With the Day of the Dead festival coming (a nice
thematic continuation from the last film’s Mardi Gras setting), Caroline
prepares for a show of her artwork at Miguel Velasco’s (Mark Adair-Rios) art
gallery near Boyle Heights in Los Angeles. The subject is, you guessed it,
Candyman. Caroline wants to honor the real man, a talented painter, but Miguel
only wants to utilize the urban legends, advertising the violent news of torture
and death to get larger audiences of potential customers. He even hires an
actor, David de la Paz, played by Nick Corri, to scare guests at the beginning.
“Believe in me!” After Caroline is insisted on
repeating “Candyman” into a mirror five times, she expectedly walks down a dark
alley alone, going into an abandoned subway where a figure of the real Candyman
appears. Shortly thereafter, murders start happening – and since the victims are
all related in some way to Caroline, she becomes the main suspect, pointed at
by aggressive, racist Detective Samuel Kraft, played by Wade Andrew Williams.
“That’s it. I’m gettin’ you some help.” In the 1999
sequel to the franchise, “Candyman 3: Day of the Dead,” practically every form of
creativity is gone. Massie noted, “No longer are there any deeper subtexts,
thought-provoking moral quandaries, amusing motivations for character
interactions, or the moving music by Philip Glass. Instead, this film is merely
a low-budget, pre-sold-concept slasher, fueled by violence and nudity (D’Errico
appears bra-less during the majority of the runtime). The acting is mediocre,
the creativity of death scenes and carnage is negligible, the special blood
effects are generally unconvincing, and the bees are mostly CG (mixed with a
few live, stunt bees). It also resorts heavily to cheap jump scares, plenty of
screaming and crying, and poorly lit locales with flickering lights (whether
they’re hallways or bathrooms or bars).”
You can tell from the beginning that the story doesn’t
drive this sequel. It’s so repetitive in ideas and imagery that, like the last
film, it’s as much a remake as it is a sequel. The characters may have changed,
but they’re all counterparts. Massie said, “correspondingly, the locations have
shifted, but they represent the same hunting grounds and arenas for hook-handed
attacks seen many times before (slashed throats and gored torsos are the
favorites here). This tedious exercise in unvarying repetition continuously
struggles to justify its own existence.” Telling the same story repeatedly just
doesn’t work at all in entertainment value. As if it’s not a difficult task to
beat the original 1992 horror masterpiece. By the end, nothing new is given. Massie
ended his review by saying, “Candyman’s capabilities and the solution to his
curse are as ambiguous and ham-handed as ever, while the protagonists are
equally as bland and uninspiring.”
As everyone can guess, this is easily the worst in the
franchise. Why did they feel the need to keep making sequels to this and not make
worthy sequels that followed the way the first one ended? This film was just a
torture to watch and nothing was good in it at all. Don’t make the mistake to
watch this on Max like I did because you will regret ever streaming this
cinematic garbage.
Now that we have gotten these two horrible sequels out
of the way, next week we’ll be finishing “Candyman Month” with the last film
that actually redeemed the franchise.
No comments:
Post a Comment