|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 25, 2021 4:04:45 GMT
So I thought it was good. Better than the other sequels no question (and yes, it's 100% a sequel). The direction stood out - I liked how they used artsy animation for flashbacks.
I just wish they incorporated Tony Todd more.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 25, 2021 5:08:08 GMT
Maybe it will be one of my October movies. I'm one of the rare horror fans that didn't care for the original Candyman. I could say why but fans won't understand so it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 25, 2021 8:10:19 GMT
Maybe it will be one of my October movies. I'm one of the rare horror fans that didn't care for the original Candyman. I could say why but fans won't understand so it doesn't matter. Try me
|
|
|
Post by James on Aug 25, 2021 10:39:08 GMT
Good to hear.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 26, 2021 14:22:27 GMT
Nice.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 26, 2021 18:14:25 GMT
Maybe it will be one of my October movies. I'm one of the rare horror fans that didn't care for the original Candyman. I could say why but fans won't understand so it doesn't matter. Try me
For me it's flat. Virginia Madsen maybe was miscast or maybe just wasn't 100% into it, good actress but didn't do enough in this. Maybe too much reliance on location to set the mood, not enough post-processing, the video is too simple, too clean, and lacks atmosphere. I didn't find Tony Todd the least bit menacing. The director came from a music video background and I don't believe he was a good movie director. I don't hate it, I don't think it's bad, but it doesn't entertain me. I've only watched it twice since it was released and I never took notes so I'm not prepared for a critique, but I just can't get into it.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 26, 2021 21:24:16 GMT
For me it's flat. Virginia Madsen maybe was miscast or maybe just wasn't 100% into it, good actress but didn't do enough in this. Maybe too much reliance on location to set the mood, not enough post-processing, the video is too simple, too clean, and lacks atmosphere. I didn't find Tony Todd the least bit menacing. The director came from a music video background and I don't believe he was a good movie director. I don't hate it, I don't think it's bad, but it doesn't entertain me. I've only watched it twice since it was released and I never took notes so I'm not prepared for a critique, but I just can't get into it.
Those seem like reasonable criticisms even if I might not feel the same way - Tony Todd creeped the fuck out of me. Madsen came off a little older to be a wet-behind-the-ears graduate student, so in that sense I agree she was miscast, but otherwise I thought she did a good job. It is a first that I'm hearing the original Candyman lacked atmosphere. My biggest fault with the direction was the director's use of soft focus on Madsen like we're watching a romantic meladrama from 1956. You might be happy to know the director of the new one goes all in, it looks and feels like a Horror movie.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 27, 2021 1:52:38 GMT
For me it's flat. Virginia Madsen maybe was miscast or maybe just wasn't 100% into it, good actress but didn't do enough in this. Maybe too much reliance on location to set the mood, not enough post-processing, the video is too simple, too clean, and lacks atmosphere. I didn't find Tony Todd the least bit menacing. The director came from a music video background and I don't believe he was a good movie director. I don't hate it, I don't think it's bad, but it doesn't entertain me. I've only watched it twice since it was released and I never took notes so I'm not prepared for a critique, but I just can't get into it.
Those seem like reasonable criticisms even if I might not feel the same way - Tony Todd creeped the fuck out of me. Madsen came off a little older to be a wet-behind-the-ears graduate student, so in that sense I agree she was miscast, but otherwise I thought she did a good job. It is a first that I'm hearing the original Candyman lacked atmosphere. My biggest fault with the direction was the director's use of soft focus on Madsen like we're watching a romantic meladrama from 1956. You might be happy to know the director of the new one goes all in, it looks and feels like a Horror movie.
In the 90s I did a stint selling cars, they used to say there's an ass for every seat, and I came to understand it's true. I might not like the car but it will be someone's dream car. Some people don't like The Strangers, I don't either but for a different reason, I was the victim of a home invasion and those movies trigger me in a way nothing else does. So I accept that I may not like something but it is still good. Candyman just doesn't reach anything inside me, it doesn't feel real. If I were educated in film, I might be better able to articulate what is lacking, but I explain the best I can.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Aug 27, 2021 4:06:24 GMT
Those seem like reasonable criticisms even if I might not feel the same way - Tony Todd creeped the fuck out of me. Madsen came off a little older to be a wet-behind-the-ears graduate student, so in that sense I agree she was miscast, but otherwise I thought she did a good job. It is a first that I'm hearing the original Candyman lacked atmosphere. My biggest fault with the direction was the director's use of soft focus on Madsen like we're watching a romantic meladrama from 1956. You might be happy to know the director of the new one goes all in, it looks and feels like a Horror movie.
