Bit of a controversial take, but here goes: while Get Out talked about racial issues and will be remembered for it, Candyman has made and will continue to make a stronger impact. Candyman is what happens when tragedy and pain inflicted on the innocent takes on frightening visage. A manifestation of anger and vengeance that harms the guilty *and* the innocent alike.
@@paulelroy6650 This film does it in a very heavy handed way. I am of the impression that if you have to spell everything out explicitly through dialogue... you basically failed. This movie felt like a vehicle for a message with a movie attached instead of the other way around.
This movie is very deep like the first one, but this movie also is more about hate crime against blacks. I’m still very pissed that the US passed a law to stop hate crime on Asians and not blacks like wtf. But just want to pass a holiday ending slavery. That shit is fucked up.
@@BZEDiddy makes sense but we are talking about the government tho they do things slow af look how long it took for blacks to become U.S. citizens & to vote even tho we were born & raised here smh
Continually being repressed and targeted whilst installing a few individuals for token representation. The crime committed against blacks run long and deep from death ships, lynchings, police brutality, plantations that killed and exploited, and serious class subjugation. When the man ask for forgiveness and unity they sure don't know a damn thing they are taking about from their position of privilege.
Throughout the whole franchise the majority of people who've summoned the Candyman have done so as a thrill or a dare, to have a laugh or for a cheap thrill, or just to prove that they're brave or that the Candyman doesn't exist. All are selfish reasons for doing so. Candyman said in the second movie (which I liked) "See what it means to call me by that name". When people summon him in the mirror to make themselves seem brave they're making his existence about themselves, and when they do it for a laugh they are dismissing him and his story. Either way they're laughing at him and mocking him and his agony like the mob who killed him did. They're denying his existence and in doing so are denying his story. And by denying his story they're denying the fact that killings like that happened. That's why they have to die. "They say I have spilt innocent blood. What is blood for if not for spilling?" He wasn't allowed to live as a human when he was alive, so now that he's dead he has to live as a monster. He loved and he created when he was alive and they were both taken from him, so now in his death he destroys and he hates. He exists to remind us that the past is never dead.
Good, now that it's confirmed that there' more than one Candyman and that it's confirmed that the original Candyman is in this movie people can stop complaining about how they don't like how he's been written out of the story before even knowing if he's been in the story.
I’m 40 and love Candyman. I’m not sure I’m feeling this one. “They love what we do, but not us” isn’t something that goes on anymore in SE Tennessee. We all love each other in our little tourist town. Southern hospitality is a real thing. We hold doors for everyone, great everyone, yes ma’am, no ma’am, yes sir, no sir. It’s like the hate got old and died with the people who dished it out.
Am I the only one who doesn't like the fact that there are multiple "Candy... (Clears throat) men"??? I mean I understand what they were going for but the dude talking here is the same guy who said in an interview that this new film does not- and I quote "DOES NOT BRUTALIZE BLACK PEOPLE. BLACKS ARE NOT THE VICTIMS OR THE THREAT." umm... Did you even know what film you're in dude??? Candyman is a victim of not exactly racism because it's left vague as to who spoke about his lovers pregnancy but in this film it's told that she tattled to her father and cried about being pregnant so that's making Candyman more of a victim, but he kills because he 'has to' to stay a vengeful spirit. It feels like a ret-con because the 1992 film established only one Candyman. Now a spiritual sequel says there's more than one. Like, ok I see your point and the message you're throwing out here but you're just a little pretentious with a new theme for a Candyman movie...
Nah ....they expanded the mythology in the best possible way imo....this opens up a whole new world of stories should they choose to go that route....and personally I need more Candyman movies lol.🤷🏽♂️
And again imo ...that wasn't why he put Anthony onto that path...he was traumatized by his sister's death/salty no one remembered her..but everyone remembered Helen...he created a new Candyman to reclaim the legend so to speak...he even says it...he says something to the effect of "and he can take back what's rightfully his..his legend"... that's how I read it anyway.
@@thakingofdetroit But that's what confused me. It feels like they shoehorned a twist ending with that guy. His sister got killed cause she was stupid and summoned him and was traumatized by the ordeal but why even think about making a new Candyman? Wouldn't he want revenge for that particular Candyman killing his sister? Not add more victims to the "legend"? What was his reason to come to that conclusion? Sure, I liked that Anthony becomes the next legend like Helen did in the original but they totally just got rid of her for this one. Like, she killed a dog and saved a baby then burned to death. The end. They didn't even bother to mention that her husband died shortly after her funeral and the girl he was with was possibly framed for his murder. Like what Helen was put through. Her legend doesn't bother to make an appearance and that's why I'm so confused with the new one. Keep in mind the original film took place in 1992 and the opening of the new one takes place in 1977. They ret-conned a new victim in it before Helen was the next victim. Your opinion is yours man. But I can't help but feel the message is just butchered when it comes to mentioning anything between the 1992 film and the new one. When I think about it too much I'm confused on how they thought anything made sense all summed together.
