SPOILERS FOR THE CANDYMAN FILMS – INCLUDING THE 2021 SEQUEL – AHEAD!
“Tell… everyone.” The simple instruction given at the end of Nia DaCosta’s Candyman by the titular character – played once more by Tony Todd in a brief but impactful (and well worth the wait) cameo – chillingly tells us, the faithful congregation of horror fans, that there could very well be more blood to be shed. But then, what’s blood for, if not for shedding? Especially when you have a hook for a hand.
It’s been a long wait for another Candyman film, all the more painful for fans of the franchise given its initial run only had 3 outings due to coming at a time when the slasher movie was dying out (even with the supernatural spin, which had lessened impact given it had already been done with A Nightmare on Elm Street and Hellraiser). Not only that, but while other franchises had a few decent sequels, Farewell to the Flesh and Day of the Dead were nowhere near as mesmerising as Bernard Rose’s 1992 classic. So when news of the new film came, we all waited to see what would come next.
Another sequel, or perhaps a prequel to tack onto the original run of films? Was it going to be a remake, as has been done to practically every other horror classic? A retconning, continuity-changing rebootquel, in the same mould as the record-breaking 2018’s Halloween? And, most importantly for most of us horror fans (me especially!), would Tony Todd be reprising the role that made him a horror legend?
It was a rollercoaster ride in the early stages, as it was reported we would be getting a new actor playing the hook-handed Candyman. “Looks like we’re getting another unnecessary remake that will completely shatter the magic of the original and ruin the character that was done so well the first time around”, every horror fan who has seen Rob Zombie’s Halloween and 2010’s A Nightmare on Elm Street undoubtedly uttered to their partners, friends and family members… or just anyone who would listen.
Even Tony Todd took to Twitter to bid an emotional farewell to the character he had been so perfectly cast for almost three decades before.
Then, a sigh of relief was breathed in unison by Candyman believers when it was confirmed Todd would be returning for the ‘spiritual sequel’ to the 1992 original. There was even more joy when plot details were released, and we learned not only that we would be returning to a new-look Cabrini-Green, but any lover of the 1992 film would have quickly switched onto the fact that the main character – Anthony – was of course the kidnapped baby from the original.
No doubt now, this was a sequel.
But wait.
With the release of the first trailer, we see a Candyman with different attire, and the clear indication that this film will be about Anthony’s transformation into a monstrous killer more so than anything else (modern trailers really should stop giving the whole plot away, but that’s a tangent that will change the whole topic of this post). When we get the first test screenings, rumour has it the reactions are quite negative, and that we see nothing of Tony Todd’s Candyman, but indeed a transformation tale, and instead the story of multiple ‘Candymen’, each with their own tragic tale of a being murdered in a racially-motivated attack. After a long wait throughout the COVID pandemic, we are gifted a second trailer, which again makes no reference to the original Candyman, but tells the new tale of Sherman Fields (named in the film). “What is going on?!” horror lovers cry out.
Well, it’s fair to say that there has been some mixed reception to the film, but I for one will say this: all the waiting, all the questions, all the delays, were absolutely worth it. We do indeed get a transformation tale centred around Anthony, and a new Candyman called Sherman Fields, and the story of a “whole damn hive” of Candymen. But the pay-off in the final scene, which I have to suspect was held back from test screenings and kept under tight wraps, was the perfect way to satisfy the horror community (or at least me!). A de-aged Tony Todd appears from underneath a swarm of buzzing bees as the “original” Candyman, still named Daniel Robitaille as in Farewell to the Flesh, and calmly but chillingly instructs his only surviving witness to “tell everyone” of what she has seen, thus completing his rebirth.
At least, that’s how I interpreted it. There is a lack of explanation about a lot of the film’s content (I feel a lot of scenes were cut from the final product), however this leaves room for the viewer to put their own spin on the urban legend – just as everyone in the film does.
My first reaction at the end of the film was one of elation – anyone who had to suffer through my endless “they haven’t put him in it” strop will tell you how happy that final scene made me. However, this was quickly followed by “well, what next?”. Just like the 1992 film, this was a slow burner, but the action ends even more swiftly than in the original. This leaves me with a single thought: there has to be more.