In the 90s I did a stint selling cars, they used to say there's an ass for every seat, and I came to understand it's true. I might not like the car but it will be someone's dream car. Some people don't like The Strangers, I don't either but for a different reason, I was the victim of a home invasion and those movies trigger me in a way nothing else does. So I accept that I may not like something but it is still good. Candyman just doesn't reach anything inside me, it doesn't feel real. If I were educated in film, I might be better able to articulate what is lacking, but I explain the best I can.
Other than calling the film 'video' and maybe the 'post processing' thing (though I know what you mean), I think you did a decent enough job of articulating what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Aug 28, 2021 18:14:24 GMT
I just came back from seeing it and as i walked out of the theatre all i could think was 'Man was that disappointing.'
The opening credits with the upside down chicago cityscape and the fog was perfect. The music during was solid and the feeling of vertigo that those shots gave me were wonderful and really set an uneasy and ominous tone. Unfortunately for me that was the most memorable part of the film. The premise sounds reasonable, and not totally unlike the original film. Art guy investigates Candyman mythos for inspiration, starts realizing its real, bloodspatter ensues. The problem is it didn't do anything to raise the bar. The music the effects the story the characters...everything just felt like the 'great value' brand of the original Candyman film. There honestly wasn't a scene i could cling to on the drive home that made me want to rewatch it until i remembered the opening credits and thought...that was my highlight.
Im really bummed about this. I loved the first Candyman and thought the film oozes a tone and a vibe that is solely unique to that film. I wouldve welcomed with open arms this film to manage to capture any shred of that thematically and I just never got it.
I'm trying to avoid spoilers but ive seen the ending is divisive and Im fully on the side of 'that sucked'.
|
|
|
Post by Spitfire926f on Aug 29, 2021 4:15:04 GMT
I just came back from seeing it and as i walked out of the theatre all i could think was 'Man was that disappointing.' The opening credits with the upside down chicago cityscape and the fog was perfect. The music during was solid and the feeling of vertigo that those shots gave me were wonderful and really set an uneasy and ominous tone. Unfortunately for me that was the most memorable part of the film. The premise sounds reasonable, and not totally unlike the original film. Art guy investigates Candyman mythos for inspiration, starts realizing its real, bloodspatter ensues. The problem is it didn't do anything to raise the bar. The music the effects the story the characters...everything just felt like the 'great value' brand of the original Candyman film. There honestly wasn't a scene i could cling to on the drive home that made me want to rewatch it until i remembered the opening credits and thought...that was my highlight. Im really bummed about this. I loved the first Candyman and thought the film oozes a tone and a vibe that is solely unique to that film. I wouldve welcomed with open arms this film to manage to capture any shred of that thematically and I just never got it. I'm trying to avoid spoilers but ive seen the ending is divisive and Im fully on the side of 'that sucked'. I still want to see it, but I was hoping Peele would wow me. I love the original, and I thought the first sequel was actually pretty good. I still think they should do a Candyman prequel. The antebellum south, a voodoo theme, star-crossed lovers...it could be a great story, and Tony Todd could play Daniel's grandfather or something.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Aug 29, 2021 4:49:06 GMT
I just came back from seeing it and as i walked out of the theatre all i could think was 'Man was that disappointing.' The opening credits with the upside down chicago cityscape and the fog was perfect. The music during was solid and the feeling of vertigo that those shots gave me were wonderful and really set an uneasy and ominous tone. Unfortunately for me that was the most memorable part of the film. The premise sounds reasonable, and not totally unlike the original film. Art guy investigates Candyman mythos for inspiration, starts realizing its real, bloodspatter ensues. The problem is it didn't do anything to raise the bar. The music the effects the story the characters...everything just felt like the 'great value' brand of the original Candyman film. There honestly wasn't a scene i could cling to on the drive home that made me want to rewatch it until i remembered the opening credits and thought...that was my highlight. Im