Candyman
Year: 1992
Director: Bernard Rose
Starring: Virginia Madsen & Tony Todd
Runtime: 101 mins
BBFC: 15
Published: 28/10/21
Director: Bernard Rose
Starring: Virginia Madsen & Tony Todd
Runtime: 101 mins
BBFC: 15
Published: 28/10/21
Candyman is probably one of the first horror films I was ever consciously aware of as a child. I’m not even sure why because nobody in my family enjoys horror films, and I certainly hadn’t seen it. But regardless I knew the basic premise that if you say Candyman’s name five times in front of a mirror then he’ll appear and murder you with his hooked hand. It’s an urban legend that for decades has blurred the line between fiction and reality for many people, and with the release of the new Candyman film, I felt like it was about time I actually watched the 1992 original to see what all the fuss was about.
Whilst researching urban legends for her thesis, graduate student Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen) learns of the Candyman. A tale of a hook handed man who kills those who say his name five times in a mirror. As Helen and her friend Bernadette Walsh (Kasi Lemmons) interview people who have heard the legend they begin to find connections to multiple real murders, particularly around the Cabrini-Green housing estate near Chicago.
But when Helen is targeted by the Candyman (Tony Todd) and framed for a series of killings, Helen must use everything she has learned about Candyman to her advantage and find a way to stop him and clear her name.
Whilst researching urban legends for her thesis, graduate student Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen) learns of the Candyman. A tale of a hook handed man who kills those who say his name five times in a mirror. As Helen and her friend Bernadette Walsh (Kasi Lemmons) interview people who have heard the legend they begin to find connections to multiple real murders, particularly around the Cabrini-Green housing estate near Chicago.
But when Helen is targeted by the Candyman (Tony Todd) and framed for a series of killings, Helen must use everything she has learned about Candyman to her advantage and find a way to stop him and clear her name.
My experience watching Candyman was very similar to my first experience watching The Silence of the Lambs. I was left feeling a little disappointed that this film had been made out to be something utterly terrifying, extremely gory, and a slasher of the highest calibre, when in reality it’s a crime drama with very little in the way of killing and gore involved. It could be that I’ve just become desensitised with the times, but I honestly feel like I’ve been misled in the same way I was with Silence of the Lambs.
With the latter film all I ever heard about was how terrifying Anthony Hopkins was, how bloody the film was, and how excellent of a character Hannibal Lecter was…when really the film isn’t about Hopkins’ Lecter, but instead a police drama about a female detective trying to bunt down a crossdressing hillbilly. With Candyman, all people ever talked about was how incredible Tony Todd is as Candyman, and how bloody and gory the killing sequences are; when in reality there are very few killings, you don’t actually see a whole lot most of the time, and Tony Todd is only in like three scenes!
So, I finished the film bitter and underwhelmed, but I’ve had a bit of a think about it and despite the film not being what I had expected, it is something I would absolutely watch again. I adore the way that the Candyman myth is examined throughout the film. The way its introduced and built upon by witness accounts and new stories is all really clever, and the way that Helen approaches the investigation makes for some very high-tension viewing. I also loved how the film was a commentary on social class structures and poverty. It’s a really intelligent film that just so happens to also have a slasher movie villain at its core.
With the latter film all I ever heard about was how terrifying Anthony Hopkins was, how bloody the film was, and how excellent of a character Hannibal Lecter was…when really the film isn’t about Hopkins’ Lecter, but instead a police drama about a female detective trying to bunt down a crossdressing hillbilly. With Candyman, all people ever talked about was how incredible Tony Todd is as Candyman, and how bloody and gory the killing sequences are; when in reality there are very few killings, you don’t actually see a whole lot most of the time, and Tony Todd is only in like three scenes!
So, I finished the film bitter and underwhelmed, but I’ve had a bit of a think about it and despite the film not being what I had expected, it is something I would absolutely watch again. I adore the way that the Candyman myth is examined throughout the film. The way its introduced and built upon by witness accounts and new stories is all really clever, and the way that Helen approaches the investigation makes for some very high-tension viewing. I also loved how the film was a commentary on social class structures and poverty. It’s a really intelligent film that just so happens to also have a slasher movie villain at its core.
However, I do wish the horror elements of the film had been brought out a bit more. Maybe a little bit more of Todd’s presence in the film, and the kills could have been more graphic perhaps. Again, it ties into the massive hype surrounding the film, I just expected it to be bloodier and as such I’m left feeling like some areas of the film are lacking because they aren’t as graphic as people made them out to be.
Is Candyman a good film? I enjoyed a fair amount of it, and I’m sure on subsequent viewings (now that I know what to expect) I will enjoy the film more. However, it is a film that for me crumbled under the weight of expectations. There was such an unbelievable amount of hype for this film and such a feverish fanbase for it that are blatantly miscommunicating what the film truly is. Similar to the vocal majority who bang on about how Silence of the Lambs is a film about Hannibal Lecter and his gory cannibalism, it’s going to take several viewings for those expectations to leave my brain and truly enjoy the film for what it really is.
So no, I didn’t have a great time with Candyman…but I entirely blame other people who have seen the film, not the craft of the filmmakers, and it’s a film I look forward to enjoying in the future.
Is Candyman a good film? I enjoyed a fair amount of it, and I’m sure on subsequent viewings (now that I know what to expect) I will enjoy the film more. However, it is a film that for me crumbled under the weight of expectations. There was such an unbelievable amount of hype for this film and such a feverish fanbase for it that are blatantly miscommunicating what the film truly is. Similar to the vocal majority who bang on about how Silence of the Lambs is a film about Hannibal Lecter and his gory cannibalism, it’s going to take several viewings for those expectations to leave my brain and truly enjoy the film for what it really is.
So no, I didn’t have a great time with Candyman…but I entirely blame other people who have seen the film, not the craft of the filmmakers, and it’s a film I look forward to enjoying in the future.