I feel like I’m wrong, and that this wasn’t Jordan Peele or Nia DaCosta’s intention at all, but I left the cinema feeling like this film was a set-up for more. It essentially spends an hour and a half setting up Tony Todd’s return as the Candyman – why else would the pay-off be him if we are now not going to see more of him?
My conclusion about the question posed in the title of this post is simple: there must be a sequel to 2021’s Candyman, and Tony Todd must return to the fore. Of course, we can still get on board with the concept of the “hive” – it carries a powerful message – but to not follow up on what the ending set up would be a missed opportunity. Anyone who has read my piece on 2018’s Halloween will know this is an unusual opinion for me; I always say stop it while it’s good, but there’s more to be done here, so let’s hope it’s done right.
Ratings:
4) Candyman 3: Day of the Dead (1999)
Unfortunately, Day of the Dead may be one of the worst films I have ever seen. Unfortunate because even when Candyman’s counterparts (Michael, Freddy, Pinhead, and the like) have a bad film, it’s still fun to watch. This one is just painful to get through, and feels like a cheap rehash of Farewell to the Flesh. For me, at this point of the franchise there was still loads to explore (and some of the cancelled Candyman projects over the years show this), but this film somehow managed to be devoid of any ideas or direction. Thankfully, Todd is still magnificent as the Candyman, and another notable performance is Jesus Garcia/Nick Corri (Rod Lane from A Nightmare on Elm Street); just a shame everything else was awful.
Rating: 1/10
3) Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh (1995)
Originals are always a tough act to follow, particularly in the horror genre, and even more so when they bring in fresh ideas like Candyman did. I give credit to Farewell to the Flesh for not being overly cautious and just going for ‘more of the same’; it does add another layer to the Candyman mythos by integrating his bloodline into the story, which was a clever direction after the reincarnation plotline in the original. Also, Farewell to the Flesh is one of the few films that did what Scream did before Scream was even a thing: killing off an established character in the opening sequence. Okay, we don’t see a lot of Professor Phillip Purcell in the first film, but when he appears at the start of the sequel you immediately believe he’s ready to now play a larger role, perhaps becoming this franchise’s Dr Loomis… and he’s dead within minutes. For horror fans, and fans of the franchise, this is definitely worth a watch for these interesting strands, but it’s not groundbreaking; you can sort of see where it’s going, whereas the original kept you guessing.
Rating: 4/10
2) Candyman (2021)
The horror genre has gone through many incarnations, and we’re currently in the era of the ‘rebootquel’; a sequel (usually to the first film, cutting everything else out) that will inject fresh ideas, direction and characters into a franchise, while maintaining crucial links to the original (usually in the form of support from the original cast). The 2021 film does exactly that, and does it well. I feel like it was supposed to be quite a bit longer than its 90 minute runtime, and that a lot of scenes were cut for whatever reason (I suspect the “hive” concept was a bit convoluted when included fully). Also, a lot of the kills were cut short or not shown fully when they had been in the trailers (again, I have my suspicions, and am guessing this was to keep the film’s rating down?). However, these are my only two real complaints. The new cast do extremely well in their roles, supported with brief cameos from original cast members Vanessa Williams, Virginia Madsen and, of course, Tony Todd himself, all of which are tastefully done. Like Farewell to the Flesh, this sequel doesn’t shy away from taking on a new direction, but does so with even more force, adding not one but several new layers to the mythos of the hook-handed urban legend. It manages to feel like a new and updated version of Candyman while maintaining the aura of the original.
Rating: 7/10
1) Candyman (1992)
Say his name five times in a mirror, and he appears in the reflection and kills you. The simple concept could have led to Candyman being just like any other supernatural slasher, recycling ideas from the horror cliché scrap heap. However, the performances elevate the film to another level; Virginia Madsen and Tony Todd being the obvious stand-outs, the latter managing the impressive feat of bringing a sympathetic and seductive feel to his hook-handed monster, much like a Dracula-style character. Bernard Rose also takes Clive Barker’s source material and strengthens it by incorporating the theme of race into the mix: by blending fictional and real-life horrors, the message of a film can pack a real punch. It’s a slow-burner, but it keeps you hooked (pun most definitely intended. It’s just a shame we didn’t get a longer or more enthusiastic run of sequels, but hopefully now – even 30 years later – we’re about to get exactly that.
Rating: 9/10
Be First to Comment