really bummed about this. I loved the first Candyman and thought the film oozes a tone and a vibe that is solely unique to that film. I wouldve welcomed with open arms this film to manage to capture any shred of that thematically and I just never got it. I'm trying to avoid spoilers but ive seen the ending is divisive and Im fully on the side of 'that sucked'. I still want to see it, but I was hoping Peele would wow me. I love the original, and I thought the first sequel was actually pretty good. I still think they should do a Candyman prequel. The antebellum south, a voodoo theme, star-crossed lovers...it could be a great story, and Tony Todd could play Daniel's grandfather or something. I hope you love it. I’m not the type to want movies to be bad. Maybe it just wasn’t for me. I’d welcome a prequel but something I noticed after this new one is that without Tony Todd’s voice and presence Candyman just isn’t the same.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 30, 2021 11:40:16 GMT
I was disappointed. For me, it just got caught up with it's high and mighty social commentary on black trauma, particularly police brutality. Wasn't subtle at all and just comes off as a parody of what it thinks it wants to be, especially in the final act. It's a beautifully shot and crafted film and the performances are fine, but it's not scary at all, and it severely lacked Tony Todd's presence. Bernard Rose's take with the commentary on race and class in the original blended much better because it was in the foreground, while he was focused on actually making a horror film. If we are allowed to talk spoilers, there is a lot I'd like to get into in regards to the problems I have with the new one.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 30, 2021 19:29:48 GMT
I was disappointed. For me, it just got caught up with it's high and mighty social commentary on black trauma, particularly police brutality. Wasn't subtle at all and just comes off as a parody of what it thinks it wants to be, especially in the final act. It's a beautifully shot and crafted film and the performances are fine, but it's not scary at all, and it severely lacked Tony Todd's presence. Bernard Rose's take with the commentary on race and class in the original blended much better because it was in the foreground, while he was focused on actually making a horror film. If we are allowed to talk spoilers, there is a lot I'd like to get into in regards to the problems I have with the new one. You can spoiler tag stuff by putting [ spoiler ] (no spaces). My problem with the police brutality angle was It seemed a little silly that they would come in and automatically blow Anthony away while he's half-dead on the ground. Can't even recall if they gave a warning. Then one of the cops turns into a mafia don before they've even left the scene to give Anthony's girlfriend (who somehow wasn't shot by the most trigger happy cops in the world) an offer she can't refuse.
I mean, I can't say for sure nothing like this has ever happened, but it was really abrupt and clunky. People here are criticizing the social commentary for getting in the way of the story, but I think it's the opposite problem. Those cops should have been more of an element steaming in the background before boiling over in the finale. Maybe the one who kills Anthony could have been an actual character investigating the case that suspects Anthony but can't prove it. We get hints he's dirty and or racist, then when he comes in at the end guns blazing, you have a set up and a pay off. As is, it's almost a reverse-deux ex machina.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 30, 2021 20:40:07 GMT
I was disappointed. For me, it just got caught up with it's high and mighty social commentary on black trauma, particularly police brutality. Wasn't subtle at all and just comes off as a parody of what it thinks it wants to be, especially in the final act. It's a beautifully shot and crafted film and the performances are fine, but it's not scary at all, and it severely lacked Tony Todd's presence. Bernard Rose's take with the commentary on race and class in the original blended much better because it was in the foreground, while he was focused on actually making a horror film. If we are allowed to talk spoilers, there is a lot I'd like to get into in regards to the problems I have with the new one. You can spoiler tag stuff by putting [ spoiler ] (no spaces). My problem with the police brutality angle was It seemed a little silly that they would come in and automatically blow Anthony away while he's half-dead on the ground. Can't even recall if they gave a warning. Then one of the cops turns into a mafia don before they've even left the scene to give Anthony's girlfriend (who somehow wasn't shot by the most trigger happy cops in the world) an offer she can't refuse.