@@ethanveda1271 this isn't Helen's story....like at all....they paid more than enough homage to the original...and where would he (Anthony) get that information?...this is HIS story...he learns enough about the events in the original to move this story along...no more no less...also...the way this film worked whatever Candyman you were introduced to ...is the one that will appear when you call him... hence Sherman's Candyman.
This movie sucked and was so disappointing for me. The idea of The Hive was a good one, but they never went anywhere with it. Why didn’t they actually show how Sherman came to actually take up the mantle of the Candyman, let alone the rest of them? Why didn’t they show how Daniel Robataille’s original Candyman actually influenced these other hive members and show how they actually came to be part of his legend? It’s so glossed over for being an apparent integral part of the new story. If anybody knows anything about the production history of this film, it’s since been leaked that the original script featured Helen as the main protagonist, which would have made more sense being as how she became a new phantom at the end of the original film. It wasn’t until DeCosta came onboard that she re-wrote the script to feature Sherman Fields and the rest of the Hive. Imo, this was where it went wrong. That original idea of Helen being the main villain would have made more narrative sense and actually would have provided a better through line back to the original. Also, the ending of this film was such shit it just falls apart. For one thing, none of the cops called his name at the end, yet when Brianna calls him, he comes for the cops and not for her. Isn’t it that anybody who calls his name in the mirror can expect to be gutted by the hook? Not here. Instead Candyman is made out to be a black Avenger of racial injustice by the end of this movie. Total horseshit, and I don’t care what anybody says because there’s plenty of black people that have reviewed this film on UA-cam that feel the same. To boot, since Sherman wasn’t even a big narrative part of this film, they could have just used Tony Todd for the role even if they didn’t use Helen as the original script had done. Why bother changing the main character when you didn’t actually flesh out his backstory enough to have a narrative impact in the first place? This movie really had the potential to bring the Candyman legend back in a fresh way but ultimately failed to do so in my opinion and wound up just being another piece of woke ideology packaged as a horror film. Again, plenty of POC on UA-cam that agree. Totally forgettable and I’ll take watching the original over this one any day.
Haven't you heard? Every black person is a noble and oppressed victim. That is why I always make sure to let the multi-millionaire black person who owns my business know that I am so sorry for being superior. Oh, wait a second...
Hello I am from the future, this film is terrible, it's just woke politics and Tony Todd has a 60 second cameo. On top of all that the film was incredibly boring. I hope the people of the past are not to disappointed
@@Dmvgold1995 It’s a really good movie though I said actually continues on the original story of the first movie also know that but I think it Does a good job saying the message that it is trying to say Also the acting was really good in the movie and it deafly felt real and authentic
drive.google.com/file/d/1ih3WBXGgoHEndFr_lRsWbfAO6E_Zvvvz/view?usp=drivesdk
Give my screenplay a read...thanks in advance.❤
Bit of a controversial take, but here goes: while Get Out talked about racial issues and will be remembered for it, Candyman has made and will continue to make a stronger impact. Candyman is what happens when tragedy and pain inflicted on the innocent takes on frightening visage. A manifestation of anger and vengeance that harms the guilty *and* the innocent alike.
Excellent take.
ua-cam.com/video/uBz4E-wq9p8/v-deo.html
You were absolutely spot on. As Kasi Lemmons (played Bernadette in the original) said, he is a tragic monster.
Yeah the the original did it in a great way. Not sure what this film does though.
@@paulelroy6650 This film does it in a very heavy handed way. I am of the impression that if you have to spell everything out explicitly through dialogue... you basically failed. This movie felt like a vehicle for a message with a movie attached instead of the other way around.
This movie is very deep like the first one, but this movie also is more about hate crime against blacks. I’m still very pissed that the US passed a law to stop hate crime on Asians and not blacks like wtf. But just want to pass a holiday ending slavery. That shit is fucked up.
Exactly That's Not Fair At All?
