Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh (1995)

I didn't really rate the original Candy Man all too high, I don't think it was terrible it was just a messy clichéd horror.This came as a huge surprise to me, everything was arranged for it to achieve greatness including Tony Todd and Virginia Madsen. Somehow, someway it just didn't work for me.Farewell To The Flesh failed to impress me even more so. I see what they were trying to accomplish, they have attempted to flesh out the mythology of the Candyman and on that front they succeed.Trouble is the movie just isn't very good, the cast are competent enough but the story is all over the place and I failed to get behind anyone let alone the protagonist.To their credit I do understand everything they tried to do with this sequel, I just think very little of it came close to target.The Good: Decent cast The Bad: Desperate use of jump scares Weirdly boring Unengaging plot Things I Learnt From This Movie: The Candymans backstory is considerably more entertaining than the movies

If ever there was an underrated horror classic of the 90's that is unfairly looked over or even often looked down upon, it's the beautiful and haunting film "Candyman", inspired by the stories of famed author Clive Barker. The 1992 original is one of the few true classics to emerge from the genre in its decade of release, boasting moody visuals, clever writing, fantastic characters and a unique point-of-view with its leaning towards being a sort-of dark "urban" fable. It cleverly used African American culture, commentary on racism and social unease to its benefit, crafting a thoughtful and heinous story revolving around the urban legend of a devious figure that emerges should you call his name into a mirror five times. A figure with a hook for a hand that was birthed from the dreadful murder of the son of a slave... a man who had fallen in love with a white woman and was hunted down and tortured to death as a twisted form of retribution from the racist townsfolk that surrounded him.It was in many ways a perfect horror film. It was filled to the brim with tragedy and heartbreak. Demented scares and horrific visuals. But also well-developed and well-rounded characters and strong visual storytelling. Even to this day, there are people who are too frightened to say the name "Candyman" into a mirror because of the fears that the film has left with them.It should come with no surprise then, that a sequel was soon commissioned and delivered just three short years later. "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" is very much a highly entertaining and enjoyable sequel, building the lead villain into much more of a classic "boogeyman" figure and piling on the scares (and bodies) to new heights. With some good direction and the continued grand performance of the devilish Tony Todd as our antagonistic vengeful spirit, the film has a lot going for it. However, as is all too often the case with sequels, bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. And despite the fun that is certainly to be had with the concept and execution, it does unfortunately come at the cost of a developed story and thought-out characters. The original "Candyman" was horror as art. "Farewell to the Flesh" is horror as junk-food. Just satisfying enough to be worth a go now and then... but not as fulfilling or as high-quality as you'd probably prefer.Set in New Orleans just before the city explodes with Mardi Gras fever, we follow schoolteacher Annie Tarrant (Kelly Rowan), a young woman whose life has been shattered by the myth of the "Candyman"- her father murdered in the fashion of the mythical killer and her brother accused of murdering academic Philip Purcell (Michael Culkin in a fun-but-short-lived reprisal of his character from the original), who had written a book based on the myth and the events of the first film. Trying to prove to herself that the urban legend of the Candyman cannot possibly be true, Annie inadvertently summons him forth, setting off a chain of events that will not only reveal his dreadful origins in shocking detail, but threaten to tear Annie's life apart, piece by piece.The thing that really throws me for a loop with this particular follow-up is just how often it seems to both hit and miss the mark in each and every scene. Director Bill Condon is certainly adept when it comes to moody, stylish visuals, and he seems to be having a grand bit of fun behind the camera. And he often does help elevate sequences beyond the shaky writing, giving us plenty of scares and jumps that will keep the audience entertained throughout the proceedings. But it never quite amounts to much outside of being general movie "fluff." It's not substantial, it's just shallow entertainment. This is mostly because of the script courtesy Rand Ravich and Mark Kruger, which is so focused on bringing us blood by the bucketful that all sense of story and character is often lost in the rush to get to the next horror set-piece. And while I am perfectly fine with horror as entertainment and "fluff" (it'd be hypocritical for me to say otherwise, as I do like mindless entertainment quite a bit), the issue is that this is a sequel to a highly artistic and deliberate original. It feels like too much of a step backward.Still, I can't say its not a fun ride to take. Those stylish visuals and constant attempts at scares make it a breezy watch. Tony Todd once again delivers the goods with his continued chilling presence and phenomenal performance as a tragic villain with a dark history. There's a lot of interesting things to explore with its setting in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. And it even occasionally does some really cool things with the concept. At its core, there's just enough going on here to make it well worth checking out. It may be a bit of a shallow retread of the much better original. But you'll have a blast watching it, and you won't regret giving it a shot.I'm giving "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" a slightly above average 6 out of 10.

