Candyman (2021)

 

After the disastrous reception of Day of the Dead, it would be over a decade for a Candyman sequel to be produced. In 2004, Clive Barker was involved with a 25 million budget. This would've actually been great, considering that Clive Barker is the writer of the source material, but unfortunately, that never came to be. In 2009, filmmaker Deon Taylor was set to direct the film, which would've taken place at an all-women's college during the winter, thankfully ignoring the events of Day of the Dead, but the film fell apart due to rights issues. Fast forward to nine years later, it was announced that Jordan Peele, the director of Get Out and Us, will be producing the sequel with the help of Nia DaCosta filling in the role of director. This seems to be like a match made in heaven. So, by 2019, pre-production for the fourth Candyman sequel was on the go. And the result is a...pretty mixed bag. 

The way I can describe Candyman 2021 is an almost perfect movie. The directing? Amazing. The acting? Top-notch. The writing? I'm afraid I have to go with a...meh. I would say that the build-up of the story is well done but up until the third act, it's a bit of a mess. And there is so much to uncover with that, so let's start the review. 

The Story: Anthony McCoy, a renowned painter in the Chicago art scene, is seeking inspiration. With the help of his girlfriend, gallery owner Brianna Cartwright, he's hard at work on his next project. After hearing about The Legend of Helen Lyle, Anthony investigates the now-gentrified Cabrini Green where he meets Laundromat owner, Willam Burke. Forty-two years ago, as a young boy, William witnessed the police beating and eventual death of Sherman Fields, a mentally-challenged homeless man who was wrongfully accused of giving a white girl candy filled with razor blades. He was soon proven innocent, long after his death, though in the afterlife, Sherman has ingrained himself as a "Candyman" legend. As Anthony becomes more and more obsessed with the Candyman mythos, he would later uncover a secret from the past that would change the course of his life forever...

The cast is phenomenal, hands down, and it was one of the few things that got me invested in the film. The strongest of the bunch are Yahya Abdul-Matten, Teyonah Parris, and Colman Domingo. So, I would gladly share my perspective on these fantastic actors, starting with:

Anthony McCoy, played by the very sexy and very talented Yahya Abdul-Mateen. Not that anybody knows yet, but the mystery surrounding Anthony is that he is the son of Anne-Marie who got kidnapped as a baby and eventually saved by Helen Lyle. I thought it was quite an interesting touch to have him as the main character. Another interesting callback is that Anthony is an artist himself as if Candyman has christened him to be the next big talent. However, it seems as though Anthony has some self-absorbed, self-destructive tendencies that get in the way of his success. 

 

But once he discovers the Cabrini Green projects, Anthony gets stung by a bee as if he's been marked. When he gets more and more obsessed with the Candyman lore, Anthony literally starts to become him! It's kind of like a pseudo-Nightmare on Elm Street 2 situation. This actually got me invested but, unfortunately, that's not all to the story. I'll talk more about the third act later. 

Though I would say that Yahya Abdul-Mateen did a really good performance. The first choice to play Anthony was actually Lakeith Stanford and I would've loved to see that. He is an intense method actor and would've knocked it off the park, splendidly, however, Yahya really honed it in and gave a more vulnerable approach to his character . he has just the right amount of range to balance out the drama and horror of Anthony's situation. 

Brianna Cartwright played by Teyonah Parris was the showstopper for me. Not only was she incredibly likable and relatable, but she was also believable in what her character was experiencing. Brianna takes the role of the audience surrogate, even to the point where I wanted her to be the main character instead. I just have to say it, she has a more compelling story arc than Anthony's, which ties into the movie's theme about trauma. 

As a little girl, Brianna witnessed the suicide of her father who was an artist himself. As Anthony becomes more engrossed with the Candyman mythos, affecting his mental state, Brianna begins to distance herself until she uncovers the ugly truth.

Teyonah Parris was fantastic as Brianna. Furthermore, I like how she portrays her character as an actual human being, reacting to the horror in a realistic way. For one instance, after witnessing Anthony's psychotic meltdown, she decides to smoke a joint with her brother and his boyfriend. Something that I would do in a situation like that. So, not only did Teyonah Parris give a top-tier performance but she also played a character I would totally hang out with too.

Then we have William Burke played by the also sexy and talented Colman Domingo. William's trauma starts with the opening scene of the film when he encounters Sherman Feilds before his eventual death and lives to tell the tale. After his experience, he studies the Candyman mythos that trickles down to generation after generation. There's really not much to know about William after that. He's sort of like the exposition guy who gives Anthony the historical context surrounding the "Candyman" spirit. He's kind of mysterious and mostly hides out at the laundromat in which he owns but there's much more to talk about in the third act. Oh boy, just wait. 

