop in box office was not critical here, and nevertheless the producers were afraid to further invest in ' Candyman' serious funds, deciding to complete the trilogy with a frankly disastrous and absolutely unnecessary picture, about which even Tony Todd himself, who played the role of the title maniac, spoke extremely negatively. Thus, each subsequent film about “Candyman” & #39; lowered the bar for the quality of the franchise ever lower, and fans of the restless ghost of Adam Robiteil for a long time did not even have to dream. The studio’s plans did not include the resuscitation of the franchise, and on the agenda appeared much more relevant frightening stories like 'Saws' and 'Astral'. However, the memory of a black murderer with a tragic story still could not die for nothing, banally dissolving in the inexorable course of years, and in 2021 finally saw the light of another film about 'Candyman', which can partly be considered as an easy restart and a neat continuation of the very first film.
The plot of the film takes us back to the infamous Chicago area of Cabrini Green, where once there was a vast ghetto for African Americans. It was here that the legend of Adam Robitaille (Todd) was born, the same Candyman who once died because of his love for a beautiful white woman, and then returned to our world as a maniac, who is almost impossible to stop a simple mortal. However, despite all his bloody atrocities, Candyman almost lost its relevance in Cabrini Green, because on the site of a depressed ghetto, luxurious new-fangled apartments were built here, in which people of art, bohemian and in general not the poorest and most talentless people who do not care at all about some old gossip and strange legends found their abode. Among these inhabitants of the updated Cabrini-Green was also a promising young artist Anthony McCoy (Yahya Abdul-Matin), who settled in a beautiful and cozy apartment with his girlfriend Brianna (Teyona Parris). Thinking only of genuine recognition, Anthony could no longer focus on anything. Being in search of inspiration, the guy still comes into contact with the legend of Candyman, which seemed to have sunk into oblivion forever, and this circumstance opens up a lot of creative opportunities for Anthony, but flirting with what you do not fully realize usually ends very badly. Candyman returns and his revenge on everything goes on again. So now Anthony will have to decide how to proceed, because it was with his filing that the ancient evil returned to Cabrini Green, and it is not easy to stop it.
It would be even somewhat surprising if someone else took over the reincarnation of Candyman, but not Jordan Peel, who brilliantly transformed his own career and became one of the most important figures in the acutely social African-American horror of modern times. After winning an Oscar for his work on Get Out and cementing his success with the eccentric horror film Us, Peele has firmly established himself in his artistic niche, continuing to work on highlighting the topics that bother him most. And since the audience responds to the creations of Peel with serious box office fees, the producers did not see any problems in order for him to have a hand in “Candyman”, albeit as a director there was another person. The main thing was that Peele as a whole oversaw the project, and his ideas took shape on the screen. And, of course, being at the height of fame and reverence, the filmmaker decided not to cheat on himself, incorporating into the history of “Candyman” a number of pressing social problems that excite the American public for many years. But there is also a certain catch, which was first felt by viewers from other territories. Not everyone can adequately and intelligibly assess the moments that torment the American community from the inside, but any work of popular popular culture should be designed for a variety of viewers and catch the strings of the soul of those who are thousands of kilometers away from the scene of a film.
The beauty of the original 1992 Candyman was that the film, for all its affection for African-American legends transformed by Clive Barker, was a universally intimidating work that could easily interest any horror fan. In the case of the film by Nia DaCosta and Jordan Peel, it is too mired in various social aspects of the modern American community, and therefore it is very difficult to call a film that will easily conquer audiences on both sides of the ocean. Too intrusively established accents on the questions tormenting the authors of the picture are tiring, and this also affects the logic of the narrative, partially destroying it. But at the same time it is necessary to recognize that the camera work, the soundtrack and the cast are still on top here.
5 out of 10
'The black-and-black man is coming after you, the black man is already-e-e-yes, he enters your climb-e-drive, he is already in li-if...' - was such a popular horror story that children told each other, sitting somewhere at night by a campfire or in a barn.
Candyman from the first film (1992) in fact resembled this childhood horror story, and on the screen acted in the style of some Freddy Krueger. Accompanying the murders with an auxiliary swarm of bees. It is clear that racial motives were present in the plot, as the monster turned out to be an African-American, once killed because of an affair with a white girl.
It is believed that the film is based on the novel by the master of horror Clive Barker, a British man who in the 90s announced to the world his gay orientation.
What upgrade happened to his 'candyman' now? From a completely understandable anti-racist plot, the content of the new film has grown sharply in the direction of BLM agitation: everyone on the perimeter is accused of the misfortunes of African Americans, with the slightest disrespect, an invisible mystical monster comes out of the mirror and kills suspects in disobedience.
The optimal position of a white character is an active gay partner of one of the African-American heroes. That is, the verb 'please' is considered here completely in the applied sense. This will avoid death from the candyman.
Externally new 'Candyman' is an unpretentious plot from the lives of African-American artists who find some historical facts about the murders associated with the mystical monster, and almost return it to the mass consciousness.
Drama is worthy of an easy family series, and this is probably the main advantage of this sequel. At the same time, the hero establishes his personal connection with the old plot. His sacred duty is to carry on eternal revenge. The Balaemists here use some Christian motives for their propaganda and intimidation of outsiders.
The hand does not rise to evaluate this film as ' average' for ideological reasons. There is ' Racism that glorifies white supremacy' and this is a representative of the same ideology, only with the opposite sign.
