“Candyman” Review
Serving as a sequel to the original 1992 film, “Candyman” proves to be one of the better horror sequels.
As a massive fan of horror, I have an affinity for many of horror’s sub-genres including found-footage, exploitation, gothic horror, creature features, classic monster films and, of course, slashers. From “Peeping Tom” and “Psycho” to “Halloween” and “Friday the 13th,” I love seeing films about a serial killer hunting down the innocent. But what separates the original 1992 “Candyman” from other slashers is that the film was more about creating a scary atmosphere which is why I enjoyed the new “Candyman” film. This 2021 direct sequel to the original manages to recreate the scary atmosphere while also having a lot of entertainment value.
Set 27 years after the original, Chicagoan artist Anthony (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) decides to explore the old captive community Cabrini-Green where he learns from a local (Colman Domingo) the legend of Candyman: a supernatural entity who can be summoned if you say his name in a mirror five times. While he doesn’t believe the story, Anthony becomes inspired by the legend to make an art exhibit surrounding the urban legend which awakens the monster.
What makes this film work is how co-writer/director Nia DaCosta manages to create such a creepy atmosphere. While there are some very scary sequences, the film is much more about the overall feeling of Candyman and the terror his very name invokes. “Get Out” and “Us” director/writer Jordan Peele also produced and co-wrote “Candyman” and it shows. Together, DaCosta and Peele make a really intricate story that slowly builds tension with bursts of fright.
DaCosta’s direction is what makes this a Nia DaCosta film instead of a Jordan Peele film with someone else directing. Some of the film’s shots are eerie and disorienting with DaCosta creating an atmosphere that rivals the original. With her camerawork and attention to detail, DaCosta’s film is wonderfully creepy and makes me incredibly excited for her upcoming Marvel Cinematic Universe film, “The Marvels.”
One of the biggest questions that consistently plagues this franchise is “how are you dumb enough to say Candyman five times?” But in the original and this film, it works because both of the film’s protagonists are skeptics who are studying the urban legend. Not once was I internally screaming at the protagonist’s stupidity which is pretty rare for a slasher.
Yahya Abdul-Mateen II makes for a compelling lead in “Candyman” and his descent into hell is intriguing as it is entertaining.
While most slasher sequels, including the two initial sequels to the original “Candyman,” descend into convoluted stories or just ridiculous plots, this film is one of the best slasher sequels because of how well it maintains a good story.
Yahya Abdul-Mateen II is unbelievably great in this film and his filmography, which includes “Aquaman,” “The Trial of the Chicago Seven” and the “Watchmen” miniseries, has been wonderful to see expand. Anthony’s obsession with the legend deepens as the story continues, especially since his artistic drive increases the more he focuses on Candyman. As more people die at the hands (or should I say hand and hook) of Candyman, his strength grows and more people become interested in his art because art that kills will always be intriguing.
Just like the original film, which shed a light on captive communities and a history of systemic racism within the police, the new “Candyman” also contains commentary on the black experience in America. It is less subtle which some people might find to be a negative factor within the film, but in an age where we are still talking about race in America, and for good reason, I don’t find it to be detrimental to the film.
One of the universal truths of horror is that what you don’t see is much more scary than what you do see. I don’t mean lame deaths off-screen either. In “Candyman,” they show enough of people getting murdered where you have a basic idea of what happened but the details are left up to the imagination. These kills are very creative and are spine-tingling. However, some characters are obviously there to simply get killed and it’s so easy to spot that I won’t mention who gets the hook.
The film’s pacing is probably its biggest flaw because there’s about twenty minutes in the film that feels slow moving to the point where it gets kind of boring. The climax also moves quickly and, if you haven’t been paying close attention, you might find yourself confused. But this certainly doesn't make this film bad by any means, especially since the characters are well established and the atmosphere is so good. But parts of the story could have either been tightened or embellished.
As far as horror sequels go, most of them are universally maligned by horror fans and the general public. For every “Doctor Sleep,” “Aliens” or “Evil Dead 2,” there’s a “Jason X,” “Jaws: The Revenge” and “Halloween: Resurrection” and too many more to count. Thankfully, “Candyman” is a more than worthy successor and is worth checking out, especially as the summer ends and the build up to Halloween begins.