However, Colman Domingo was really great in the role. He has this smooth, storytelling voice that's almost equal to Morgan Freeman's. He also adds a level of complexity to the character where we emphasized with his trauma. In one of the film's most powerful scenes, William breaks down in tears, explaining the cycle of abuse that black men like Daniel Robitaille experienced, expressing how this hits home for him. Colman Domingo really did for me in this scene and it's one of his shining moments. 

The most breakout role goes to Troy Cartwright played by Nathan Stuart-Jarret. He's the film's comic relief with a healthy dose of dry humor to balance out the horror. In the first few scenes, he is the one who tells the story of Helen Lyle, though the events are not particularly accurate to what we saw in the first Candyman. The news article (according to Troy) paints Helen as this nut-job who was so obsessed with the Candyman lore that she beheaded a dog and kidnapped a baby as a sacrifice, and whilst seeing Candyman, in a disillusioned state, sacrifices herself in the fire. Though according to the people who witnessed the bonfire, this news article is 100% percent false. Somehow, this sparks an interest in Anthony, not knowing that he was the baby that Helen supposedly kidnapped. Therefore, Troy fits into the inciting incident by diving into his fascination with urban legends. 

There's also Troy's boyfriend, Grady, who he shares incredible chemistry with. Their comic timing is always on point. But aside from being the comic relief, Troy is usually the voice of reason, too and he and Grady give Brianna the emotional support she needs. Overall, Nathan Stewart-Jarret's performance as Troy was one of the most entertaining parts of the movie.

Then we have the exceptional Vanessa A. Williams as Anne-Marie McCoy. I just want to say Vanessa looks incredible for her age and on top of that, she really knocks it off the park in her one and only scene. It shows how much impact her character had in the original. 

This is by far one of the film's best scenes, Vanessa and Yahya are at their top form here, honing the emotions and devastation the characters are feeling. It's a very effective scene and a testament to how great the acting truly is.

Lastly, we have the eponymous Candyman...Sherman Fields. First off, I just want to say although the actor Michael Hargrove has a creepy presence about him and plays the character well, I just don't see how Sherman Fields fits into the Candyman timeline. 

Okay, I'm going to get into spoiler territory here:

So, William mentions that there is actually a Candyman hive, morphing into the faces of black men who were killed by injustice. But from my understanding, in the original film, the residents of Cabrini Green only thought of Candyman as one entity. When you examine the timeline of the 1992 film, I just don't see how Sherman Fields fits into it. So was it possible that people were talking about two Candymen? Okay, you know what, I'm not gonna dwell too deep into this because this has a lot of plotholes, trust me. But I will say this, I wish they would've had Tony Todd as Candyman, again. He's the only one that can embody this role perfectly and it was such a missed opportunity. Technically, he is in the film but I'll talk more about that in the third-act segment. 

Let's get the so-called victims out of the way:

We have the arrogant, pretentious art dealer Clive Privler and his equally arrogant, pretentious girlfriend Jerrica Cooper. Let's keep this short and simple. Clive is whiny and self-observed, and Jerrica is a stereotypical goth dominatrix.  By the way, their acting and dialogue was so cringe that I couldn't wait for Candyman to come and hook the hell out of them. Their death scenes are very reminiscent of Miguel and his girlfriend's in Day of the Dead but that's all I gotta say about them. 

Then you have the snobby art critic Finely Stephens who was dismissive of Anthony's latest project. She promptly gets killed when Anthony leaves her apartment. Me I say more?

Finally, we have a teenage girl (can't recall her name) who attended Anthony's show, fucking around with her friends in the bathroom as they prepare for the Candyman ritual. Before they do this, a timid black girl enters the bathroom and they start teasing for no reason.

When the black girl hides in the bathroom stall, the snobby teenage girl and her minions/friends continue their ritual and...just as you guessed it. Candyman slaughters them mercilessly, leaving the black girl as the only eyewitness. 

Having unlikeable characters in a horror film isn't always a bad thing but the problem is you don't feel scared for them. I think horror movies work best when you empathize with the victims. Sure, they don't have to be perfect but by making them apathetic, slightly racist assholes kills the tension for me. And that's the main problem with the movie: it barely has any tension. I guess the only tension it has is Anthony becoming "The Candyman," and most of the suspense can be seen in the third act but that's all I got here. 

Now, let's talk about the film's social commentary. It goes into the cycles of trauma but also the exploitation of trauma. Although Anthony "thinks" he's making a good cause by painting portraits of brutalized black men, he is just like Helen Lyle, in the fact that he's unknowingly exploiting peoples' trauma for his own gain. Then there's the apathy of African-Americans who suffer from trauma, which is why Candyman exists at all. But there's much more to add to the commentary once we...yes, of course, get to the third act. 

