Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022)

 

Wow, this movie was pretty bad. Though, I would like to take a moment to discuss the production history, which was a mess from the start. But first, I want to talk about Leatherface, the 2017 prequel to both the original 1974 film and Texas Chainsaw 3D, which is another unnecessary "prequel" that came out back in 2013. Let me say this off the bat. I never saw this film and I don't attend to. The only clips I saw of this film were through movie reviews on YouTube. It seems like a run-of-the-mill cash-grab and, overall, pointless prequel. But the real meat of it was Lionsgate was planning on making FIVE films in this dried-up franchise after the release of Leatherface. Are you kidding me? What more can you do with a chainsaw-wielding maniac? Did they want Leatherface to become some sort of superhuman, somehow? Thankfully, due to the poor timing when it was released, Lionsgate's scrapped the five movies. 

With Fede Alvarez (the director of Don't Breathe and The Evil Dead Remake) and...Kim Henkel. May I remind you that Kim Henkel wrote The Next Generation. So how would expect this one would turn out? And then comes first-time screenwriter Chris Thomas Delvin and after that, Ryan and Andy Tohill as the directors. But somehow, the Tohill brothers mysteriously stepped out. Creative differences, I suppose? So that's when cinematographer David Blue Garcia stepped in as a replacement. Just like the last movie, this is mostly filmed in Bulgaria. They couldn't afford to film this in Texas? Really?

Was this movie worth saving? Fuck, no. The test screening was so bad that they decided to dump this on the Netflix bargain bin. And rightfully so.

This overall movie just has a cheap feel to it. Sure, it's shot nicely in some parts and the cinematography is well done but other than that, this is still a terribly-made film. I can see why certain people can enjoy this. It's a dumb, goofy, gory slasher that friends could enjoy on a Saturday night but as a Texas Chainsaw Massacre sequel, it fails miserably. 

The plot itself is completely asinine:

When a group of narcissistic social media influencers gentrify a small town in Texas, they unknowingly evict the owner of an orphanage who turns out to be the foster mother of none other than Leatherface himself. When the woman falls into cardiac arrest and dies on the way to the hospital, Leatherface is thirsting for revenge. Little does he know, someone from the past is preparing for a final showdown. 

Okay, let's try to dissect this. Why would a group of twenty-somethings, let alone, a group of social media influencers, gentrify a whole town? Although it didn't really add anything to the plot, the subplot about the main character, Lila, surviving a school shooting would've been interesting. What if, instead, her sister and her friends were activists on their to protest against gun laws in Texas, and suddenly, their car breaks down and they encounter Leatherface. See. Plain and simple, cut and dry. The plot doesn't have to be that complicated. After all, a Texas Chainsaw plot should be simplistic at best. But I guess social media influencers are part of the algorithm, so they went with that instead. I mean, I really don't get the purpose of this plot. Were the filmmakers trying to convey a message somehow? Are we supposed to like these characters? Speaking of, let's break them down one by one. 

I want to say this off the bat. I think Melody is the most irritating character of them all. She seems like the type of girl that would smile in your face but talk shit behind her back when you're not looking. For example,  when she confronts Ms. McCumber about the expired deed of the orphanage, just listen to the tone of her voice: "um, you don't belong here..." She sounds so snotty. And not to mention, the scene where she insults the local mechanic, Kitcher, for carrying a gun. He is at ear length when she criticizes his penis size. What the fuck?

After Ms. McCumber is sent to the hospital, the movie at least tries to redeem Melody, but I just don't care whether she lives or dies. She is still a terribly written character who recklessly puts her sister and her friends in danger for her own personal gain. Am I supposed to get by that? Though I would say the actress does a decent enough job even if her character sucks. 

Dante is equally obnoxious. He is supposed to be some sort of chef who cranks out cooking tutorials on his Instagram. And...that's it. That's all I know about him. I mostly want to focus on why I find this character obnoxious. Now, when he and the group scout around the town, he notices a confederate flag by the window of Ms. Mccumber's house. 

This "triggers" Dante, prompting him and Melody to BREAK inside this woman's house to confront her.

