I know people were bummed we only had a few seconds of Tony Todd's greatness, but if you aske me if he was seen throughout the movie, the ending wouldn't have been as special.
Yeah, I liked parts of it like how they handled the kills and the cinematography and soundtrack were top-notch. But I didn't like a few things such as how Brianna's backstory about her dad amounted to nothing.
I don’t like how they boo hooooes about white whites didn’t create the ghetto Chicago New York Philly Baltimore Once we’re all paradises, and then the Blacks sold their farms in the south move to the big cities which caused something called white flight or white immigration, which made white people leave leaving Black people to fend for themselves which then created all the ghetto you see today this is a historical fact
I wish they would have explained Brianna’s trauma more as well. Great review and thanks for pointing out the coat being there in the laundromat all along. I didn’t even catch that. 😳 Evil man, it’s like he had a plan all along for Anthony to be part of the Candyman legend..and that phone call to the police.. what a messed up guy, actually wishing for the cops to shoot his fellow brother... 😩
Thank you! Yeah he has this planned all along. I wonder why William worshiped Candyman so much. You would think he’d hate Candyman after he killed murdered his sister 🤷♂️
The horror made myth of Daniel Robitaille that wreaked havoc around Cabrini-Green in the original movie was a tale of social injustice. From the derelict row houses of Cabrini-Green, to horrific method of Daniel Robitaille's death to the real life Medicine Cabinet murder of Ruthie Mae McCoy (1987) the movie is based on and shined a light on that wasn't investigated when it occured because it occurred in a Black high crime area of Chicago similar to Cabrini-Green. All those points in the original movie are social commentary of it's time. This movie is just a continuation of themes. Personally, I like how codified all the previous iterations of Candyman into one. The original Clive Barker book had none of the social commentary of the 90s movie. Barker's book was about a Blonde hair serial killer in Liverpool. It was a conscious choice from the 1992 director to place the movie in the Chicago high crime, overpopulated, unsupported row houses/high rises of Cabrini-Green and to focus on the then low coverage story of Ruthie Mae McCoy. I think they didn't include Tony Todd because he's so old and the cgi to de-age his face will look weird lol. It feels like an odd retcon, but I can see how it works if Candyman is an amalgamation of beings. It just means that Candyman can personify different people to different people. For example, to Helen Lyle and the people of Cabrini-Green in the 90s Candyman was Daniel Robitaille. To Domingo Coleman (crazy dude who owns the laundromat), Candyman is the mentally handicap man who was wrongfully murdered by the police and whom he felt responsible for killing. To Anthony, it was 70s Candyman because laundromat guy helped breathe him to life in Anthony"s head. To Teyonah Paris, it's Anthony McCoy who was wrongfully murdered in her arms. The addition of the Candy guy from the 70s works thematically with the current movie by the end.
That’s an interesting theory! This movie would’ve benefited from an extra 15-30 minute run time so it could explore a lot more of the plot points it introduced.
Just come out the cinema, watched this with my girlfriend and honestly was a bit sceptical after we had seen the conjuring together earlier this year, however it really surprised both of us ! Really good and thanks for the great detailed video explaining parts we had missed out too !
I just found this channel a couple days ago and I’ve binged all your videos, you have done amazing work! One of the better horror movie channels I’ve seen keep up the amazing work!
Man. you did a great job. Been watching your vids all day... and you approached this with a fair amount of satisfaction and skepticism. Keep the Horror Mine going!
Thank you so much! I saw it on a second viewing because it’s so easy to miss since the twist is revealed at the end. I think it’s so cool they had that there!
@@HorrorMine no problem man. I prefer the first movie over this one tbh. I don’t feel like this is something I’ll watch again bc of the social issues and identity politics being presented throughout the movie... would have preferred more horror scenes but 🤷♂️ Nevertheless, I enjoyed your video very much.
I agree! The first film was much better than this one. I feel that they should’ve had a lot more horror elements and explored the plot points they introduced because it all feels rushed and incomplete.
also notice in the scene where the officers are slaughtered, briana only says candy man 4 times, and the detective says candy man for the fifth time. There for making him the target and not briana
He had to leave one alive to tell his story, or that version of Candyman would not exist. It's a reason why the "Helen Candyman" version does not exist because she killed the one person that could have kept her story going Trevor.
The reason he sees a reflection of Sherman in the elevator is because the Candyman absorbed Sherman into the hive. That fact is seemingly independent of his innocence.
So I think I may have an explanation for why the Sherman Candyman was dropping candy with razor blades in them. The first film had a lot to do with folklore, namely the ritual of summoning Candyman and Helen's theories for why the community of Cabrini Green perpetuated that urban legend. But I think this film is more about how the story creates the reality in a way, or I guess in how the story takes priority over reality. Sherman was going to be associated with candy and razor blades regardless of what the truth was, so his spirit appears with them. William wanted the Anthony version of Candyman to be a focused weapon against racial injustice rather than an vengeful spirit that targeted anyone that made the mistake to summon him, so Anthony saves Brianna from the police (who in turn were trying to ensure that their own story, of Anthony being a genuine threat and thus justify them murdering him, would become the official one). The story is what matters rather than the truth. (God this is just making Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story get stuck in my head.)
