Candyman: Day Of The Dead (1999)

 

Wow, this movie was a total turkey and it's a shame because this series could've had a lot of potential. I think the concept of the main characters being descendants of Candyman is a neat idea, it's just the execution is really terrible. I was trying to figure out where this movie went wrong and why it was released on straight-to-video in the first place. For instance, the budget is significantly lower than the previous two movies and it...shows. What makes this even more strange is that it premiered on Cinemax, a network mostly known for its softcore porn. Speaking of which, this is the only Candyman movie to have explicit nudity and it's kind of jarring. To be quite honest with you, most of it was pretty unnecessary. When it comes to the plot, it's nothing more than a later-rinse-repeat of the first and second movies. Oh, I guess this is the part where I talk about the paper-thin plot.

Do you remember that line in Scream where Sidney jokes about how horror movies starts off with a buxom blonde who gets killed in the first five minutes? Well, that's exactly how Day of the Dead starts. How trite.

Just after the opening credits, it turns out to be a dream and the buxom blonde is our main lead. Okay, I'll give you a hint. Remember the little girl from the end of the movie? Annie Tarrant's daughter? Yes, you got it. This is Caroline McKeever, the last living family member of Candyman's bloodline.

Now living as an art gallery owner in Los Angeles, Caroline is the shareholder of  Candyman's paintings which she plans to showcase at an upcoming art exhibit. During the art exhibit, the guests is much more fascinated by the killings of Candyman than his paintings. Caroline is quick to defend her great-great-great-great grandfather's honor and debunks the urban legend by saying his name five times in the mirror....and you know what happens. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, people die around Caroline. Yada, Yada, Yada, she gets framed for the murders. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, Caroline has her final confrontation with Candyman, and you know the drill. I wish I could tell the story in much detail but I really don't see the point. 

Though there are at least two subplots in the movie. First, there is the mystery surrounding *spoilers* Annie's supposed suicide. You see, after the events of Farewell to the Flesh, Annie has since suffered from early dementia. So Caroline was her mother's main caretaker from then on. But suddenly, she finds Annie in the bathtub with her throat slit, thinking all this time it was a suicide but in fact, it was Candyman who did the deed. This means that this wasn't really a mystery at all. It was obvious from the start that there was no need to stretch out this subplot.

But then there's another stupid subplot about a mysterious gang who steals Candyman's paintings. And again, this goes nowhere. There are at least three plots going on in this movie and nothing can keep me invested. Anywho, let's get on with the cast, shall we?

Okay, let's get the elephant out of the room. Donna D'Errico is not a great actress. I've even seen her on episodes of Baywatch and all she does on that show is just stand there and look pretty like she's posing for the camera or something. Nothing against her or anything, I just don't get why the filmmakers cast her as the lead. Alright, here's where I make comparisons from the first movie to the third one here. First, you have Virginia Madsen who really sold it with her performance, then you have Kelly Rowan who also did a decent job. Donna, on the other hand....basically acts like the stereotypical hysterical woman in a horror film. All she does is SCREAM. Scream. Scream. Scream. I mean there's nothing wrong with that, per se, but there is no nuance to this character. She could be interesting if the script would let her, however, Donna D'Errico is given nothing to do. I can see that she tries but her acting just comes off really weak. Sadly, Caroline as a character isn't that compelling to me.

Okay, now it's time to streamline through the rest of the characters. Trust me, It'll be quick.

We have David played by Jsu Garcia. Even though David is no more than a love interest for Caroline, I thought Jsu Garica was one of the better actors with the exception of Tony Todd. Not only is he incredibly handsome, but he's also impeccably charismatic, which makes his performance come off more natural and organic.

Even if the movie is trash, Tony Todd still rocks as Candyman. He could've easily been a wise-cracking joker like most slasher villains at this time, but Mr. Todd really kept the mystique of Candyman and has been consistent throughout. Besides this being the worst Candyman sequel, Tony Todd is the best part of it.

We actually have two sets of good cops and two sets of bad cops in this movie.

There's Jamal played by Ernie Hudson Jr. (yes, that's Ernie Hudson's son) alongside his female partner Jamie, who holds the moral ground and is rather fed up with their obnoxious co-workers. 