As you can see Ms. McCumber is rather polite about this and even offers some tea. Oh and uh, shout out to underrated actress Alice Krige who's recently been relegated to creepy old woman roles and should have much more credit than she deserves. Now, Ms. McCumber seems like a well-adjusted elderly woman but the problem is, she seems to be from another time and casually uses the N-word. Not with the hard R but with an O. But this still pisses Dante off and he agrees with Melody to kick this woman out. Yes, he is so eager to kick this sickly old woman out for being innocently ignorant.  I hate to bring up the subject of race when it comes to this movie because it didn't need to be here at all. And quite frankly, I find myself being offended when the writers decided to attach the subject of race to the only lone black guy in the group.

But besides all that, Dante really didn't do much for me, however, he does get a really gruesome death scene. 

His girlfriend Ruth seems to be the nicest character of the bunch. She even joins in to check on Ms. McCumber when she has her heart attack.

But her kindness doesn't save her in the end and Ruth gets killed off rather quickly without us getting to know her at all. 

Then we have Ritcher, who seems to be the only character with any common sense at all and he's pretty hot to boot. The dude's got muscles for days. He's referred to as a "nihilist" but in actuality, he's just a guy that's getting by. He might not be the most approachable guy in the world but at least he has some morals unlike the obnoxious social media influencers invading his hometown.

Just when does the right thing by helping Melody, he gets smashed in the head quite brutally by Leatherface. 

Here we have Lila played by the very talented Elsie Fisher who did an incredible performance in Bo Burnham's Eighth Grade. I can see that Elsie Fisher tried her best here, but unfortunately, she has to work with a really shitty script. The worst dialogue she gets is: "Hey, Leatherfuck!" are you serious? How would she know his name is Leatherface? However, I think "Welcome to Texas, Motherfucker!" from Texas 3D is still the worst lines ever.

Okay, the thing about Lila is that she survived a traumatic school shooting. Like I said, a subject like this should've been explained more. Gun laws is a real-world issue and if the plot could've got a tad bit more subtle, the characters would've been less obnoxious. If the movie focused more on Lila's trauma and less on the idiotic shenanigans of the social media influencers, the movie would have a decently, if not competently, written screenplay.

But what the filmmakers do in the "actual" movie is use this as a minor in the midst of Leatherface's killing spree. Worst of all, that's the only character development Lila gets without any nuance at all. And I guess, in the end, Lila overcomes her fear of guns and shoots at Leatherface, which leads to the really cringy Leatherfuck line. Ugh. I just felt that Lila was such a wasted character. 

Speaking of wasted character, we have the terribly misused Olwen Fouere as none-other-than Sally freakin' Hardesty. Okay, I just have to get the elephant out of the room. I don't know why the filmmakers decided to cast a different actress in this role. This is the prime example of forced fanservice because this didn't have to exist at all. I mean this really needs to be talked about. Now there is a trend going on with these "requels," which is bringing back an iconic actress that played a popular final girl character in a horror franchise. I'm trying to figure out why the filmmakers would even consider bringing back Sally Hardesty knowing full well that the original actress, Marilyn Burns, died about seven years ago. For instance, whenever I think of Laurie Strode, I think of Jamie Lee Curtis. Whenever I think of Nancy Thompson, I think of Heather Langenkamp. And whenever I think of Sidney Prescott, I think of Neve Campbell. To have another actress replace Marilyn Burns in this role, I find to be disrespectful of her legacy, especially with the lengths she went through while filming the original.

Now I can see that this actress tries and she kind of resembles Marilyn Burns, but Sally Hardesty serves no purpose to the plot. If she was the actual main character, it would make sense...But she's not for some reason. Hell, she's barely even a supporting character, it's basically a cameo. Okay, so almost fifty years have passed since the original film and Sally Hardesty has transformed herself into this badass ranger but she's still traumatized by the events of 1973. Now how the film keeps beating us over the head that is the real Sally Hardesty is that she constantly stares at a photo of her and her friends. It's been almost fifty years now! Does she have any new friends or surviving family members to keep her company? Do you mean to tell me that this woman has been a hermit with absolutely no human interaction? And now all of sudden, she waited all this time to get revenge on Leatherface? None of this makes any sense. And it gets more convoluted as the movie progresses.