Excellent video. I loved the film, and it had a lot to offer. However, when you are trying to accomplish a lot in the film, there are parts that will suffer. I feel that there must be a sequel to explain everything that was missed.
@@HorrorMine The best content always attracts my friend.......!! I will now just wait for more videos every week......!! Keep it up......!! And Thanks of the videos.......!!
Brianna does not say ‘candyman’ 5 times. She says it FOUR times in the cop car. The cop in the front seat says it the fifth time, summoning Candyman himself. That’s what gets her to fully smile
I was excited for this movie. It had a lot of potential, but comes no where near the level of the first one. It would have benefited from giving Tony Todd a bigger role imo.
I was pleasantly surprised that the movie referenced the events of the original and was more or less a direct sequel. The events involving Helen Lyle in 1992 becoming a part of the Candyman urban legend was nice and as the story is retold over the years some of the details change. As for Sherman appearing when the Candyman was summoned might be because that is the version of the legend the current generation are familliar with and which William says at one point, Candyman means different things to different people. I have to wonder what would happen if someone should say Helen five times in front of a mirror, would she appear as well if someone did? All in all a good movie but I feel it should have been longer to let some of the plot points breathe a bit more.
Most likely the way Trevor died, Candyman or the girl he was having an affair with will take the blame, so there is no way for the "Helen" legend to go beyond Trevor's death, since he was the only way for the story to continue. Look at the end of the new one, Candyman left Brianna alive to "spread the tale". Had Helen appeared and killed the girl and left Trevor alive her story of calling Helen would put her legend in motion.
off topic but colman domingo sounds kinda like a young morgan freeman, just that sultry smooth base tone with a slight southern lull. perfect for exposition/monologues
I watched the original candyman last night a just realized when he took Anthony he was feeding him “honey”. Maybe that’s why that sting took over his body
A good sequel to the original. I think the film's metaphor of inner city poverty and social inequality being horrific to endure was well done. I really wish they could have made a way for Helen's spirit to have warned everyone what was happening. Her death seems rather futile in retrospect.
my biggest question after watching this movie was which candyman shows up when his name is said? daniel showing up for anthony makes way more sense than sherman. also does that mean that a random candyman is chosen to kill the victims once the name is said or if given context like william talking about sherman brings the specific candyman out? it's so vague
Exactly. That part made absolutely no sense. If Sherman died in 1977 it only makes sense if he was the one terrorizing Cabrini-green in the original Candyman. If Daniel Robitaille showed up specifically for Helen, then he should’ve showed up specifically for Anthony. I really wish they would’ve stuck to 1 or the other to make the narrative make more sense.
@@HorrorMine having different Candymen makes it way too confusing lol which Candyman do people even refer to that universe? do the Candymen in the hive draw straws or do "nose-goes" to see who goes out lmao
I think he told him the guy was innocent so he'd keep digging. If he had stopped, he would've given up his "destiny". It wasn't so much that he was innocent but that he was killed by the police out of racism and denied his right to be tried by a jury of his peers. The police decided to be judge, jury & executioner and that's not how it should be.
The cinematography always suffers when the focus becomes too social centric. Having a background of racial injustice is very powerful but that IMO should've been like side running shadow and not the main focus
This movie is beautifully made but it left me feeling empty. We're introduced to so many new this and little of them is explained. Brianna ad Anthony's relationship is so poorly explored that I struggle to feel for them at the end. I'll definitely give it a watch again and see if my perspective changes because I found it a bit meh
Make no mistake this movie was garbage..editing and story telling made me feel like I got up to pee 10 times and missed something.. but never got up once lol
I’m sorry but I don’t get it … why is William sucking on razorblade lollipops? 😅 & if your asking me … I think Sherman fields put the razor blades in the candys 🤔
Well Brianna's definitely going to jail now but should make for a good starting point if they decide to do a sequel perhaps someone comes and interviews her thus starting the cycle all over again.
Trying to make candyman an anti hero is stupid. In the first movie he said “some will say i have shed innocent blood but what is the purpose of blood if not for shedding?” Does that sound like an anti hero to you?
Makes no sense why didn’t Helen get that weirdo guy from 1970s?? Why did she get the original. No one else got that weird Candyman with the razor candy not the babysitter or the psych or anyone else in any of the Candyman movies. Also where would the bees fit in with that weird candy man from the 70s
The original Candyman was one of my favorite horror movies growing up so I was pretty hyped about this one. Unfortunately, this was quite a disappointment due to the heavy handed social commentary. I understand while some people loved it, I just wanted to enjoy a good horror movie w/o all the political stuffs.