Then we have bad cop Sam Craft, played by Wade Williams, and his partner L.V. Sam is a blatant caricature of a racist cop. Sure, this was a way to bring back the social commentary of the first movie, but it's done in the worst way and the writing of the character is just pure cringe. He's nothing more than a parody of Detective Levesque from the second movie. 

Okay, I'm just gonna power on through here but the rest of the characters are just...there with not much screentime. 

We have cocky art dealer Miguel and his main squeeze Lena...

Who gets killed off as soon as they're introduced.

Then there's Caroline's roommate and aspiring actress Tamara who declares Candyman isn't real but unfortunately for her...

Candyman pays her a visit.

Next, we have Detective L.V., who's part of the bad cop duo.

He rightfully gets a hook shoved down his throat.

There are more characters to come but it involves the supposed plot twist. So let's just get to the ending, shall we?

So it turns out that this group of street goths, who pride themselves as Candyman enthusiasts,  stole the paintings. And I gotta tell you, these are one of the worst actors in the movie. HANDS DOWN. Good lord, I get the feeling that this was intentional on the filmmaker's part. Are they supposed to be over-the-top? Ugh, freakin' awful! 

So while they hold Caroline captive, the street goths conjures up Candyman and, of course, he brutally murders them one by one. 

Now Caroline faces off with Candyman while this time, instead of saving a missing child, she has to save a missing adult in the form of David. 

In order to vanquish Candyman, Caroline has to destroy his most valuable painting: His portrait. Even though there's a bunch of bees filing around, she gets to it fairly easily. 

And just like that, as soon as the painting is destroyed, Candyman bursts into flames. Poof! Gone! No more! he's easily defeated. What a cheap move! Oh but that's not where the movie ends.

Out of nowhere, Detective Craft goes a little nutty, attempting to kill Caroline and David but, in the nick of time, Jamal comes in and shoots him in the back of the head. That's when Caroline has to break the Candyman curse once and for all by pinning the murders on Detective Craft (again, rightfully so, as we soon find out that he'd always had psychotic breaks, which in my opinion, is very dangerous for the police department to keep this lunatic on their team).

So all is well, Caroline, David, and his daughter have a little picnic at the park and they all live happily ever after... Barf!

You may notice I didn't put much energy into this review and there's a reason why. There could've been ways for this sequel to not end up the way it did. I mean this is a Candyman sequel of all things! Okay, Okay, Okay. Let me explain myself. You see the first movie had a sort of sophistication to it. I even consider the second movie to be sophisticated as well. But this sequel has an overall cheap feel to it. Nothing feels natural. The acting, the writing, the directing. It's like it sucked out all of the intelligence that the first movie had. I mean at least the second movie tried! I don't know, this is probably one of the worst horror sequels ever. Hands down! Some might look at it as a fun b-movie or whatever but that's not what I want in a Candyman movie. Candyman is more than that, dammit. It's a concept with substance and the filmmakers should've respected that. At least, Nia DaCosta understood this and thankfully she came to save the day with the fourth sequel, initially ignoring this mess of a movie.

My last word: If you're curious, sure. But I say skip it, it's a waste of your time.

 

 

Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh (1995)

 

After the success of Candyman, Benard Rose had some fresh new ideas for the eventual sequel. According to Virginia Madsen, Benard Rose wanted to do a prequel where Candyman and Helen fall in love, which ties into the subplot of Helen as a descendent of Candyman's lost love, Caroline. But for some reason, the studio heads thought that an interracial love story was still controversial. Are you freakin' serious? We are now in the years 1994-1995, people. Can you at least try to be a little open-minded? Oh yeah, and these are the same people who mistaken Candyman as a slave when, in fact, he was a free and educated man. Did they even watch the first movie? Frustrated with the lack of support from the studio, Benard Rose backed down on the project, which is a real shame because he is the sole reason why the first one is a cult classic to this day.