As with any horror film, the writer chose to make Sally stupid for the movie to press on. Case in point, when she saves Lila and Melody from Leatherface and just when she's about to pull off in the car, she...STOPS the car and LOCKS them inside. This is all because the writers wanted to give Sally and Leatherface this epic when, in actuality, it feels very forced and unnecessary. So when she finally confronts him, Sally has her gun pointed right at him. It seems like she's ready to shoot him but...she won't kill him until she wants Leatherface to say her name. What kind of dumbshit is this? Lady, it's been almost fifty fucking years. Do you really expect him to remember your name? I mean she has every opprotunity to kill him right then and there and she's the only one with a goddamn shotgun. Yet, she won't give herself to do the deed because Leatherface doesn't know her name? Bullshit. Of course, Leatherface just stares at her dumbfounded and walks away. Wow, even Leatherface is over this shit. So Sally suddenly has a light bulb blink her in head and she lets out Lila and Melody from the car as Leatherface prey on them. And that's when Sally finally shoots her shotgun. Are you kidding me? Fuck off, movie.

But when her and Leatherface face off...Sally loses instantly. She is literally chainsawed up in the air and flung over to the trash pile. Some seconds later, she is able to use her shotgun one last time and has a whole conversation with Lila before dies. How is that possible? Her innards should be torn to shreds there's no way she could've been alive for that long. This movie is a goddamn cartoon. There I said it. This movie is beyond logic and physics at this point. There's just no way I can buy this movie as a requel to the classic 1974 film, which was lauded for its bleak realism.

So yeah, they totally killed off Sally Hardesty, who was on screen for approximently five minutes with no character development whatsoever. Wow, what a complete waste of a character. 

Last but not least, we have Leatherface who, I think, is the best part of the movie. This Leatherface is more brutal and straight to the point, which is what this movie needed. But, and it's a big but, I can't help but compare him to Jason Voorhees. I know that it's beginning to be a habit. Comparing other slasher villains to Jason Voorhees but that's how I feel. Case in point, Leatherface has the biggest body count of any of the previous films. He is very no-holds-barred and far apart from the whimpering manchild who is forced to do terrible things.

Furthermore, I'm trying to figure out what's Leatherface's actual age here. I'm assuming he's probably in his mid-to-late sixties, early seventies in the least. I'm guessing he was a teenager during the events of the first film. Okay, I'll buy that. But what really happened during the events of the first film? Were the brothers caught for their crimes and Leatherface was the only one that got away? It's never really entirely explained. But at least Mark Burnham turned Leatherface into this destructive force of nature, much similar to Andrew Bryniarski's portrayal in the remake. So that's probably the only good thing I could say about this movie. 

The so-called investors are nothing but chainsaw fodder and not the sharpest tools in the shed. For example, when one of them sees a dead body and quickly runs inside the bus, Lila wants to know what's happening. For some reason, she ordered Lila to stay on the bus without simply telling her that there is dead body outside and they might be in danger. Do these people have any common sense at all? But then there is the incredibly cringy scene where Leatherface ambushes them on the party bus. Okay, so you have a chainsaw-wielding, face-wearing maniac standing in front of them. Do they freak out? Do they panic? NO. They just stand there like complete idiots and then one guy lifts up his phone and says, "Make one move and you're canceled, bro." What? Like I said before, this movie is a freakin' cartoon and it just go to show that these people are nothing but props to be killed off.

However, the bus party bloodbath was the only scene that kept me interested,  just in terms of how ballsy it is. It sort of reminded me of the boiler room scene in Hellraiser 3, which makes me wonder if they took inspiration from that.

Okay, this is the part where I spoil the movie for a bit but if you don't care that's fine.

Let's start with the climax and oh my gosh it's so hilarious to me:

It's the part where Melody UPCHUCKS Leatherface with a battle cry. L-O-Freakin-L! It's so damn cheesy!

But the ending is the real kicker:

Dun! Dun! Dun! Melody gets beheaded by Leatherface. I know this is supposed to be a shocking ending but the thing is...I don't give a fuck about Melody. I know the movie tries to redeem her but she's the reason why she and Lila are in this situation in the first place. Sorry, I don't feel bad for her. Now, I could feel bad for Lila because she's the only sympathetic character but the moment is ruined by Leatherface's triumphant chainsaw dance as Lila screams while being charted off in a tesla that drives by itself. It has to be seen to be believed. So freakin' hilarious.

The tone of the movie is all over the place. It's this weird juxtaposition between the over-the-top zaniness of TCM II and the gritty realism of the original and the 2003 remake. This film literally has no identity and I'm trying to decipher whether this movie is a lazy cash grab at best. 

The script is the worst of all and I pretty much broke down every single reason why none of the movie's plot points doesn't work. Now, I'm not going to knock Chris Thomas Devlin. He's living every screenwriter's dream by having his first screenplay produced into a movie. But I just have to say this, the first try isn't always the best, especially if it's a sequel from a horror movie franchise. 