I mean, I can't say for sure nothing like this has ever happened, but it was really abrupt and clunky. People here are criticizing the social commentary for getting in the way of the story, but I think it's the opposite problem. Those cops should have been more of an element steaming in the background before boiling over in the finale. Maybe the one who kills Anthony could have been an actual character investigating the case that suspects Anthony but can't prove it. We get hints he's dirty and or racist, then when he comes in at the end guns blazing, you have a set up and a pay off. As is, it's almost a reverse-deux ex machina. You see, the problem I have with it is definitely the setup of that by Burke. And it delves into parody when Burke even has the coat and hook to attach to Anthony's hand. The jacket and hook aren't the Candyman, it's that he's a victim of racial violence, at least according to what the film is saying with the hive. The problem I take with your idea, and what it kinda does anyways is that it's taking the Candyman character and turning him into an anti-villain like black hero by killing cops. It becomes a statement more than anything for BLM by just turning all cops into racist bad guys. Not saying in 2021 you can't have a character who's a racist cop, but to go ahead and turn them all into racists just becomes a parody of what it's trying to say. Even as a victim of racial violence, Candyman killed anyone indiscriminately, whether you were white or black. He was willing to burn a black baby alive in the first one. So for them to take the character and turn him into a black folklore hero really misses the point of what the first film.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 30, 2021 21:22:50 GMT
You can spoiler tag stuff by putting [ spoiler ] (no spaces). My problem with the police brutality angle was It seemed a little silly that they would come in and automatically blow Anthony away while he's half-dead on the ground. Can't even recall if they gave a warning. Then one of the cops turns into a mafia don before they've even left the scene to give Anthony's girlfriend (who somehow wasn't shot by the most trigger happy cops in the world) an offer she can't refuse.
I mean, I can't say for sure nothing like this has ever happened, but it was really abrupt and clunky. People here are criticizing the social commentary for getting in the way of the story, but I think it's the opposite problem. Those cops should have been more of an element steaming in the background before boiling over in the finale. Maybe the one who kills Anthony could have been an actual character investigating the case that suspects Anthony but can't prove it. We get hints he's dirty and or racist, then when he comes in at the end guns blazing, you have a set up and a pay off. As is, it's almost a reverse-deux ex machina. You see, the problem I have with it is definitely the setup of that by Burke. And it delves into parody when Burke even has the coat and hook to attach to Anthony's hand. The jacket and hook aren't the Candyman, it's that he's a victim of racial violence, at least according to what the film is saying with the hive. The problem I take with your idea, and what it kinda does anyways is that it's taking the Candyman character and turning him into an anti-villain like black hero by killing cops. It becomes a statement more than anything for BLM by just turning all cops into racist bad guys. Not saying in 2021 you can't have a character who's a racist cop, but to go ahead and turn them all into racists just becomes a parody of what it's trying to say. Even as a victim of racial violence, Candyman killed anyone indiscriminately, whether you were white or black. He was willing to burn a black baby alive in the first one. So for them to take the character and turn him into a black folklore hero really misses the point of what the first film.
Several innocent people are indiscriminately killed by Candyman in this, and it's implied several more will be after. The cops are an exception. Candyman even says all this: "I must shed innocent blood, though in your case not so innocent, yadda yadda".
The scene checks out because it was a cop that said the last "Candyman", Candyman is not specifically seeking out white racists. The cops that killed the main Candyman are never even targeted. It's also not the first horror movie to have the villain kill some secondary villains. I don't think one scene makes Candyman a folklore hero anymore than Jason killing Dr Crews does.
The thing about praising the original Candyman for killing more black people as less statement-y, is that I think that was in of itself a statement about black people being the main victims of black crime. *shrug*
Anyway, if there was a way for the movie to comment on police brutality to your liking, what would it have been?