So the studio hired Bill Condon to fill in Benard's shoes along with writers Rand Ravich and Mark Kruger to work on the screenplay. And the result is...a very lackluster and rather boring horror sequel. Now there are elements of the movie that I do like. The New Orleans setting gives off this spooky southern gothic vibe and I thought the plot twist was sort of engaging but the overall film is quite forgettable. The opening scene is fine, which ties into the subplot of the Candyman killings. However, the first act and the first half of the second act were a drag to get through. I was actually falling asleep in some parts. Now, I don't think Farewell To The Flesh is a totally awful movie, It has some things going for it, though, unfortunately, it's incredibly unmemorable. 

The Story: When her brother is arrested for the murder of Phillip Parcell, Annie Tarrant goes headfirst into the investigation. But unbeknownst to her, the investigation soon opens up a pandora's box of family secrets. As Annie digs deep into the recent murder of her father, a notorious urban legend, known as Candyman, begins to take over her life. In order to break the family curse, Annie must confront the vengeful ghost of Candyman...

Most of the acting is decent for the most part and the only bad actor out of the bunch is William O'Leary as Ethan...more on that later. But before I break down the characters and performances, I want to talk about the inciting incident, which is probably one of the more interesting things about this movie.

So it starts with Phillip Purcell, the snotty professor from the first movie, hosting a lecture on his latest book about the legend of Candyman. It is revealed that there have been some changes to his backstory. Remember when Phillip Purcell told Helen that Candyman died in Chicago? Well, according to his book, Candyman died in New Orleans. Either Phillip got his facts wrong or he was just plain trolling Helen for shits and giggles. Who knows? Phillip seems to make a profit out of the events of the first film and openly mocks the Candyman legend by staging a "horror show" for his attendees. This doesn't sit well with Ethan Tarrant whose father was possibly murdered by Candyman.

Ethan confronts Purcell about his exploiting the Candyman myth that possibly caused his father's death, however, Purcell scoffs at this and ignores him. Let's just say that Ethan doesn't handle this well and, immediately, he attacks Purcell at a nearby bar.

After Ethan is thrown out, Purcell hides out in the bathroom...Before you know it, Candyman appears and brutally guts Purcell from behind. Thus begins the unraveling of the Tarrant family curse courtesy of Candyman.

We are soon introduced to Ethan's sister, Annie Tarrant, an art teacher who chose to live a simple life with her husband, Paul, who is the owner of a local restaurant. Annie for the most part is...an okay character. 

You see what made Helen so interesting in the first movie is that she was a much more proactive character than her literary counterpart. In the second movie, however, Annie is very much a reactionary character. The only character development she has is her possibly being related to Candyman. Oh and there's also her witnessing and grieving over the death of her husband Paul and carrying his unborn child but...that's it. There's really not much to her. 

And it's a shame because at least Kelly Rowan does a serviceable job in the role. I mostly know her on the show The O.C. and a couple of episodes on Melrose Place, but I think she did a perfectly fine job here, even though the script doesn't give her much justice. 

Paul doesn't fare much better in the character department either but at least actor Timothy Carhart gives him some much-needed charisma. Not to mention, Paul is a saint compared to Trevor but, unfortunately, as the second act begins, he is unceremoniously killed off. 

 Veteran actor Bill Nunn is good with what he's given, even though, his role as Reverend Ellis comes off as more of an expository-type of character. 

However, there is a subplot with his son Matthew, who happens to be one of the students in Annie's art class, getting possibly kidnapped by Candyman but it doesn't go anywhere. Turns out, that Matthew ran away so Candyman won't get him...Okay. Well, that was a waste of a subplot. The movie does sort of hint that Matthew might have a psychic connection to Candyman but it doesn't go anywhere. To be honest, this would've made the movie a hell of a lot more interesting. 

Then we have the good cop/bad cop duo Pam Carver and Ray Levesque.

Pam Carver, the good cop, is intuitive, open to understanding things, and goes by the book.

Ray Levesque, the bad cop, is impulsive, high-tempered, and willing to break the rules. Guess who bites it?

Ray's downfall (no pun intended) is that he discredits Candyman and uses his cowboy tactics to scare Ethan, screaming Candyman's name to mock him. Of course, this doesn't end well and Ray is flung out of the interrogation room after being gutted. Ethan tries to escape but is gunned down by the cops. When Pam witnesses this, she lets Annie off the hook.

