Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
14 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
I'd give this a ZERO if I could......., 30 Aug 2002
It's an awful film, and actually quite insulting to Candyman1 as well as it's serious fans. I loved Candyman1 which has become a real classic with us horror movie buffs, and deservingly so. Candyman2 wasn't all that bad as sequels go. BUT, this is a real turkey. Firstly, it completely ignores what occurred in CM2. In CM2, an antique mirror, which is CM's power source, is destroyed and CM along with it. Also in CM2, we meet his great, great grand-daughter with no mention of any other relatives of significance. In CM3, CM simply appears at the fifth call of his name as usual - no mention of the fact his power source has been destroyed!!!!!!!! Also, the main character is still called his great, great grandaughter but is a completely different person altogether!!!!!! This film is dis-jointed and messy with terrible editing and awfully wooden acting. Donna Derico (as the main lead) is totally mis-cast and just cannot hold her role together. Her presence is the real ruin of this movie. She simply cannot act for starters and looks completely out of place. Essentially, she is still her Baywatch character, right down to the teeny little tight tops her character wears THROUGHOUT this movie; The director has her constantly displayed in tiny, flimsy, tight t-shirts which make her rather large chest dominate the screen and reveal just a little too much detail in some of the scenes! This really bugged me. It had the same kind of effect as if you had cast Pamela Anderson as Ripley! It really is that ridiculous to watch. It's actually quite insulting for serious CM fans so see such tacky work attributed to the CM franchise. As one other reviewer pointed out, the director insists on some un-necessary sex scenes which just polute the CM theme. In CM1, there were indeed some sexual undertones but they remained just that and the absence of tacky sex scenes themselves meant CM1 retained that certain integrity and focus of a truly good horror. CM3 betrays CM1 (and CM2) and truly does not deserve to be linked in any way to it. If you are an avid fan of CM1, by all means see CM2 - it's ok as sequels go. BUT AVOID THIS AWFUL OFFERING!
|
|
|
14 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
And one star is being generous., 8 Aug 2000
By A Customer
Cinema goers were literally terrified to death a few years ago when Candyman was first released. Many people called out accross the world for Clive Barker's masterpiece to be banned and there are reports that the final version was significantly censored. Then came Candyman: Farewell To The Flesh, a much more graphically violent and gory film which was used to provide more background to the myth and although not as good as the original (are they ever?) it was still very watchable. However, along comes the third installment. The Candyman was killed in the first two and like the second film, he is once again back with some half-hearted attempt for a reason. This film is not enjoyable - it combines pornography with gore in an attempt to satisfy horror fans. Sure it will satisfy film watchers who just want to see blood, but for those, like me, who like a good storyline supported by a cast who can act (not two failed porn-stars) and a film that doesn't change it's story from previous films and contradict itself in so many ways it is truly a pathetic attempt to cash in on a masterpiece of horror cinema. And in doing so, removes Candyman's credibility as one of the most shocking and best horror movies of all time.
|
|
|
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
One of the best horror films ever made, 11 Feb 2004
There is a whole bunch of us out there who enjoy nothing more than sitting down and watching a good horror film. I often ask myself why, and to be honest I don't really know an answer to that. But Candyman answered it more than any other horror film.It's the idea of local myths and dark histories that excites me as a viewer and thats the genius of Candyman, its about a woman who studies that very subject. So it's a self-exploring horror film. A scary one at that. There's a general view that a film has to be gory to be scary. Nonsnese. Candyman scares through it's brilliant and chilling atmosphere which is set up from the word go. Credit to the compser for great music, and the director of photography for fab visual style. The story itself is simplistic yet intriguing, the best horror films always are. Yes there is a hype about this film but it's a deserved one. Horror films tend to be rtaher dull and crap, there are few outstanding exceptions (The Exorcist, The Shining, Texas Chainsaw, Night Of The Living Dead), and Candyman is another. Some horror films work best alone, Candyman does, but it's also good with other ppl. Grab yer girlfriend/boyfriend, sit back and enjoy a good scare. You won't find a better film for this purpose.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|