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 31, 2021 0:05:03 GMT
You see, the problem I have with it is definitely the setup of that by Burke. And it delves into parody when Burke even has the coat and hook to attach to Anthony's hand. The jacket and hook aren't the Candyman, it's that he's a victim of racial violence, at least according to what the film is saying with the hive. The problem I take with your idea, and what it kinda does anyways is that it's taking the Candyman character and turning him into an anti-villain like black hero by killing cops. It becomes a statement more than anything for BLM by just turning all cops into racist bad guys. Not saying in 2021 you can't have a character who's a racist cop, but to go ahead and turn them all into racists just becomes a parody of what it's trying to say. Even as a victim of racial violence, Candyman killed anyone indiscriminately, whether you were white or black. He was willing to burn a black baby alive in the first one. So for them to take the character and turn him into a black folklore hero really misses the point of what the first film.
Several innocent people are indiscriminately killed by Candyman in this, and it's implied several more will be after. The cops are an exception. Candyman even says all this: "I must shed innocent blood, though in your case not so innocent, yadda yadda".
The scene checks out because it was a cop that said the last "Candyman", Candyman is not specifically seeking out white racists. The cops that killed the main Candyman are never even targeted. It's also not the first horror movie to have the villain kill some secondary villains. I don't think one scene makes Candyman a folklore hero anymore than Jason killing Dr Crews does.
The thing about praising the original Candyman for killing more black people as less statement-y, is that I think that was in of itself a statement about black people being the main victims of black crime. *shrug*
Anyway, if there was a way for the movie to comment on police brutality to your liking, what would it have been? Oh I totally get he slaughters all kinds of innocent people, but it's just the way the final act is set up by Burke and how its written by Peele, particularly the way Anthony is killed by the cops. In general, I didn't like that plot idea of Burke trying to create a new Candyman as it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But it just feels like a blatant overstatement rather than a genuinely clever way to intertwine a commentary on blacks being killed by cops, and they were looking for an excuse for Candyman to kill a bunch of cops as a catharsis for black audience members who endorsed abolishing the police following George Floyd's death.
It's funny you mention the original possibly commenting on black on black crime, when Anthony's transformation into the next Candyman relies on the violence by Burke himself, which is glossed over. When a film wants to make a comment on modern society, I'd just prefer it look it do it from both sides. The developers wanted to make this film through the POV of black trauma at the hands of cops, that's fine, but they had the opportunity of also commenting on black on black crime by having Candyman killing Burke instead of the girlfriend. Even though she's black and still killed him, it's just glossed over and doesn't have the impact it could have if it was the Candyman who killed him instead.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 31, 2021 2:04:54 GMT
Several innocent people are indiscriminately killed by Candyman in this, and it's implied several more will be after. The cops are an exception. Candyman even says all this: "I must shed innocent blood, though in your case not so innocent, yadda yadda".
The scene checks out because it was a cop that said the last "Candyman", Candyman is not specifically seeking out white racists. The cops that killed the main Candyman are never even targeted. It's also not the first horror movie to have the villain kill some secondary villains. I don't think one scene makes Candyman a folklore hero anymore than Jason killing Dr Crews does.
The thing about praising the original Candyman for killing more black people as less statement-y, is that I think that was in of itself a statement about black people being the main victims of black crime. *shrug*
Anyway, if there was a way for the movie to comment on police brutality to your liking, what would it have been? Oh I totally get he slaughters all kinds of innocent people, but it's just the way the final act is set up by Burke and how its written by Peele, particularly the way Anthony is killed by the cops. In general, I didn't like that plot idea of Burke trying to create a new Candyman as it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But it just feels like a blatant overstatement rather than a genuinely clever way to intertwine a commentary on blacks being killed by cops, and they were looking for an excuse for Candyman to kill a bunch of cops as a catharsis for black audience members who endorsed abolishing the police following George Floyd's death.
It's funny you mention the original possibly commenting on black on black crime, when Anthony's transformation into the next Candyman relies on the violence by Burke himself, which is glossed over. When a film wants to make a comment on modern society, I'd just prefer it look it do it from both sides. The developers wanted to make this film through the POV of black trauma at the hands of cops, that's fine, but they had the opportunity of also commenting on black on black crime by having Candyman killing Burke instead of the girlfriend. Even though she's black and still killed him, it's just glossed over and doesn't have the impact it could have if it was the Candyman who killed him instead. I think any sense of catharsis is undercut a little by the fact that Anthony, a guy we've presumably grown to like, is now cursed to be a murder ghost and his life and relationships are over. Plus, the deaths of the cops are almost entirely offscreen, even the guy that tries to coerce the girlfriend. Compare to Texas Chainsaw 3D - a bizarrely similar movie now that I think about it, but that one focuses on police brutality and their karma to the point that it stops being Horror and turns into a superhero movie with Leatherface.