@@floraxanhh9093 precisely. What people are calling heavy handed, I call the way black people (especially black women) tell black stories. We pull no punches when it comes to cautionary tales because doing so isn’t conducive to survival. We’ve also never had the luxury of film going out of its way to make us comfortable so we don’t go into movies with that expectation. Finally, it seems that being this straightforward is necessary because many reviews and comments I’ve seen indicate that the subtext of the original film went way over people’s heads.
@@starkman78 what? A former slave was tortured and killed for the crime of sleeping with a white woman he loved and that went over heads? Seems pretty obvious
I loved the film. The reason why yall hate it is because it puts in your face the problems that are faced with today. But y'all rather turn a blind eye & act like racism doesn't exist.
This movie was massive let down. i was hyped for it, but it exchanged the majority of its horror elements for social commentary. it was too heavy handed with it.
There's moments of greatness in the film, but the script hemorrhages upon itself as the film progresses and shits itself with it's ham-fisted approach to racism, especially with that ending. When the cops shot Anthony, I had restrain myself from yelling "Oh fuck off" in the theater. And why did the cops get killed afterwards? The rule to summon Candyman is that YOU say Candyman FIVE TIMES in a mirror, not by being some rando saying it the fifth time. Also, Brianna's subplot about her dad went nowhere and just padded the plot. An easy fix would've been that he wasn't making a living off of his art and it drove him to suicide, not insanity. Adds to Brianna's character of being a art promoter, as her dad's inability to survive as an artist would've pushed her to ensure it doesn't happen to others instead of padding the film with his maybe-kinda-sorta ties to Candyman. While Candyman 2 is nothing special, it added to Daniel Robitaille's character and made him into a sympathetic force of nature by showing his love & death (yes, it's mentioned in the first film, but, again, the sequel shows it). By adding the "there's multiple Candymans" may add to the legend, but it severely diminishes Daniel's character/legend. And god, the film needed more than the two minutes of Tony Todd. He steals the film from a legitimately solid cast with just his enthralling yet powerful voice.
He became Candyman when violence of extreme magnitude was perpetrated on him just as it had been on Daniel. Candyman isn’t a singular vengeful spirit, he is the accumulation of this kind of evil being done over and over. All of these men (and sometimes even boys) are him. He will continue to exist as long as the evil keeps happening.
Depends on what story you get and who is telling it. I think this movie was a play on how urban legends change depends on who is telling the story. For instance, a person will say "well this is the story I was told" and then another person will chime in and say "Well, this is the real story and how it went down." Or if you line up a group of people and tell the first person to mime an action and by the time it gets to the end of the line it's a completely different action. That's the same idea here with multiple "candymen".
Honestly I do like the idea of there being a generational series of Candymen that represent the continual plight of African Americans and the racially motivated targeting by a dominantly white group of corrupt individuals in positions of power throughout history. While I do think they could've instilled more or less the same message (and the original film kind of does in my opinion) by way of sticking more to the original Candyman Daniel Robitae, it was still a bold choice that put an interesting spin on the original while also doing its own thing, something that adaptations and sequels can often benefit from doing if handled carefully and with respect for what came before. I felt this film was pretty respectful towards the original and I think it deserves its merit. All of that being said, I still prefer the original 1992 movie, but this take is also worthy of praise. Also, total sidebar here, but I always really liked the way the name, "Daniel Robitae," rolls off the tongue. It's pretty neat and kind of badass!
Okay here is the answer if why the pepole say candyman 5 times in the mirror... Because some people are stupid. Like there's people that eats frozen honey!! That shit gives you diherrea. But that is a very good sequel/reboot to review. good choice 👍👍👍👌👌👌
This movie could’ve been something good. It was thumbs down 👎🏽 obv. Compared to previous. The only good one is the 92. Way too rushed. Also don’t need a high body count to be good as you can see. This one they tried so hard. Last one was more sad depressing romantic theme
I don’t think its the runtime that contributed to the major plot holes and plot lines that go nowhere but in fact a result of Jordan Peele’s influence, whose movies are surface level thought provocation spectacles with plot and story elements that don’t connect with the overall story or just plain go nowhere just for the sake of saying “oh look at that!” Or “what a twist!” It’s very obvious to see after rewatching his movies once. I’m a Big fan of the original Candyman and this ridiculous butchering of the lore is just plain ludicrous. I liked the simple tragic love story at the core of the original with the social commentary and horror that enhances the overall work instead of what we got with the 2021 version.
It’s ironic that one would believe that the story would have been “stronger” if it had gone further to prove Sherman’s innocence. That wasn’t included because it wasn’t important. What is important is that his GUILT was never proven. Proof of his innocence never should have been considered necessary to the story and I think that’s a point that this film aims to drive home.
Ahh yes whyte peepo bad. It's hard to take these movies seriously after a while when they can't have an original message. Every single Jordan Peele movie has done this before.