Now I want to talk about that annoying radio announcer, Kingfish. My god, was this guy annoying! This would've worked only in the opening scene but the movie constantly shoehorns this guy's narration in each segway, ruining the tone and flow throughout.

But the worst performer comes from William O'Leary as Ethan. Nothing against the actor or anything, he just has a hard time emoting and when he does emote, it becomes a tad bit over-the-top. The character of Ethan is nothing special either. He doesn't get much screentime for me to really get invested in him, and overall, Ethan is nothing more than just a plot device. 

Then we have the legendary scream queen Veronica Cartwright as Annie's mother Octavia. I think Veronica Cartwright is a very underrated actress and should have a lot more credit than she deserves. 

There is actually one good scene that I like to point out is when Annie confronts Octavia about her relations to Candyman. Kelly Rowan and Veronica Cartwright are acting their butts off in this scene even with the subpar writing. The thing with Octavia is that she is a woman with a lot of secrets and a lot of baggage. Number 1, her husband is brutally murdered. Number 2, she's suffering from cancer. And number 3, she is a total alcoholic. This lady is really going through the wringer. On top of that, she holds back a family secret that would soon be a part of her disintegration.

Veronica Cartwright did what she does best and the character of Octavia was somewhat intriguing for the most part. 

Last but not least, we have the incomparable Tony Todd as Candyman. He is the sole reason why this movie is watchable and he never misses a beat. There's an interesting retrospective about Benard Rose's plan to make Candyman the next Dracula and you can see some of those aspects in the movie.

He now has a slick new look, sporting a mysterious black longcoat in contrast to the brown fur coat in the first movie. His backstory is more explored, which is one of the more engaging plot points of the movie. The main focus of this is the expansion of Candyman's family heritage. This time his soul is tethered to a mirror once owned by his lost love, Caroline. Now centuries later, his family heritage has passed on to the Tarrants. I think this was an interesting story that could've been explored more with Benard's prequel. But the downside is that it loses its focus as the movie proceeds. 

But I have to break it down to this, Tony Todd really truly embodies this character. Even with the misdirection of the movie and little emphasis on Candyman's origin, Tony Todd still kills it as this character. He is, hands down, the best part of this movie. 

The directing this time around...isn't as great. It's missing that oomph, that artistic flair that Benard Rose brought to the table. The writing pretty much blends in with the directing cause, honestly, it seems like I'm watching a Dark Shadows TV movie. I mean nothing against Dark Shadows but that's not what I want in a Candyman film. It has none of the DRAMA of the first movie and not enough high stakes.  And there is this odd trend in horror movies, especially in '90s horror movies, where there is a jump scare. Every. Single. Time. Sure, there were jump scares in the first movie, but it was done subtly. 

Most egregiously, the first and second act feels like a lather, rinse, and repeat of the first movie: the main character exploring Candyman's lair, Candyman framing a character of murder, a missing child, all that jazz. It's so uninspired. 

But there is this really effective chase scene at the Mardi Gras festival that was handled pretty well and....that's all I can say about the directing. But what I really want to talk about is the climax, which really lost me:

Okay, so Annie has her final confrontation with Candyman, and all of a sudden...

The movie goes into a flashback about Candyman's demise. Putting a flashback smack-dab in the middle of a climax just kills the flow for me. Why didn't they have this in the opening scene when Phillip Purcell presented his lecture? I think that would've been more effective.

Anywho, Annie breaks Caroline's mirror, vanquishing Candyman's soul, she and Matthew get baptized, and it has lead us to the ending. 

It's apparently five years later. There's no more of the family curse and Annie and her daughter get to live a quiet, peaceful life.

Once Annie tucks her into bed, Caroline gets a little curious. She holds the mirror dangling above her bed, chanting Candyman's name. Just before she finishes, her mother stops her and then...the movie just ends...Okay? Was this an attempt at sequel bait? I'm not sure. Unfortunately, this will lead us to the god-awful third movie Day of the Dead. Oh boy, I am not prepared but goddamn it, I am a completist and I'm willing to do it. 

As with this movie, it's just underwhelming. There's nothing much more I can say about it.

My Final Word: Not terrible but not great either.