The Burke stuff was a bit weird, but checked out with the film's mythology. The various Candymen have similar origins so a crazy person could have decent odds of making the next one. I don't exactly agree it glosses over Burke's violence - his sawing off Anthony's hand is the most grizzly part of the movie, and he's the most outright villainous character. You're saying he should have died during the cop massacre at the end?
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 31, 2021 19:09:13 GMT
Oh I totally get he slaughters all kinds of innocent people, but it's just the way the final act is set up by Burke and how its written by Peele, particularly the way Anthony is killed by the cops. In general, I didn't like that plot idea of Burke trying to create a new Candyman as it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But it just feels like a blatant overstatement rather than a genuinely clever way to intertwine a commentary on blacks being killed by cops, and they were looking for an excuse for Candyman to kill a bunch of cops as a catharsis for black audience members who endorsed abolishing the police following George Floyd's death.
It's funny you mention the original possibly commenting on black on black crime, when Anthony's transformation into the next Candyman relies on the violence by Burke himself, which is glossed over. When a film wants to make a comment on modern society, I'd just prefer it look it do it from both sides. The developers wanted to make this film through the POV of black trauma at the hands of cops, that's fine, but they had the opportunity of also commenting on black on black crime by having Candyman killing Burke instead of the girlfriend. Even though she's black and still killed him, it's just glossed over and doesn't have the impact it could have if it was the Candyman who killed him instead. I think any sense of catharsis is undercut a little by the fact that Anthony, a guy we've presumably grown to like, is now cursed to be a murder ghost and his life and relationships are over. Plus, the deaths of the cops are almost entirely offscreen, even the guy that tries to coerce the girlfriend. Compare to Texas Chainsaw 3D - a bizarrely similar movie now that I think about it, but that one focuses on police brutality and their karma to the point that it stops being Horror and turns into a superhero movie with Leatherface.
The Burke stuff was a bit weird, but checked out with the film's mythology. The various Candymen have similar origins so a crazy person could have decent odds of making the next one. I don't exactly agree it glosses over Burke's violence - his sawing off Anthony's hand is the most grizzly part of the movie, and he's the most outright villainous character. You're saying he should have died during the cop massacre at the end?
God that's probably one of the worse entries in the Texas Chainsaw series. But that didn't really endorse police brutality, but rather town justice when they all got together and killed Leatherface family, which that in itself, for a Candyman movie that deals with racial violence, blends better as a plot point rather than using a squad of conveniently "racist" cops as secondary antagonist for the sake of commenting on police brutality.
I just think from a narrative standpoint, as a critical commentary on both police brutality and black on black violence, it would have been better if Anthony, as Candyman, killed Burke. I still have a lot of problems with the final act in general and how it's written, but Burke could spend all this time setting up the final act of making sure Anthony is another victim to the epidemic of police shootings of blacks he claims he wants to end by bringing about the Candyman as an instrument of vengeance. Yet he's also sowing the seeds of his own demise at the hands of Anthony not only extracting vengeance against the cops, but also against Burke for turning him into this ghost who has to suffer for all Africans and kill to keep the legend alive. It'd be similar to the recent Halloween where the doctor thinks he can control evil and it comes back to bite him in the ass. It was a stupid plot point in that, but it's something I think could have and can worked in a Candyman film, because from a narrative standpoint, if it's executed correctly and makes sense (which Halloween and to an extent, this, did NOT) a character believing he can control said-villain or slasher as an instrument of violence for his own agenda and it turns out they can't is an interesting character arc to follow. It's just all about the execution.
