Urban legends are weird things. Stories that are circulated across generations where the major details remain the same but small things are changed or omitted entirely. That is strangely enough what I felt when I recently watched 1992’s Candyman, that I’d been misled into thinking it was one kind of film when in fact it was something completely different, all because the information I had received about the film had clearly been altered over time to better fit the narrative everyone had in their minds.
But I watched the original Candyman because I wanted to see Nia DaCosta’s reboot/sequel as the trailers made it look like one of the more interesting revivals that has happened in recent years. But does the legend of the Candyman still hit as hard thirty years later as it did the first-time round?
Anthony McCoy (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) lives in the recently renovated Cabrini-Green housing project. He is told about the legend of the Candyman and the story of Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen) that occurred in the former Cabrini-Green housing project thirty years earlier.
Fascinated by the legend of Candyman, Anthony uses him as the inspiration for his next art installation. However, when people around Anthony start dying in ways similar to the Candyman legend, Anthony begins to think that he has brought the legend to life and his mental health begins to rapidly deteriorate as he becomes convinced that he is the Candyman.
But I watched the original Candyman because I wanted to see Nia DaCosta’s reboot/sequel as the trailers made it look like one of the more interesting revivals that has happened in recent years. But does the legend of the Candyman still hit as hard thirty years later as it did the first-time round?
Anthony McCoy (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) lives in the recently renovated Cabrini-Green housing project. He is told about the legend of the Candyman and the story of Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen) that occurred in the former Cabrini-Green housing project thirty years earlier.
Fascinated by the legend of Candyman, Anthony uses him as the inspiration for his next art installation. However, when people around Anthony start dying in ways similar to the Candyman legend, Anthony begins to think that he has brought the legend to life and his mental health begins to rapidly deteriorate as he becomes convinced that he is the Candyman.
I’ve seen a lot of people being extremely negative to this film and I just want to say that I had a great time with it, and even preferred this film to the 1992 original in a lot of ways. So, I’m going to tackle each of the negative statements I keep hearing over and over, then debunk them as to why I think they’re wrong.
First up there’s “The social commentary in this film isn’t subtle enough!”. Both the original Candyman, and this sequel use the oppression of black people and the gentrification of ghetto’s as their framework. Candyman himself is a symbol of oppression, with each major Candyman figure having been a black man unjustly killed by white people. The original film was definitely much more subtle with its messages which I think was mainly down to both the time the film came out and the fact that almost all the cast were white. DaCosta’s Candyman however is considerably more upfront about the racial issues at the heart of the story, with a black director and predominantly black cast, it’s very much a ‘down with the white man’ kind of narrative that we have seen Hollywood producing since the success of Jordan Peele’s Get Out. This is not a bad thing in the slightest and I wonder whether those who take issue with it are actually just getting tired of the finger being pointed at them for dismissing race issues. DaCosta’s Candyman is so vocal about these problems because they are still happening despite having more attention drawn to them than ever before. Yet despite the lack of subtlety and nuance I feel DaCosta’s Candyman is more effective in what it says than the 1992 original, it just tells you how it is which I feel is exactly what people need to be hearing right now. It’s also reactionary to the 1992 film, where that told the tale of white people being scared by a black man in an age of race hysteria, this is the tale of the black community reclaiming the story of Candyman to tell it right, and in the process reclaiming the land that was gentrified in Cabrini-Green, and their lost heritage.
Complaint number two is “There’s not enough Tony Todd!”. Todd portrayed Candyman in the 1992 original and he did a good job of being a constant menacing presence throughout the film. Though I personally don’t see why Todd is given the insane amount of praise he is for the role. He was good, but most of what made his performance memorable was some great sound design and special effects. Todd does briefly appear as Candyman in DaCosta’s version, but it’s explained pretty early on that Todd’s character, Daniel Robitaille, was the first but not only Candyman. This ties in to the third complaint I hear which is “The origin story for Candyman has been changed!”; it’s not been changed it’s just the origin of a different Candyman, you hear multiple different Candyman legends throughout the film and Todd’s is one of them. Candyman doesn’t have one face in this film, and it’s literally stated that Candyman is a symbolic manifestation of centuries of oppression.
Todd didn’t need to be Candyman because Candyman isn’t just Todd’s character, even the main character, Anthony, believes he is Candyman so we even see him donning the iconic hook at multiple points throughout the film in hallucinatory sequences. On top of that, the legend changes depending on who tells the legend, and much like all urban legends the story is the same, but the smaller details are what is different.
First up there’s “The social commentary in this film isn’t subtle enough!”. Both the original Candyman, and this sequel use the oppression of black people and the gentrification of ghetto’s as their framework. Candyman himself is a symbol of oppression, with each major Candyman figure having been a black man unjustly killed by white people. The original film was definitely much more subtle with its messages which I think was mainly down to both the time the film came out and the fact that almost all the cast were white. DaCosta’s Candyman however is considerably more upfront about the racial issues at the heart of the story, with a black director and predominantly black cast, it’s very much a ‘down with the white man’ kind of narrative that we have seen Hollywood producing since the success of Jordan Peele’s Get Out. This is not a bad thing in the slightest and I wonder whether those who take issue with it are actually just getting tired of the finger being pointed at them for dismissing race issues. DaCosta’s Candyman is so vocal about these problems because they are still happening despite having more attention drawn to them than ever before. Yet despite the lack of subtlety and nuance I feel DaCosta’s Candyman is more effective in what it says than the 1992 original, it just tells you how it is which I feel is exactly what people need to be hearing right now. It’s also reactionary to the 1992 film, where that told the tale of white people being scared by a black man in an age of race hysteria, this is the tale of the black community reclaiming the story of Candyman to tell it right, and in the process reclaiming the land that was gentrified in Cabrini-Green, and their lost heritage.
