Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
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!
|
|
|
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
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.
|
|
|
15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
Sweets to the sweet, 25 Jan 2003
The urban legend motif has been around for a long time now, but Clive Barker took this time-honored theme and ran with it in the form of Candyman, one of the most original, atmospheric horror films of the 1990s. This well-made film satisfyingly captures the unique vision of Barker, blending in myth, folklore, socioeconomic stratification, fear (definitely), terror (of course), gore (buckets full), and truth to create a complex story quite unlike too many run-of-the-mill slasher films that titillate yet rarely intellectually satisfy the horror aficionado. Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen) is a grad student working with fellow student and friend Bernadette on a thesis built around urban legends, and once she hears the story of Candyman, she is compelled to make this particular legend the focus of the work. According to the legend, Candyman will appear if you look into a mirror and repeat his name five times—if you believe, that is. The residents of Cabrini-Green, a tenement house not far from Helen’s home, believe; in fact, Candyman is being blamed for a very recent, particularly gruesome murder there. Helen braves the dangers of the rough neighborhood to explore the murder scene; having discovered that her own apartment house was originally built as a tenement house just like Cabrini-Green, she knows a secret means of accessing connecting rooms, and her look around the adjacent apartment of the murder victim reveals a plethora of Candyman references and clues. Helen’s obsessive investigation of events leads her deep into Candyman’s world, but when she is attacked and identifies her real-life attacker to police, the people begin to doubt the reality of Candyman. For that reason, Candyman is compelled to appear to Helen, and he sets in motion a dramatic series of events that will assure the continued, fervent devotion of his followers. The police blame Helen for the ensuing murders, and her options wind down to only one possible course of action at the end. One cannot really blame Candyman for being so angry. A talented black artist in the late 19th century, he was tortured and killed after the white woman he fell in love with became pregnant. His hand was sawed off, and then he was covered with honey and left to die at the stingers of innumerable angry bees. He has a hook for a hand now, and that is the weapon he uses to gut his victims. There is plenty of blood and guts in this movie; evisceration by an old rusty hook is an unavoidably messy way of dying. I appreciated the definition and characterization of Candyman; he is both real and not real, and he philosophizes poetically on the virtue of his immortal type of being. He lives in the fear of others, his name frightfully whispered among the members of his de facto congregation; both children and adults are terrified of him, but they believe, and that is what makes him strong. Helen’s character tended to get on my nerves at times; there is just something about her that I find annoying. Toward the end, she comes to doubt her own sanity while struggling to accept the truth of the Candyman’s unique existence in this world, but Candyman leaves no doubts as to his own existence. The movie seems to drag a bit here and there, but the gloomy fog of unreal apprehension that rides the wave of possibility and myth into the slums never turns loose its grip on the audience. Tony Todd is superb in the role of Candyman, filling the screen with his presence whenever he appears and seemingly floating just outside the boundaries of observation when he is absent. If you want to watch a gore-blessed horror film that somehow manages to appeal to your intellect as well as your prurient appetites, Candyman may just be your movie. The ending, I should note, is quite good and reflects the careful touch with which an artist performs his final brush stroke on a work of art.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|