I want to start by saying that Nia DaCosta's directing is masterful! First, lets talk about the opening credits. Remember when in the first film, the opening credits were overhead? Now it's down below with a mirroring effect. Here's a comparison:

Candyman 1992 Opening Credits:

Candyman 2021:

(click on the picture)

Tell, me. How cool is that?

I also like the addition of the shadow puppets. It's very effective and creepy, standing out as one of the film's visual highlights:

Okay, there is one issue I have with the visuals. These days, filmmakers have this habit of inserting CGI into horror films. I'll say this once and I'll say again, CGI is not scary! It would be nice to realistic blood in horror movies again. There is hope when it comes to the low-budget horror movies but as for the mainstream, I don't know. The worst of these types of effects is shown in the bathroom scene and the climax. It was probably a last-minute thing to get the film completed but It could've been done way much better. 

Now I did say that the film didn't have any tension, that's just in terms of the screenwriting. The film itself is an examination of Anthony slowly becoming Candyman, complete with some gross body horror. That's where the tension works for me, not for the so-called victims. 

May I present to you the travesty that is the third act:

When she goes to look for Anthony, Brianna seeks out William at the laundromat. Then, out of nowhere, William abducts her and places her hostage at an abandoned church.

All of a sudden, the scene switches back to a young William arguing with his older sister. I hate to say it but the child acting is...not great. But anywho, his sister conjures up Candyman (Sherman Fields) and he kills her and all of her friends. When William opens the door, he sees Candyman standing over his sister's dead body. I felt like this should've been the opening scene instead. It feels so disjointed. And yeah, it gives William a motive for his madness but nothing ever comes of it. 

Brianna breaks out of consciousness as William goes off on a psychotic rant about resurrecting the Candyman hive. Colmon Domingo's acting is...really over-the-top in this scene and it gets a little grating at times. So William unveils Anthony and initiates him into the hive. Anthony's body is completely covered in beestings and to put more salt in the wound, William saws off Anthony's hand and impales a hook, right in the stump (with CGI blood by the way). 

Brianna eventually breaks free from her ropes and makes a run for it. William chases after her. The two of them go on a cat-and-mouse chase until Brianna stabs William to death (CGI blood and all). Anthony stumbles through, collapsing into Brianna's arms. 

Suddenly, a horde of police officers comes out of nowhere and shoots Anthony unprovoked. For some reason, they arrest Brianna while a police officer sits in the car with her. The police officer tries to intimidate her into agreeing that Anthony was indeed the killer and that their shooting was justified...Woah, woah, woah, wait a minute. Who is the true villain of this film? Is it William? The Candyman? Or the Police officers themselves? Let's continue. So instead of complying with the police officer's demand, Brianna uses the rearview mirror to conjure up Candyman. All of a sudden, The Candyman, or shall I say, The Candyman "Hive" goes into an all-out bloody massacre, murdering all of the police officers in total (to which all of their blood organs are made of CGI. I hope this trend ends).

So after the deed is done, we see The Candyman morphing into the faces of black men who were killed by injustice, one of them being Daniel Robitaille played by the one and only Tony Todd in a one-shot (CGI remodeled) cameo. His last words: "Tell Everyone."

What. The. Fuck. Okay, it's time to go on a rant. Well, not particularly a rant, but more of an autopsy report. 

First off, I would've loved to see Tony Todd reprise the role of Candyman instead of some lousy tacked-on 20-second cameo. 

Also, they gave the lead actress of the original, Virginia Madsen, a voice cameo. Just a voice cameo. Didn't the first film end with Helen becoming a creepy urban legend herself? What happened to that? This actually harkens back to Benard Rose's original idea about having Virginia Madsen and Tony Todd reprising their roles in a prequel as mentioned in the Farewell to the Flesh review. What if Helen became Candyman's bride after all? It would've been so cool if they included that in this sequel. It's such a missed opportunity.

Second of all, is Candyman an anti-hero now? I don't know, it just doesn't work for me. He's more of a deeply complex anti-villain in my eyes and the changing of this takes away his imposing, mysterious mystique. 

Lastly, the whole message behind the film is to showcase how corrupt the police system is. I get the message but it's executed terribly. Though I would say, the commentary is handled a lot much better than what the filmmakers of Day of the Dead were trying to accomplish.

But what takes me out of the film is it's lack of subtly. The third act alone just ruins the entire film, stripping away any potential it has. 

For me, Candyman 1992 is above and beyond the best of them all. It's a film that really holds up for me and the execution of the social commentary is superb. It's a bonafide classic, which still leaves an impact in the horror zeitgeist.

The 2021 sequel tries to hold a candle to the original but there's just no way. Candyman 1992 is a lightning in the bottle. Instead of paying homage, Candyman 2021 crumbles in its shadow. 

Last Word: It's a mess. But it's a beautiful mess. It's good for one watch.