Honestly, when I look into the Texas Chainsaw franchise as a whole, it's a complete and utter mess. I just feel that the 1974 film works as a stand-alone film. Sure, TCM II has its fans, I mean it's not my favorite horror sequel ever, but I can see why people consider that to be the "true" sequel to the original. However, the rest of the series are basically reboots that have no connection with one another. And there's not much after that. This franchise is beyond done at this point and this particular film is the final nail-in-the-coffin. No more films please, we've had enough.

My Final Word: You can watch it out of curiosity, but this movie is overall trash. Period. 

Candyman (1992)

 

In 1985, horror writer Clive Barker released Books of Blood Vol. 5, a collection of short stories which featured his most important piece, The Forbidden. But it wasn't until his success of The Hellbound Heart where American audiences start to take notice. Then the film offers came. Clive thought that if anybody was going to direct the film version of his book, it would be him. This resulted in the cult hit Hellraiser, which is now regarded as one of the most innovative horror movies during the tail end of the 80s. In 1990, He followed this up with his passion project: an adaptation of his novel Cabal, titled Nightbreed. But studio interference got in the way and it was riddled with production issues that contribute to the movie's failure at the box office. As a horror novelist-turned-director, Clive Barker became disillusioned with the film industry and often had doubts if the bighead execs would ever have a clear view of his vision. But on the bright side of things, Clive gets a chance to meet with film director Benard Rose who was interested in bringing The Forbidden on screen. Seeing how the subject matter can bring new meaning to his artistic vision, Clive Barker agreed to sell the film rights and this soon evolved into the creation of a new horror classic. 

The visuals in this are divine! I think the movie beautifully captures Clive Barker's vision, tapping into the surrealism of its source material. I definitely like how the movie contrasts between the mundane urban setting and the psychological mindscrew of Candyman's machinations. I think Virginia Madsen and Tony Todd were very compelling in their roles. Their dynamic is really powerful, which is horrifying yet tender at the same time. However, the strongest aspect of Candyman is its themes. During the early part of the decade, The Beating of Rodney King and The L.A. Riots brought on the heavy topic of racism in the forefront. Candyman, in particular, is a response to the gentrification of black Americans living in low-income housing during the 1970s and 1980s. The book leans more towards classism but the topic of race adds a lot more context to the Candyman mythos and it's handled quite tastefully, even at the time it was made. Speaking of the book, the movie is pretty faithful to the source material, a few changes here and there, but faithful nonetheless. It's hard to categorize Candyman as a slasher film, I mean it is in a way, but it doesn't have that slasher feel if you get what I'm saying. It's much more on the psychological spectrum, Just like how most people mistake Hellraiser as a slasher but it's really more on the fantastical side. I would describe Candyman as a sophisticated slasher where it keeps its focus on story and atmosphere, well crafted in its set up, build-up, and payoff. It's no wonder why most horror fans helmed this as a modern classic. I would say wholeheartedly that the adaptation is better than the source material and it's by far one of the most memorable horror movies of the 90s.

The Story: While writing a thesis on urban legends, Graduate Student Helen Lyle investigates the cavernous decay of Cabrini Green. She hears about the story of the vengeful spirit of Candyman aka Daniel Robitaille, a son of a slave who rose to prominence as a gifted artist. When he paints a portrait for a wealthy landowner's daughter, Daniel suddenly falls in love in with her. But the landowner is against this interracial romance and he soon sends out a vicious lynch mob to punish Daniel for impregnating his daughter. As they brutally maim and torture Daniel, through his last breath, he behests that he will soon get his revenge beyond his death. At first, Helen doesn't believe that this mythical being exists but, as she goes deep into the history and readings about the recent murder of a Cabrini Green resident, the ghostly spirit of Candyman clouds her judgment. When she's framed for possibly kidnapping a baby, Helen must find a way to save the infant and clear her name. But Candyman has other plans...

The cast is extremely solid, featuring actors that I've seen periodically in films and tv. Most notably, Virginia Madsen and Tony Todd were the ones who really stole the show.

Especially Virginia Madsen, who carries this movie on her shoulders. But she wasn't the first choice to play Helen.

Sandra Bullock was suggested by producer Alan Poul and I do see her as an ideal choice. She has that fair balance of down-to-earth reliability yet she has this powerful presence that makes you believe in the characters she portrays. Had she played Helen, she would have made this an interesting performance. 

