gavin6942 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.

jessegehrig Blah. Did they even know they were filming? First Candyman, badass. How you gonna improve on that? Technically speaking the sequel should be about Helen, who defeated him in the first movie. Also, technically the sequel should be in Chicago. OK fine I'll let them do it in New Orleans, as if I have any control over this movie other than not watching it or pressing fast forward, pause or rewind. Yeah, other than that I can't control how this movie was written and neither can you, only the crazy people who made this movie had any control, and y'know, I'll bet while making this movie it's creators probably only had limited control over the project. You struggle in life and then, ultimately, in the end you fail, because in the end we all must fail. Guitar solo.

SnoopyStyle The Candyman legend moves on to New Orleans, and has a whole new set of victims. Annie Tarrant (Kelly Rowan) is a school teacher. Her father was killed by the Candyman. Her brother Ethan (William O'Leary) is wrongly accused of murders, the latest being a Candyman denial writer.The change in setting concerns me, but New Orleans has some great potential for urban legends. It goes into the life of Daniel Robitaille a little bit more with maybe a possible way to kill him once and for all. But it's not as creepy as it needs to be. The movie lacks any tension or fear.Kelly Rowan is playing a typical scared victim. At least she has the skills to back it up. But the atmosphere isn't up to the original. It's all a weaker version of itself. It certainly doesn't have as powerful of an ending as the original.

atinder I was not a big fan of Candyman (1992), as I did not find the movie scary or creepy at all and Candyman did not scare me at all.I saw this movie last weekends, I Can not think of a single think that really stood out in the movie, i can't remember much about the movie at all.I found this movie really boring at times but I did find less boring then first movie, i don't know why, i the felt candyman was just little bit more creepy this time around.The acting was good from the whole cast but the ending was little rushed, I think however it fitted in with rest of the movie. I gave first Candyman 5 out of 10 and the same goes for this movie.