Residents of a small backwoods community summons the murdeeous demon of vengeance himself for revenge against a local mortician who wronged there deceased love ones, while a town physician seeks to kill those involved in it's summoning.
During a routine case in L.A., NY private investigator Harry D'Amour stumbles over members of a fanatic cult, who are waiting for the resurrection of their leader Nix. 13 years ago, Nix was... See full summary »
Kevin J. O'Connor,
The Candyman moves on to New Orleans and starts his horrific murders once more. This time, his intended victim is a school teacher. Her father was killed by the Candyman, and brother wrongly accused of the murders Written by
'Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh' isn't a bad movie as such, but it's inferior to the original film in just about every way. 'Candyman' didn't really cry out for sequels, and this movie proves that point by being completely redundant and failing to come up with anything more interesting than a less satisfying but bloodier spin on what's gone before. It's well made, it's watchable enough, and it benefits from a likable performance from Timothy Carhart, but it's a typical horror sequel.
It's Mardi Gras season in New Orleans, where inner-city school teacher Annie Tarrant (Kelly Rowan) proves to her class that there is no Candyman by looking into a mirror and saying his name five times. As we know, the Candyman is real - and her brother Ethan (William O'Leary) knows it too, as he's been wrongly accused of the murder of the smug fat bloke from the first film. The real culprit is the hook-handed killer (Tony Todd), back to wreak more havoc in the lives of Annie's family while she delves into the legend to discover the truth.
'Farewell to the Flesh' departs from the original with Annie's deep, dark family secret, which is not only predictable but also totally uninteresting. Other than that it uses the first movie as a template, repeating the black urban setting, the missing kid, an innocent accused of the Candyman's crimes, and the Candyman's spell over Annie. The attempted twists come after far too much draggy set-up where the movie attempts to create mystery about the existence of the Candyman despite this being a sequel to a film where that mystery was resolved. The menace of the character has disappeared; his appearances are too numerous and lacking in impact, and the moments when he pops up to stick his hook through someone's back lack surprise.
In the film's biggest mistake we're shown the origin of the Candyman in graphic detail. In the first movie we got a few sound effects and a sinister story, and that was enough. Here we see his hand getting hacked off with a rusty saw and a swarm of bees covering his body before he dies from the stings. The ropey staging and unconvincing period costumes add to the gratuitous and exploitative feeling of the scene, and that's before his soul is captured in a mirror that one of the men lynching him thought to bring along for some illogical reason. It's supposedly justified by the Candyman wanting to show Annie what happened to him, but the writers should have had the restraint to leave it well alone, as it's only there to provide the usual only-way-to-kill-the-monster plot point so beloved of slasher sequels.
The Mardi Gras setting adds some colour but has nothing to do with the story and gives us the irrelevant, at times nonsensical radio show that weaves through the movie. The change of location also weakens the Candyman mythos, because an urban legend in one part of a town I can believe, but now apparently everyone in the civilised world has heard of, and lives in fear of, the character. The film tries too hard to turn him into a horror icon along the lines of Freddy or Michael Myers
and it succeeds only too well, because this time around the impact
has gone, too much detail is revealed about his origin and the story is a pale imitation of what's gone before. All of which is pretty much par for the course for horror sequels, but as usual, demystifying the central character does nothing but make him less interesting.
4 of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?