History likes to repeat itself, a fervent place remembers past battles and wounds. Where Lynch's trial was, there are now only echoes of memory and echoes, if you listen to them you can hear buzzing, and screaming, not pain, it's howls of hate. The district of sweets again materialized from nothingness, the new applicant himself unknowingly revives the local legend of the unfortunate black martyr. But it's not that simple.
The remake did not pass and my favorite horror childhood. The trailer blew my head off because there's a lot of colorful moments, the scary Candyman, and the suspense level of the urban push. And naturally brutal scenes of violence, and the spirit of urban legends. What did I expect in the original?
So friends, this is a very modern and fresh look at history. I won’t spoil it, but I will pay tribute to the creators, they managed to combine modernity and the spirit of their predecessor. First, spectacular, and quite cool work on the visual part. All these moments with the ghetto and the shadow theater and the murder scenes themselves are delivered by the fact that, a they are naturalistic, b, the level of cruelty increases with each death. And that's good. Plus, the characters do not suffer from fits of stupidity, and immediately join the game. There is always room for disappointment.
Candyman in his new version gradually develops the idea of hatred on racial grounds, yes, it is coolly inscribed in the horror, yes, the new variations are chic, but in light of the constant mention of tolerance for blacks, the whole film begins to look like a big PR move towards the Black Lives Matter campaign. Opinion is subjective and may be wrong. Still, I enjoyed it, this time the story turned out not oppressive and cold as the area from the first part, but juicy on the number of deaths and interesting plot twists. Which, by the way, are really original.
Yes, at a certain stage, the plot sags, and the logical outcome was bluntly brought down on the viewer, but decently, with the right amount of juicy, and nasty details. It is clear that the canon in the history of this ghetto was and will be Tony Todd, but this new variation is more than worthy, although it does not cause the audience ' Wow'
The new Candyman is the worst part of the franchise!
Strong statement, I bet. You can always point to the fact that the third part is simply disgraceful in terms of the script and acting. And, you know, yeah. It's in fact. The triquel is very weak, but let’s say this: the film did not have a budget, it went straight to the video, and he was forgotten almost immediately after the release.
The situation is different: the writers sit, for a moment, the winner of the Oscar for this very category! And at the same time, the plot picture sometimes manages to surpass the same shamefully forgotten triquel!
I really wanted to like this movie. Seriously. I sat in the cinema and forgave absolutely everything for the whole first half of the film, because I believed that everything that I loved the original was waiting for me next. But it didn't turn out that way. But let's be clear.
Plot. It wasn’t clear from the trailers what awaited us. There was an impression of a spin-off happening in the same universe, but with other characters. You could also think that this is a remake, since the main events (which the trailer focused on) very much resembled the oldest horror movie from the early nineties.
So, in fact, this is its direct continuation, making unequivocal hints at the original. And here's the script here... just my respects! Some rituals of Candyman, about which, for some reason, ordinary people know, what in the end turned the main character. How does this even work? The explanation of the presence of otherworldly forces is as idiotic as possible, and if you think about it for more than a minute, it becomes even more stupid! Unfortunately, I cannot paint everything here, but I will say this – those who expect to see the chic Tony Todd, it seems, born for this role, will break down and go with a spit in the soul!
Yeah, yeah, we're slowly moving on to what burned me the most. Directly, Candyman himself. Even in the facts on the Movie Search it is written that the cult antagonist here is played by that very Tony Todd. And, of course, I was waiting for him to show up. He's gone! I'm really serious right now. Todd's not here. Here is his poorly drawn computer model, which appeared at the end of 20 seconds! I'm not kidding! The creators somehow thought that this is exactly what fans expect from this masterpiece! Tony Todd for twenty seconds... It's just awful. That's true. I didn't burn like that even when Doug Bradley was replaced in the ninth insurgent! At least the creators really tried. Although the audience did not appreciate it at all, which is a little pity. But that's not it now. The main problem is lying! I was promised Tony Todd and he wasn’t.
But that's not all! The picture is just the most stupid garter on the theme “all whites are bad, but blacks are good”, which I have ever seen! Anyone who saw the ending should understand. Also add here absolutely useless for the plot of the most mannered brother of non-traditional orientation. . .
And now let’s talk about what any self-respecting film should do – make it feel emotional. This is the main problem with the picture – it leaves you absolutely indifferent. Unless, of course, you are a fan of the original, then this tape will seem to you the most disgusting film in the history of cinema! But in general, there is nothing here – the movie is empty. There's no drama, there's no horror, there's no adventure, there's no detective ... in short, nothing that should be in Candyman. It's a very gray picture!
This is like a horror, but there is neither an inflating atmosphere, nor a meat (although the rating of 18+ and setbacks for tough moments were, but they, for some reason, decided to leave behind the scenes), nor even, God forbid, scrimmers! That’s so bad that I even complain about the absence of this cancerous tumor of modern horror movies!
It's kind of a drama about racism, but there are no good whites. Remember the original, where Helen was white, gradually permeating the problems of the black population. Here, all those who are not included in the agenda are completely inhuman. And the relationships of the main characters are absolutely gray and not interesting, and they do not develop at all and their conflicts do not lead anywhere!
It's like a detective, but there's no mystery here. The only mystery is how Peele was able, censoredly speaking, to miss the potential of the film?
Anyway, don't watch this. Better the original. It is much more interesting, and the notorious theme of racism reveals much better than this craft.
3 out of 10
P.S. The creators did not care so much that they did not even mention Barker in the opening credits. Really, why? He's white! It is also a non-traditional orientation... It's a mystery.