Candyman (1992)

This one's a mixed bag, it has an interesting premise, a decent killer, a really good score by Philip Glass, some decent performances, many scenes are actually really effective, they are memorable and genuinely unnerving but none of that can save this movie from the fact that everything else is just flat, dull, uninteresting and unoriginal.Most of the characters are unlikeable and for most of the film they stay that way, I get that some characters are written to be unlikeable but I doubt that they had that in mind for the main characters. I really wanted to like this movie, its not badly directed or acted its just badly written, it could be better if they would have done some rewriting, they could have changed some dialog and make more sense out of some scenes, have a better lead, or maybe they could have established some of the rules for this Candyman character, why does he kill people specifically? why does he die at the end if hes a ghost? can he be hurt in real life? the whole thing is rather inconsistent, that and the bad dialog keeps me from liking this, it needs to be somewhat grounded, otherwise it feels like you are making stuff up as you go along.It has some aspects that I found interesting, but the bad overcomes the good.

A couple female grad students are researching urban legends, when they accidentally summon the demonic spirit of "Candyman"- a man who had his hand hacked off and replaced with a hook...before being stung to death by bees...who now goes around killing people...so that his legend can live on in the minds of his "congregation".His hunting ground is the Chicago area projects...and his congregation is made up of all those who fear him.The two young ladies head into the projects to do some research. Hoping to find the place where the last Candyman killing took place, and to ask local residents what they might know. But they are asking too many questions, and this gets them some unwanted attention...leading to Helen (Virginia Madsen) getting beaten up.The guy who beat her up was pretending to be Candyman, in an attempt to intimidate people. Though, in reality, he is just the leader of one of the local gangs.So Helen becomes skeptical of Candyman's existence- thinking this is the source of the urban legend that the community holds onto so dearlyBut that was her greatest mistake...for now Candyman seeks vengeance...for f*cking with his legacy. He starts to take over Helen's mind- making her do things she would- she could- never fathom doing. And forces her into a position, where she must accept a deal with the devil...or, well, him...in order to save the life of an innocent baby who he has kidnapped.Now, she is wanted for murder, kidnapping, and animal cruelty...and finds herself institutionalized.Is Candyman really responsible for all these crimes...or is it all in her head? Nothing a quick summoning test won't clear up...This film is a pretty cool combination of slasher and psychological thriller, with some decent gore and awesome death scenes. Honestly, I'm really surprised I've never watched it until now. It sets you up for the gore with some cheap scares. But that final scene where Candyman is about to kill Helen is wicked. And the final twist at the end was a welcome surprise.Looking forward to the rest of the trilogy.6.5 out of 10.

A review post 10 years since watching... Wow, I remember getting this on VHS rental from the local shop, I watched it with a friend from school (I was totally underage for the 18 certificate). This reporter woman is looking into urban myths, she comes across the legend of "Candyman". She does some journo digging with family of victims and other high society socialites she happens to be in circles with. She learns about him and the more she learns the more obsessed she becomes, she learns how to summon the supernatural killer and starts going more nuts, she happens to be around people being killed off and becomes suspect number 1. The film follows her trying to get "Candyman" and the victims past, present and future. This was a psychological horror with mystery and suspense which I was too young to be watching, it had plenty of gore too which my mum wouldn't have been happy with either. Despite all that I loved the film and it had an effect on me throughout life to becoming an adult. If presented with the opportunity I'll randomly jump behind friends and summon Candyman to see if it scares them or just makes then think I'm a dick. Since watching the film I've seen the "Candyman" actor in loads of other stuff (Tony Todd, Final Destination, Wishmaster, The Crow, The Rock, and various TV programmes) but I can't recall seeing any of the other bland 90's horror actors in much else. Despite that, in this film the cast do their job perfectly and don't interfere with the film. I remember this being a loud film, the music really complimented the pace and suspense. As a child I'd have given this film an 8 or a 9 because I loved gory horror films, but having rewatched this as an adult with a wider appreciation of film, and when compared to other films it'd have give this a 7. For the time this was a cult classic but it hasn't really stood the test of time and rivalry and not many people will remember it or choose to dig it out of a film library. Feel free to enjoy it, I've watched it lately and it offered a nice bit of nostalgia and fun. Enjoy.

'Candyman' has the 'honour' of being the first '18 certificate' film I ever saw at the cinema (when I was fifteen, incidentally). I was excited about the whole naughtiness about my experience, yet left pretty disappointed, even falling asleep midway through. Now, over twenty years later, I rewatch Candyman through adult's eyes. And I'm glad I did.Yes, it's probably not the sort of film you should watch when you're a fifteen year old who doesn't really appreciate cinema in general and just wants to watch wall-to-wall explosions and monsters sucking people's brains out through straws. I seem to remember appreciating the odd moment of gore in the film, but it wasn't enough for me then and I never thought of it as a 'horror.' However, it is pretty horrific, just in a different way. It's about a woman who's researching urban legends for her university. She hears of one about a hook-handed ghost called 'Candyman' who appears and kills you if you say his name in the mirror five times. And, yes, it does turn out to be a little more than just an urban legend. The more she discovers and the more she starts to believe, the worse things get for her – not just because she's found out that evil psychotic spirits are real, but she's increasingly classed as mad by those around her, leading to a complete collapse in her personal life.The psychological collapse is one aspect of the horror, but, like so many horror films, it's the baddie we all come to see. Tony Todd gives us his best performance ever (one which has cemented his place in horror villain history) as the titular spook and he is indeed creepy. He steals the scene every time and all, despite the lead actress' best efforts, is what people really want to see.It's also worth noting the general bleak atmosphere created in this world by simple shot composition with the camera picking up on the world around the characters in time with Phillip Glass' haunting soundtrack.Basically, if you're a fifteen year old who just wants 'lowest common denominator horror' (which I did at the time and occasionally still do) then there are plenty of films out there to fill that need. This one makes you think a little more and dig a little deeper, plus is damn good to boot. See it when you're in the mood to think and squeal at the same time. That scene with the bees is scarier than all the CGI insects Nicholas Cage has pretended to swallow in his life.