Complaint number two is “There’s not enough Tony Todd!”. Todd portrayed Candyman in the 1992 original and he did a good job of being a constant menacing presence throughout the film. Though I personally don’t see why Todd is given the insane amount of praise he is for the role. He was good, but most of what made his performance memorable was some great sound design and special effects. Todd does briefly appear as Candyman in DaCosta’s version, but it’s explained pretty early on that Todd’s character, Daniel Robitaille, was the first but not only Candyman. This ties in to the third complaint I hear which is “The origin story for Candyman has been changed!”; it’s not been changed it’s just the origin of a different Candyman, you hear multiple different Candyman legends throughout the film and Todd’s is one of them. Candyman doesn’t have one face in this film, and it’s literally stated that Candyman is a symbolic manifestation of centuries of oppression.
Todd didn’t need to be Candyman because Candyman isn’t just Todd’s character, even the main character, Anthony, believes he is Candyman so we even see him donning the iconic hook at multiple points throughout the film in hallucinatory sequences. On top of that, the legend changes depending on who tells the legend, and much like all urban legends the story is the same, but the smaller details are what is different.
The final complaint I hear is “The film sucks because it’s a horror now!”. So, first of all I’d like to point out that I watched the original Candyman based off the opinions of fans who led me to believe that I was going to watch a slasher film. It isn’t, it’s an investigative drama of the same style that Silence of the Lambs is. It has moments that are scary, and utilises a number of horror tropes, but it’s not a horror film.
DaCosta’s Candyman though is well and truly a horror. Now whether the story of Candyman best suits a horror themed investigative drama, or an actual horror film can be debated all day as there’s no correct answer. But what I do like about DaCosta’s vision is that it is unmistakably horror. It’s considerably more violent, gory, and thematically dark than the 1992 original, which works well because of the direction the story goes in. It allows the story of Candyman to be tackled from a different angle, and arguably more intimately than in the original film which tended to try and observe from a distance. The first film focused on what Candyman was, whereas this new film begs to question why Candyman exists…which in itself is a much scarier concept.
To round off my praise for the film I just want to mention the incredible cinematography and sound design of this film. Even before the film gets going and you’re seeing all the studio intros you’re brought into the world of Candyman by having the image flipped and an eerie rendition of Sammy Davis Jr.’s ‘The Candy Man’. From here you’ll find the camera lingers at strange angles, making everywhere, including the outside feel claustrophobic. Mirrors are scattered everywhere in the film and you’ll occasionally find Candyman hanging about in them doing something weird which is awesome. Plus, these great visual treats are accompanied by some extremely foreboding sounds, almost otherworldly in nature. The whole thing makes you feel like you’re on the other side of a mirror looking in at these events unfold and I loved it.
DaCosta’s Candyman though is well and truly a horror. Now whether the story of Candyman best suits a horror themed investigative drama, or an actual horror film can be debated all day as there’s no correct answer. But what I do like about DaCosta’s vision is that it is unmistakably horror. It’s considerably more violent, gory, and thematically dark than the 1992 original, which works well because of the direction the story goes in. It allows the story of Candyman to be tackled from a different angle, and arguably more intimately than in the original film which tended to try and observe from a distance. The first film focused on what Candyman was, whereas this new film begs to question why Candyman exists…which in itself is a much scarier concept.
To round off my praise for the film I just want to mention the incredible cinematography and sound design of this film. Even before the film gets going and you’re seeing all the studio intros you’re brought into the world of Candyman by having the image flipped and an eerie rendition of Sammy Davis Jr.’s ‘The Candy Man’. From here you’ll find the camera lingers at strange angles, making everywhere, including the outside feel claustrophobic. Mirrors are scattered everywhere in the film and you’ll occasionally find Candyman hanging about in them doing something weird which is awesome. Plus, these great visual treats are accompanied by some extremely foreboding sounds, almost otherworldly in nature. The whole thing makes you feel like you’re on the other side of a mirror looking in at these events unfold and I loved it.
Candyman isn’t perfect though, and it definitely bites off a little more than it can chew. At a comfortable ninety-one minutes DaCosta wants to squeeze so much in, and I feel like there’s a little too much here for one film to handle. Some of the race issues I feel could have been held off for a sequel, the film also tends to get a little side-tracked with some gory killings in the third act, and as a result the ending feels like it just happens without a lot of build to it. These problems don’t ruin the film, but they do hold it back from greatness.
If you’re a horror movie fan then you need to watch Candyman. If you’re a fan of the recent Jordan Peele films then you also need to see Candyman. If you like the original then I feel like there’s a lot to like here, but you should probably know that it’s a radically different kind of film. Candyman is one of my favourite horror films of the year so far and I had a very good time with it. Whilst it definitely makes some mistakes, Candyman is exactly what a horror reboot/sequel should be similar to 2018’s Halloween. It builds upon the first one in interesting ways, and is a modern response to its predecessor's messages. It’s almost enough to put you off staring in the mirror for life.
If you’re a horror movie fan then you need to watch Candyman. If you’re a fan of the recent Jordan Peele films then you also need to see Candyman. If you like the original then I feel like there’s a lot to like here, but you should probably know that it’s a radically different kind of film. Candyman is one of my favourite horror films of the year so far and I had a very good time with it. Whilst it definitely makes some mistakes, Candyman is exactly what a horror reboot/sequel should be similar to 2018’s Halloween. It builds upon the first one in interesting ways, and is a modern response to its predecessor's messages. It’s almost enough to put you off staring in the mirror for life.