Either way, Burke's character is probably one of the biggest problems of the films for me as he's there for the exposition of the whole Candyman character, but then takes a 180° turn by trying to summon his own Candyman through Anthony. But, what happened to Sherman then? Why couldn't he summon him? Or even Tony Todd's Candyman? Or is he just trying to expand the hive by giving the Tony Todd's Candyman some new recruits essentially. But, if that's the case and they're all supposed to represent black pain and suffering, so what is Helen Lyle supposed to be? Is she part of the hive? What does she represent when she came back as the new legend in the first film?
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Sept 1, 2021 22:00:41 GMT
I think any sense of catharsis is undercut a little by the fact that Anthony, a guy we've presumably grown to like, is now cursed to be a murder ghost and his life and relationships are over. Plus, the deaths of the cops are almost entirely offscreen, even the guy that tries to coerce the girlfriend. Compare to Texas Chainsaw 3D - a bizarrely similar movie now that I think about it, but that one focuses on police brutality and their karma to the point that it stops being Horror and turns into a superhero movie with Leatherface.
The Burke stuff was a bit weird, but checked out with the film's mythology. The various Candymen have similar origins so a crazy person could have decent odds of making the next one. I don't exactly agree it glosses over Burke's violence - his sawing off Anthony's hand is the most grizzly part of the movie, and he's the most outright villainous character. You're saying he should have died during the cop massacre at the end?
God that's probably one of the worse entries in the Texas Chainsaw series. But that didn't really endorse police brutality, but rather town justice when they all got together and killed Leatherface family, which that in itself, for a Candyman movie that deals with racial violence, blends better as a plot point rather than using a squad of conveniently "racist" cops as secondary antagonist for the sake of commenting on police brutality.
I just think from a narrative standpoint, as a critical commentary on both police brutality and black on black violence, it would have been better if Anthony, as Candyman, killed Burke. I still have a lot of problems with the final act in general and how it's written, but Burke could spend all this time setting up the final act of making sure Anthony is another victim to the epidemic of police shootings of blacks he claims he wants to end by bringing about the Candyman as an instrument of vengeance. Yet he's also sowing the seeds of his own demise at the hands of Anthony not only extracting vengeance against the cops, but also against Burke for turning him into this ghost who has to suffer for all Africans and kill to keep the legend alive. It'd be similar to the recent Halloween where the doctor thinks he can control evil and it comes back to bite him in the ass. It was a stupid plot point in that, but it's something I think could have and can worked in a Candyman film, because from a narrative standpoint, if it's executed correctly and makes sense (which Halloween and to an extent, this, did NOT) a character believing he can control said-villain or slasher as an instrument of violence for his own agenda and it turns out they can't is an interesting character arc to follow. It's just all about the execution.
Either way, Burke's character is probably one of the biggest problems of the films for me as he's there for the exposition of the whole Candyman character, but then takes a 180° turn by trying to summon his own Candyman through Anthony. But, what happened to Sherman then? Why couldn't he summon him? Or even Tony Todd's Candyman? Or is he just trying to expand the hive by giving the Tony Todd's Candyman some new recruits essentially. But, if that's the case and they're all supposed to represent black pain and suffering, so what is Helen Lyle supposed to be? Is she part of the hive? What does she represent when she came back as the new legend in the first film?
I misremembered. Though I don't think some racist cops are any more "convenient" than a redneck lynch posse, except one is a bit more topical. I mean, on the surface, there's nothing extraordinary about setting up Anthony to be gunned down by the police (it's a trope as old as time, and colorblind at that) nor the idea that the police would follow through on gunning down an armed suspect. As you said, it's all about the execution and that scene could definitely have been executed better, but it didn't ruin the movie for me.
I will say, I like your version of Burke's death better, though.
I did wonder about Helen. This movie builds off of the idea implied by 1's ending that Candyman is a mantle to be taken, yet CandyHelen is never mentioned (on that note, the original's ending is definitely a cathartic revenge scene for the audience, so why aren't we complaining about that?). Do they say the Candymen coexist, or does the current Candyman fade off once another is made? It felt like the latter, and once Burke creates Canthony, we don't see CandySherman again. That would imply CandyHelen got replaced sometime before Sherman became the new one, who was then replaced by Anthony.
|
|