Candyman
|
List Price: Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
(Click here)
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Candyman
Movie Review: Unsatisfying
Summary: 3 Stars
This was good but annoying and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
In the end you gain nothing from watching a film like this where the script is neither here nor there..
Movie Review: You've never seen anything quite like it before, and you probably won't see anything like it again
Summary: 5 Stars
Eventually, anyone who makes it their business to seek out quality horror movies is going to come to the conclusion that the ones that succeed in distinguishing themselves from the pack tend to fall into three distinct categories. First, you have the horror movies that are less interested in scaring you than they are seriously exploring their subject matter, and probing into the nature of evil. Sometimes, they go the supernatural route (The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, Don't Look Now). Sometimes, they stay grounded (Psycho, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Se7en). Either way, they are more disturbing than they are immediately frightening. You acknowledge that what you've seen has struck a kind of nerve, but you won't lose much sleep. These movies are intellectually compelling but they do not provoke any immediate sense of terror.
On the other hand, the second breed of quality horror movies has no interest in psychology, in the "nature" of their content, and do not attempt to intellectually engage you. They only want to make you feel as if you are in immediate danger. The movies that fall into this category (Halloween, Alien) do not provide food for thought, but they know how to make you uncomfortable, and they know how to push your buttons. They are manipulative in the extreme, but they are actively frightening, and provide visceral experiences that the previous category of horror films cannot.
Finally, the third category of superlative horror films distinguish themselves by remaining conscious of themselves. They want to frighten you, but they also want to convince you that they are "above" merely pushing your buttons. At the same time, they don't want to go the intellectual route either. These films (Scream, Dawn of the Dead) are made by people who know the genre, know that the audience knows the genre, and toe a thin line between adhering to genre conventions and examining those conventions explicitly. These films are very effective, even if they are too cool for the room. You laugh knowingly, and then, bam, something truly frightening wipes that smirk right off your face.
Bernard Rose's "Candyman" is a rarity in that it falls into all three of these categories. It is intellectually stimulating and it knows a great deal about the nature of evil, but it is also, truly, viscerally frightening. It is self-aware and yet, it is not too cool for the room, and there is no comfortable distance to be found from the nightmare that unfolds on the screen. It is as immediately frightening as the orginal Halloween, it is as thought-provoking as The Exorcist, and it is as aware as itself as the Scream trilogy. You've never seen anything quite like it before, and you probably won't see anything like it again.
The plot of Candyman centers around a woman who is as much of an agnostic when it comes to the intangible world as one could imagine; she boldly pursues strides into the haunts of a malevolent spiritual force (the Cabrini Green Housing Projects in Chicago, which are dangerous enough without factoring evil spirits into the equation) in search of discovering the source of the legend of the Candyman, a man with a hook for an arm who can be summoned by repeating his name into a mirror five times. She is convinced, as any liberal pseudo-sociologist might be, that the Candyman is but a projection of the fears the urban poor have of gang/drug-related violence. The fact that there is a gang leader who has taken to calling himself the Candyman reinforces this conviction.
For this woman, the idea that there is evil in the world, pure evil, unconditioned by economic/racial (most of the residents of Cabrini Green are poor and black) factors is unthinkable. She does not believe that the Candyman is anything more than an idea. She is wrong. The Candyman is real, and he doesn't much like the challenge to his authority posed by her skepticism. Furthermore, she reminds him of someone from his past whom he wishes to be reunited with, and thus he comes to view her as a conquest on more levels than one.
For about half of the film, we follow the woman, played by Virginia Madsen, and her friend, played by Kasi Lemmons, as they trek through Cabrini, exchange notes, and conduct the affairs of their lives. Madsen's grad student is no different from a lot of young people. She is determined to make a mark on her field, she's a little suspicious about her husband's fidelity, she smokes, she's pretty, she's intelligent and she seems nice enough. She draws our sympathy.
However, midway through the film, there is a decisive rupture, and everything in Madsen's life begins to unravel at an alarming rate. The chain of events that follow a particularly frightening scene in a parking lot take on the logic of a nightmare that one is unable to escape from. Soon, everything we have come to know about the young woman we've been following, all of the connections she has to her friends, to her husband, to humanity in general seem to be undone. It would be unfair to describe exactly what happens, but let it be said that the final fifty minutes of Candyman are as frightening as anything I've seen on film.
We thought we were safe, after all. The character we'd been following had friends, family, a job, a life of her own. The possibility of coming into conflict with nothing less than pure evil was the farthest thing from her mind; she and her friend were more concerned about packing the requisite mace for their journey through the projects, more afraid of drug dealers than of demons. After all, the Candyman is an urban legend, and we know all about urban legends. They're campfire stories. There is no Boogeyman, not really.