Though eventually, the filmmakers chose Alexandra Pigg, Benard Rose's wife at the time, as the lead. Virginia Madsen was almost cast as Bernadette but the filmmakers wanted the character to be played by a black actress instead. As luck would have it, Alexandra suddenly became pregnant during the production, making it hard for the filmmakers to do the more elaborate stunts that were required. 

So that's when Virginia Madsen steps in and, boy, she gives it her all. But before I praise the acting prowess of Mrs. Madsen, let's dive deep into the character of Helen Lyle. 

Her literary counterpart is Helen Buchanan and she's more a reactionary character but it does work in a way because the whole point of the short story is to build up the mystery surrounding Candyman, however, along with her estranged marriage to Trevor, she doesn't have much character development beyond that. But the film gives her more nuance. In the guise of the movie's social commentary, Helen's thesis is less about the myth of Candyman and more about the hardships of improvised black communities on the east side of Chicago. Helen wants to be seen as this beacon of truth, to show her white colleagues what these people are going through. This is something that is deeply important to her and she doesn't go down without a fight.

Her husband Trevor, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be on the same page. It seems as though she's competing with Trevor for theoretical recognition.

This is further demonstrated in the dinner scene. On one side, you have Helen and her best friend Bernadette and on the other side, you have Trevor and his colleague Phillip Purcell. It looks to be a battle of the sexes on who's the expert on the Candyman myth but Helen wants to gain the upper hand.

But when Phillip narrates the origin of Candyman, Helen delves deep into her research where she explores the ruins of Cabrini-Green.

Unfortunately, she runs into a gang that is led by "The Candyman" and ends up brutally mugged, leaving her with a gnarly black eye. Helen soon becomes an informant for the police and the supposed "Candyman" is arrested. Therefore, the myth of Candyman is finally debunked...or so it seems.

A few months roll by, and Helen is over the moon when her thesis is accepted by the university. But just as she walks towards her car, here comes the boogeyman himself, Candyman. 

It turns out, he's not too happy about Helen's skepticism of him to which he must shed innocent blood.

Eventually, Candyman enchants Helen into a trance-like state and renders her unconscious. Okay, I'm gonna squeeze in a fun fact here. Virginia Madsen was actually hypnotized for this scene. That must've taken a lot of commitment! Virginia refused to go under any more hypnosis since she became a bit disoriented from the experience. Hell, I don't blame her. 

Now, let's get back to the character breakdown. 

When she comes to, Helen finds herself in a bloody apartment, discovering a severed dog's head, and is attacked by a frantic Anne-Marie. Okay, let's stop here for a moment. Helen is a level-headed character for the most part, but she's not without her stupid moments either. So when Helen wakes up in the apartment, the first thing she does is...pick up the bloody meat cleaver. I'll give her a pass for this one since she hears screaming and she's so freaked out she's probably not thinking straight. Distraught over her missing baby, a frantic Anne-Marie attacks Helen and you know what she does? Helen stabs her in the shoulder with a meat cleaver! Why would she do that? And as I predicted, here come the cops ready to arrest Helen. Dammit, Helen!

When Helen is taken into custody, the cops that once aided her are now against her, along with the media scrutinizing her for possibly kidnapping a baby.

As she tries to figure out where her life went wrong, here comes Candyman catching her right from under his hook. 

Weakened by his presence, Helen tries to warn Bernadette, who comes over to visit, from opening the door. But it's too late and Candyman brutally kills her with her corpse almost torn into shreds!

With so many strikes against her, Helen is placed in a psychiatric ward while Candyman psychologically tortures her.

When she goes to visit the doctor, Helen tries to prove her sanity. However, the doctor has evidence that Candyman may not be real but Helen vehemently denies that she would ever be that capable of doing the things that she's accused of. Therefore, Helen begins to recite the incantation of Candyman to prove her point.

The doctor, of course, gets a rude awakening as Candyman hooks him right from behind. Ouch!

To show Helen his gratitude for believing in him, Candyman releases her from her straps and she escapes. 

Hoping to embrace the loving arms of her husband, Helen goes home to find that somebody has already been occupied. It turns out that Trevor has been having an affair with one of his students and was leaving Helen to rot in the psych ward.

Now Helen is all alone but, deep down, this is what Candyman wanted. In order for Candyman to claim her as his "victim," they must be one in the same; two souls tethered to the binds of tragedy. This prompts Helen to continue her mission of saving Anne Marie's baby...