Candyman is legendary nowadays, a nineties horror film that not only featured a terrifying killer, but also brought attention to life in the Projects, a very real ordeal outside the silver screen.What's wrong with its sequel? Well, I will give it some credit; it has the same classic look and style of the first film, decent actors and even features some of the originals viewers have come to love. However, Candyman 2 is stripped of nearly everything that made the first one memorable.Professor Purcell, formerly a pretentious blowhard who belittles everyone in sight, is now a depressed wreck who gives people cheap thrills for a living and visits the bar frequently. I ended up feeling sorry for the guy, honestly. Why? I wanted to punch him in the face while watching the first film! He was very effective, one of those characters you love to hate, and in the sequel, he's just a victim to be knocked off right away. Where's Helen Lyle, the woman who went for the truth until it took away her soul? Where's Chicago's infamous Cabrini-Green, the eerie housing project with a dark history? Why did they shift the story away from a perfectly good setting, only to drop it in New Orleans for no apparent reason? The first Candyman was daring, innovative for its time, a cult classic and an almost poetic slasher film. The sequel is mostly jump scares, excessive gore, unmemorable characters and a plot that doesn't entirely make sense.Candyman 2 isn't terrible, it's just hollow, dull.

The Candyman (Tony Todd) arrives in New Orleans and sets his sights on a young woman whose family was ruined by the immortal killer years before.So, how did this sequel come to be? Bernard Rose, who had made the original film, had written the first draft of the script, and it is interesting because Candyman never actually appears in it. (Apparently about this time he was also working on a script for "Midnight Meat Train", but the eventual film was written by Jeff Buhler, so it does not seem any of Rose's ideas made it very far.) Director Bill Condon actually came in late, only a few months before shooting began. By then, it had gone through multiple drafts and at least three writers (after Rose, Rand Ravich and Mark Kruger were on board). Condon shared an agent with Clive Barker, which helped get him in the director's chair. As he puts it, he was in "movie jail" and had been stuck making made-for-TV movies for a few years. (As of 2016, he has become wildly successful with "Dreamgirls" and some "Twilight" films, just to name a few.) As for the setting, after Cabrini Green, where do you go? Well, there is another impoverished place where the desperate might believe in Candyman: New Orleans. And, this film offers him an origin story that was barely "fleshed" out in the first film. Perhaps we can feel some sympathy for this monster? Although not as strong as the original, this is a solid sequel that keeps the same feel and relies heavily on the same Phil Glass theme music (much of the original soundtrack is carried over). The sequel is more traditional in its approach to horror, being more of a slasher than a mood, and where Candyman was something of a myth in the first film, we now know he truly exists as a flesh and blood being. The mirror theme is brought back, both literally and in new, subtle ways. The lead character has trouble painting her self-portrait… this is, in a way, the failure to see herself in a mirror.There are a few too many jump or "bus" scares, but also plenty of decent gore shots for those who need the blood. Roger Ebert noted this, writing, "It's got one of those soundtracks where everyday sounds are amplified into gut-churning shockaramas, and where we are constantly being startled by false alarms." Even Condon concedes the point; he calls them "boo" scares, and is sort of embarrassed about them in retrospect, not realizing how they might play outside of a theater audience.The film has something to say on race and slavery, though it is not heavy-handed about it. So far as I know, Candyman is the first black horror villain to have a sequel since Blacula. With the third installment, he may be the only black horror icon ever to have three films. Although not black myself, it is interesting how the black community has latched on to Tony Todd as their horror icon – conventions that are typically 90% white male have a bit more color when Todd is a guest.As always, Scream Factory provides some great features on their blu-ray for a film that mainstream movie watchers would not think was worth the trouble. The Bill Condon audio commentary is very insightful, though Condon does tend to stutter and stammer a bit. Along with that are new interviews, including with the Candyman himself, Tony Todd. He deserves the attention.