Rose plays on the self-conscious approach we take to horror films by decisively arguing that it will not save us. He engages us intellectually by toying with the idea of whether the Candyman is literally real, or only becomes literally real if enough people are afraid of him (I'll leave that up to you to decide). And he frightens us at an immediate level by pulling the rug out from under us at a crucial moment, and by never allowing us to regain our footing. It doesn't hurt that he has an uncanny eye for frightening visuals (the bees swallowing the Chicago skyline, the Candyman's self-portrait), plus the help of a terrific soundtrack from Philip Glass (whose presence reminds us that, hey, this is a serious piece of art) and compelling performances on all levels. Not to mention a great idea, and, yes, the ability to push our buttons and manipulate us when he wants to.
Candyman is, as far as I'm concerned, the second most frightening film ever made; the original Halloween still remains the only movie that made me briefly fear for my own safety. But I would argue that the horror genre has produced no more complete work of art-- no other film that engages the viewer on every conceivable level they could ask to be engaged on-- than Rose's masterpiece. Halloween becomes exponentially less scary with repeated viewings, as you begin to get the sequence down and figure out what's coming. Candyman's power remains undiminished, even once you get the sequence down, because the scares give way to the ideas.
Don't miss it.
Rated R: Contains some very graphic gore (nothing that will really surprise those used to the genre, but this movie does get pretty ugly by any standard-- seriously, who said this wasn't gory enough?) some language, and brief nudity (not in a sexual context).
Movie Review: One of the Scariest Movies Ever Made
Summary: 5 Stars
This really got me off. To this day this gives me the willies. The racism, homoerotic undertones, the real life ghetto of it, the disturbing nature of the title character- the acting to suspend your disbelief. Especially the mystery of Cabrini Green, what I heard was again a real life ghetto. The ending is probably the worst. A real life super mega low budget ghetto is the closest thing to a hell on earth. The sequel was even worse, exploring the character's origins. Movie Review: Further Explored
Summary: 3 Stars
This third sequel in the terrifyng Candyam series is a further decline, as you can feel more sympathy for the character as it does explain all along- a mob lynched and hazed him, pasting honey on his body and bringing a swarm of bees to eat him alive. It was about inter racial marriage, which again was almost unbearable to watch, and what was even more scary was that this happens in real life. A true old fashioned ghetto which again is the closest thing to a hell on earth. Movie Review: Candyman 3: The Day of the Dead (1999)
Summary: 1 Stars
Director: Turi Meyer
Cast: Tony Todd, Donna D'Errico, Alexia Robinson, Jsu Garcia, Mark Adair-Rios, Lupe Ontiveros, Elizabeth Guber, Rena Riffel, Ernie Hudson Jr.
Running Time: 93 minutes
Rated R for bloody violence and gore, sexuality and language.
The third in the series derived from a concept by Clive Barker, "Day of the Dead" (they can't even come up with their own subtitle) staggers down the well-trodden path already navigated by the "Halloween" and "Nightmare on Elm Street" movies: that is, taking a decent concept and flushing it down the toilet. The original movie was a near horror masterpiece and relied on atmosphere rather than gore, while the first sequel was bearable if completely routine. This one is just a load of rubbish. Donna D'Errico, from Baywatch (what a spectacle of credibility), stars as Caroline McKeever, the great great granddaughter of the feared Candyman (Tony Todd once again), once a normal man but now an apparition who appears to slaughter everyone around you if you dare to say his name five times in front of a mirror. Caroline says his name five times in front of a mirror and up he pops to murder her nearest and dearest. As the Candyman hacks his way through various bad actors, Caroline teams up with new pal David (Nick Corri) to find a collection of paintings knocked up by the Candyman while he was still alive, which may hold the key to stopping him.
There's not a single thing here that isn't scavenged from the first "Candyman" film and every other ropy horror movie produced since caveman days. The screenplay is so lazy it can't even be bothered to connect half the characters to the plot, the photography is bright and glossy, which is at odds with what's supposed to be a dark story, while nothing in the direction adds any atmosphere at all. Anyone could have directed this movie, so little effort has been put in to make it scary, while the ending is an outrageous cop out. No thought has gone in to developing themes or structuring the plot because no one here is talented enough to give this movie any depth beyond having D'Errico running around in a variety of tight vests. The rest of the performances are poor too, although none are quite as bad as D'Errico's pathetic attempts at screaming and breathing erratically. Surely more can be done with characters like the Candyman than the constant repetition of scenes where he appears to stick his hook through someone's stomach. The fact that the makers of this movie think Candyman is so terrifying that the very sight of him just standing there will strike fear into our hearts is a sign that they just can't be bothered even to try something a bit different. Clive Barker may not be the master of horror as every at first claimed him to be, but he's right about one thing: the sequels to his movies are garbage.