When she enters Candyman's lair, Helen discovers a painting that has a striking resemblance to her...and that's when the movie really gets interesting. It's revealed that Helen is the long-lost 

descendant of Candyman's lover. This will actually be a continuing plot thread in the next two sequels, in which the female leads are the direct descendants of Candyman. What do I think of this plot twist overall? 

I think this elevates the movie from the source material, bringing in this ancestral connection between Helen and Candyman that organically flows into the story. 

But enough about Helen, let's talk about the extremely talented Mrs. Virginia Madsen. Man, what a performance. She really nailed the confusion and anguish of Helen's detriment. Virginia Madsen was very committed to this role. From being hypnotized in real life to overcoming her fear of bees, she went through it and I appreciate her for it. This is a tour-de-force performance and her ability to convey the subtle emotions of Helen's internal torture is grandiose. It would've been awesome if she had a golden globe for this performance because she truly deserves it. Bravo, Mrs. Madsen! Bravo!

And I must say, she has a very stunning presence. She kind of reminds me of one of those movie stars of the Hollywood Golden Age. No wonder Candyman is obsessed with her. All in all, Mrs. Madsen shines through the movie with her magnetic performance. 

Before I get to Trevor and Bernadette, I feel like the most important characters are Anne-Marie and Jake as they are the driving force for most of the movie. 

First, we have Anne-Marie played by the stunningly beautiful and amazingly talented Vanessa A. Williams. The Anne-Marie in the short story is widely different from the film version. In The Forbidden, she comes off as very self-absorbed and annoyed by her child's need for attention. But here's the real kicker: it turns out she sacrificed Kerry (her child) willingly to The Candyman. But Benard Rose wanted to have a more sympathetic portrayal of the character as Anne-Marie represents the struggles of single black mothers. Therefore, we see a side of her that's more protective and nurturing, which makes her situation all the more heartbreaking when her baby is kidnapped.

Vanessa A. Williams did a splendid job with her performance. Although she has a minor supporting role, she leaves a huge impact. When she gives the monologue about Candyman, her emotions are spot on and you believe in her vulnerability. 

And then there's Jake played by child actor Dejaun Guy. From my observation, I think Jake is supposed to be a latch-key kid because there's really no mention of his parents and he would usually wander around the buildings unsupervised. From my personal childhood experience, this was a common thing, especially kids from improvised project housings. 

To squeeze in some behind-the-scenes trivia, the cast and crew nicknamed Dejaun Guy as "One-Take Jake," as he finished his takes flawlessly, which is a high-level achievement for a child actor. His performance was very believable and, not to mention, he has a natural talent for storytelling.

Bernadette Walsh played by Kasi Lemmons was only a minor character in the short story. She was no more than a temporary assistant to Helen. But Benard Rose felt that the role should be expanded, so she was rewritten as a friend of Helen's.

The chemistry between Virginia Madsen and Kasi Lemmons seemed genuine and they're actually believable as friends. 

Kasi, in particular, gave such a natural and relatable performance that you actually feel sad when Candyman brutally guts her.

Lastly,  we have Helen's two-timing husband Trevor played by Xander Berkely. There's not really much to elaborate on Trevor in the short story, he's cold and distant for the most part but I think he's way worse in the film version.

How I would describe Trevor is that he is a total snake. He tries to come off as this concerned, caring husband but, in actuality, he's screwing his wife over in terms of marriage and career. I do have at least one positive thing to say about him, though. I thought the filmmakers did a good job at making him realistic. He could've easily been a major asshole, which he is, but he doesn't act accordingly. It's a fairly subtle characterization. Thankfully, Trevor gets the comeuppance he deserves...more on that later.

Now it has come to this, the eponymous boogeyman himself...

Candyman aka Daniel Robitaille.

For those of you who don't know, Tony Todd wasn't the first choice to play Candyman.

Eddie Murphy, of all people, was considered for the role. Just imagine him with a hook in this picture. Pretty cosmic, right? Maybe in a couple of years, Eddie Murphy might be good in this, because, to be honest with you, he scared the shit of me when I watched Vampire in Brooklyn as a kid. But Eddie was known for his comedies at the time plus he was too expensive for the studio. 