I hate Biden for that too makes me not wanna vote Democrat no more
why not just pass a bill that makes hate crime illegal for EVERYONE
@@BZEDiddy makes sense but we are talking about the government tho they do things slow af look how long it took for blacks to become U.S. citizens & to vote even tho we were born & raised here smh
Continually being repressed and targeted whilst installing a few individuals for token representation. The crime committed against blacks run long and deep from death ships, lynchings, police brutality, plantations that killed and exploited, and serious class subjugation. When the man ask for forgiveness and unity they sure don't know a damn thing they are taking about from their position of privilege.
Throughout the whole franchise the majority of people who've summoned the Candyman have done so as a thrill or a dare, to have a laugh or for a cheap thrill, or just to prove that they're brave or that the Candyman doesn't exist. All are selfish reasons for doing so. Candyman said in the second movie (which I liked) "See what it means to call me by that name". When people summon him in the mirror to make themselves seem brave they're making his existence about themselves, and when they do it for a laugh they are dismissing him and his story. Either way they're laughing at him and mocking him and his agony like the mob who killed him did. They're denying his existence and in doing so are denying his story. And by denying his story they're denying the fact that killings like that happened. That's why they have to die. "They say I have spilt innocent blood. What is blood for if not for spilling?"
He wasn't allowed to live as a human when he was alive, so now that he's dead he has to live as a monster. He loved and he created when he was alive and they were both taken from him, so now in his death he destroys and he hates. He exists to remind us that the past is never dead.
ua-cam.com/video/uBz4E-wq9p8/v-deo.html
💯 facts
I am almost 100% sure that whoever made this comment is actually candy man
Bitch I bout cried reading this 💪🏾🥲💀
Evil has no end. It’s a terrible fact of life but it’s a fact. But we find hope in the fact that good has no end either.
ua-cam.com/video/uOcI3cCB0cs/v-deo.html
Good, now that it's confirmed that there' more than one Candyman and that it's confirmed that the original Candyman is in this movie people can stop complaining about how they don't like how he's been written out of the story before even knowing if he's been in the story.
ua-cam.com/video/uBz4E-wq9p8/v-deo.html
He was only in it for 2 seconds. It’s reasonable why they’d be annoyed considering the misleading trailers
Can't wait for this movie!
Yes you can I am
Yes I'm hyped
ua-cam.com/video/uOcI3cCB0cs/v-deo.html
That was some Deep Acting Right There
ua-cam.com/video/uOcI3cCB0cs/v-deo.html
Candyman Cabrini-Green let's get it!🍭🍬🔥🔥🔥
Yes
ua-cam.com/video/uOcI3cCB0cs/v-deo.html
Cannot wait to see this tomorrow!!
Say my name nobody is not around you than they say it and he said don't s say my name this to brilliant
I’m 40 and love Candyman. I’m not sure I’m feeling this one. “They love what we do, but not us” isn’t something that goes on anymore in SE Tennessee. We all love each other in our little tourist town. Southern hospitality is a real thing. We hold doors for everyone, great everyone, yes ma’am, no ma’am, yes sir, no sir. It’s like the hate got old and died with the people who dished it out.
If it doesn't apply let it fly.
Not really, just because something isn’t true for you doesn’t mean it isn’t true for someone else.
Kleos I’m not a fan of generalizations. I did enjoy the movie though.
Is the best video.💚❤🙏
ua-cam.com/video/uOcI3cCB0cs/v-deo.html
Whenever this hits streaming I'll do a deeper analysis of this as compared to the original...the theater experience was awesome.
I was raised in Cabrini Green i'm not missing this movie for the world
ua-cam.com/video/uOcI3cCB0cs/v-deo.html
I'm gonna see this movie tomorrow I can't wait
I wept when it was over.
ua-cam.com/video/uOcI3cCB0cs/v-deo.html
A lot of takes on UA-cam saying the movie is not scary. I disagree. The movie is tragic, sad and the scary part is how real it feels.
What's scary is how low the bar is set to receive social justice point as a means of elevating a potentially shitty remake.
It would appear that each Candyman is quite the same, but kill for very different reasons.
Deep.