And here comes...lo and behold, Tony Todd. I just can't imagine any other actor playing this role. Tony Todd embodies this character from head to toe. However, The Candyman's appearance in the short story is vastly different. He is described as a scruffy man with a stringy beard and yellow skin with an aura of "sweet honey". To keep the mystery of the character, The Candyman is given no backstory. Therefore, in the film version, it was Tony Todd's idea to add more lure to the Candyman mythos. Speaking of which, we'll jump into that.

Now, most people would often get this wrong. Daniel Robitaille was NOT a slave. He was a son of a slave. You see, Candyman's backstory is similar to many of the black influencers at the time like Fredrick Douglas, Madame C.J. Walker, and George Washington Carver. Soon, Daniel went to the finest private schools, eventually gaining prominence as an inventor and a painter. At the peak of his success, Daniel suddenly fell in love. While painting a portrait for a landowner's daughter, Caroline Sullivan, Daniel is enraptured by her beauty. They begin to have an affair, which produces an unborn child. When Caroline's father hears word of this, he is pissed and sends out a lynch mob to maim Daniel. The tragic part of Daniel's backstory is that this once respected and successful black man is treated less like a human being and more like a wounded deer hunted by its prey. This is all because he fell in love with a woman of a different race. 

Daniel, now known as Candyman, has held his power over Chicago ever since. 

When it comes to Candyman's appearance, most people would often compare him to a pimp from an exploration movie. But I think the fur coat is supposed to symbolize Candyman's territory over Chicago. 

I think what really pushed him over the edge is when one of the townspeople cut off his hand, his artist's hand, in which he now uses as his killing hand, the hook of vengeance.

However, Candyman's main motive is to reclaim the family that he's lost long ago. This desire will come to fruition in the climax.

Before I continue, I want to squeeze in an important and frustrating trivia fact. In the scene where Candyman enchants Helen when she confronts him in his lair, there was supposed to be an interracial kiss between them. But somehow one of the executives thought it was "too controversial." Okay, let me reiterate this. Candyman's backstory is about him literally falling in love with a white woman. Let me remind you, this is decades after the Star Trek episode, "Plato's Stepchildren", which features an interracial kiss between William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols. And not only that, there's the movie Jungle Fever, which featured love scenes between a black man and a white woman. Yet and still, an interracial kiss was still considered taboo to these people in the early 90s. Really? Make it make sense.

Anywho, this instead leads us to one of the grossest moments of the film when Candyman reveals what's really inside his fur coat.

They used actual bees for this scene and it's truly remarkable. Plus, Tony Todd was able to hold copious amount of real bees in his mouth. What a trooper!

Speaking of, let's get to the one and only, Tony Todd. His portrayal of Candyman is unforgettable, eluding this tragic Shakespearian flair to the character. He brings in a certain softness and brutality to his performance, channeling Candyman's complex morality. From his tall, opposing appearance, deep, ethereal voice, and delicate but dangerous grace, Tony Todd was made for this role and he is the sole reason why Candyman is so iconic.

The visuals in this movie are out of this world! it's sort of like a mix of Giallo with a side dish of David Lynch surrealism.

I have heard of Benard Rose when he directed the criminally underrated 1988 film Paperhouse. He has a very distinct eye, balancing the worlds between reality and dream logic. He definitely brought in this creepy, foreboding feel to the urban setting of Chicago. The artistic touches of dread and gothic intrigue poured into the improvised slums of Cabrini Green where the ordinary becomes extraordinary. Now there are at least three scenes that stuck out to me:

There is the amazing opening title sequence with a bird's eye view of the streets of Chicago as the fantastical operatic instrumental chorus of Phillip Glass' "Music Box" plays bombastically.

This is followed by Candyman's narration with a swarm of bees invading the city of Chicago. Perfect, perfect, perfect. 

 

The second scene is a really disturbing one in my opinion. While wandering around the cavernous surroundings of Cabrini Green, Jake tells Helen the story about a mentally challenged kid who supposedly got attacked by Candyman in the bathroom. In the short story, this was told by two elderly women and the victim in question was a 20-year-old man. But Benard Rose decided to de-age the character to give the scene more of an emotional punch. The image of the blood trailing down from the toilet while the boy is screaming in pain sent chills down my spine. 

The third scene is when Helen gets arrested. The flashing police lights give off this sort of disorienting effect while Helen is dazed and confused. This symbolizes Helen's world crumbling before her eyes to which Candyman takes over her subconscious state. I swear Benard Rose is an underrated genius!

The violence in this movie goes hard. There is a whole lot of bloodletting, let me tell ya. Just like in Hellraiser, The movie has this way of making you feel the pain. As you hear the sound of Candyman's hook ripping into someone's organs, it's the stuff of nightmares.

The film's soundtrack produced by legendary film composer Phillip Glass is by far one of the best horror soundtracks of all time. From "Music Box" to "Helen's Theme," the instrumentals are haunting yet beautiful. Take a listen and hear for yourself:

Bernard Rose's ultimate goal for the film was to telegraph the social commentary. More specifically in the short story, the main crust of the social commentary came from the classism of 1980s UK. But since racial issues were becoming more prevalent around the time Candyman was being developed, Benard Rose decided to incorporate these topical issues into the finished film. 

But it was the real-life case of Ruthie Jean that really piqued Rose's interest. Just like in the movie, she was killed through the mirror by unknown robbers. Her case is yet to be unsolved. So Rose added this element to the film's message as crimes against black women and women of color gets sadly ignored to this day. 

Benard Rose handled the subject matter with subtly and nuance, which is why most horror fans see Candyman as a landmark in Black Horror Cinema. 

Last but not least, let's discuss the exceptional screenplay written by Benard Rose himself. As a way to expand on the short story, Rose found new and inventive ways to drive the film forward. The continuation of the second and third acts is like a grand operatic tragedy. It really gets you enthralled into the meat of the film. Rose added additional subplots such as Trevor's Affair and The Framing of Helen. 

 For Trevor's Affair, it starts with one of Trevor's students making razor-sharp glances at Helen, which indicates that he's less than faithful. This all accumulates to Helen finding out about the affair in the midst of her despair. With baby Anthony missing, the stakes are raised and the tension is rising for the baby to be found alive. This turns Helen into a much more proactive character with a clear goal. These additional subplots add more suspense and heightens the horror as well as the drama. Bernard Rose's writing is just...perfect. I can't say it any other way. The screenplay goes above and beyond in terms of a faithful adaptation.

Now let's talk about the ending. I think I've already spoiled half of the movie, so there's no need for a warning. 

The Forbidden ended on a rather downbeat note. Helen failed to save the baby and gets trapped in the burning heap, becoming one of Candyman's latest victims. Though there is mention that Helen might haunt Trevor in the afterlife. 

The film version, on the other hand, ends on a bittersweet note.

When Helen tries to rescue baby Anthony from the pile heap, Candyman grabs her from behind while the Cabrini Green residents prepare for the bonfire.

As the fire erupts, Helen breaks free from Candyman's grip and stabs him with a burning stake. Candyman pleads for Helen to come back but she takes the baby, barely struggling to escape the burning pile heap. The Cabrini Green residents notice Helen crawling out from the heap, her hair, and dress torched in flames.

When they pull her out of the fire, with every last bit of her strength, Helen gives baby Anthony to Anne-Marie.

Candyman's body is completely demolished, his energy source bursting into the night sky. Although baby Anthony is saved, Helen succumbs to her wounds...

On the day of Helen's funeral, Trevor has the gall to invite his lovely, young mistress along with the smarmy Phillip Purcell to join him at his side. Hmm.

But on the bright side, in what I think is the most powerful scene in film, Anne-Marie, Jake, and the other Cabrini Green residents arrive at the funeral to honor their fallen heroine.

As gratitude, Jake drops Candyman's hook into Helen's casket...

Some weeks later, Trevor is still grieving over his wife's death. You care now, asshole? Yeah, sure. Meanwhile, his darling mistress is playing the role of housewife and she doesn't seem happy about it. 

As Trevor clicks off the light in the bathroom, he chants Helen's name to the mirror five times....

And guess who appears from the darkness? Why if it isn't Helen who is hellbent on revenge. Oh no, Mr. Lyle, you're not gonna get off so easy. 

Helen tears him a new one, leaving his corpse sprawled out for his lovely little mistress to see. 

And thus, Helen is crowned the new urban legend of Chicago.  Given what Helen has went through, I see it as an honorary achievement. 

Wow, what a journey. That was a lot to unpack but I'm happy to re-examine what made this movie the cult hit that it was. It's a total rollercoaster ride, though not in a fun sense, moreso on the intense and emotional sense. 

I think I've said what I've been saying  all this time. It's a classic to be treasured. 

Final Word: Yes, go see it! It's a very important film of it's time.