Exactly.... wasn't expecting this from a horror movie lol.
ua-cam.com/video/uOcI3cCB0cs/v-deo.html
Anthony has no clue what happened to him when he was a infant baby
ua-cam.com/video/uOcI3cCB0cs/v-deo.html
I'm hyyyyyped and it's on fashooo
ua-cam.com/video/uOcI3cCB0cs/v-deo.html
It's so deep and makes you feel so sad you wanna cry
ua-cam.com/video/uOcI3cCB0cs/v-deo.html
That's Candyman for ya
he sounds similair to a young Morgan Freeman
Candyman and Candwoman 😁😁😁😁
This movie sucked bad. Worst than Candyman Day of the Dead. 👎👎👎👎👎
There has to be another part to this movie candyman Anthony was kidnapped again by the candyman
Stay Woke 👊
ua-cam.com/video/uBz4E-wq9p8/v-deo.html
©️
ua-cam.com/video/uOcI3cCB0cs/v-deo.html new video
Am I the only one who doesn't like the fact that there are multiple "Candy... (Clears throat) men"??? I mean I understand what they were going for but the dude talking here is the same guy who said in an interview that this new film does not- and I quote "DOES NOT BRUTALIZE BLACK PEOPLE. BLACKS ARE NOT THE VICTIMS OR THE THREAT." umm... Did you even know what film you're in dude??? Candyman is a victim of not exactly racism because it's left vague as to who spoke about his lovers pregnancy but in this film it's told that she tattled to her father and cried about being pregnant so that's making Candyman more of a victim, but he kills because he 'has to' to stay a vengeful spirit. It feels like a ret-con because the 1992 film established only one Candyman. Now a spiritual sequel says there's more than one. Like, ok I see your point and the message you're throwing out here but you're just a little pretentious with a new theme for a Candyman movie...
Nah ....they expanded the mythology in the best possible way imo....this opens up a whole new world of stories should they choose to go that route....and personally I need more Candyman movies lol.🤷🏽♂️
And again imo ...that wasn't why he put Anthony onto that path...he was traumatized by his sister's death/salty no one remembered her..but everyone remembered Helen...he created a new Candyman to reclaim the legend so to speak...he even says it...he says something to the effect of "and he can take back what's rightfully his..his legend"... that's how I read it anyway.
@@thakingofdetroit But that's what confused me. It feels like they shoehorned a twist ending with that guy. His sister got killed cause she was stupid and summoned him and was traumatized by the ordeal but why even think about making a new Candyman? Wouldn't he want revenge for that particular Candyman killing his sister? Not add more victims to the "legend"? What was his reason to come to that conclusion? Sure, I liked that Anthony becomes the next legend like Helen did in the original but they totally just got rid of her for this one. Like, she killed a dog and saved a baby then burned to death. The end. They didn't even bother to mention that her husband died shortly after her funeral and the girl he was with was possibly framed for his murder. Like what Helen was put through. Her legend doesn't bother to make an appearance and that's why I'm so confused with the new one. Keep in mind the original film took place in 1992 and the opening of the new one takes place in 1977. They ret-conned a new victim in it before Helen was the next victim. Your opinion is yours man. But I can't help but feel the message is just butchered when it comes to mentioning anything between the 1992 film and the new one. When I think about it too much I'm confused on how they thought anything made sense all summed together.
@@ethanveda1271 revenge is one way of expressing trauma...but not the only way...trauma can manifest itself in many ways.
@@ethanveda1271 this isn't Helen's story....like at all....they paid more than enough homage to the original...and where would he (Anthony) get that information?...this is HIS story...he learns enough about the events in the original to move this story along...no more no less...also...the way this film worked whatever Candyman you were introduced to ...is the one that will appear when you call him... hence Sherman's Candyman.
This movie sucked and was so disappointing for me. The idea of The Hive was a good one, but they never went anywhere with it. Why didn’t they actually show how Sherman came to actually take up the mantle of the Candyman, let alone the rest of them? Why didn’t they show how Daniel Robataille’s original Candyman actually influenced these other hive members and show how they actually came to be part of his legend? It’s so glossed over for being an apparent integral part of the new story. If anybody knows anything about the production history of this film, it’s since been leaked that the original script featured Helen as the main protagonist, which would have made more sense being as how she became a new phantom at the end of the original film. It wasn’t until DeCosta came onboard that she re-wrote the script to feature Sherman Fields and the rest of the Hive. Imo, this was where it went wrong. That original idea of Helen being the main villain would have made more narrative sense and actually would have provided a better through line back to the original. Also, the ending of this film was such shit it just falls apart. For one thing, none of the cops called his name at the end, yet when Brianna calls him, he comes for the cops and not for her. Isn’t it that anybody who calls his name in the mirror can expect to be gutted by the hook? Not here. Instead Candyman is made out to be a black Avenger of racial injustice by the end of this movie. Total horseshit, and I don’t care what anybody says because there’s plenty of black people that have reviewed this film on UA-cam that feel the same. To boot, since Sherman wasn’t even a big narrative part of this film, they could have just used Tony Todd for the role even if they didn’t use Helen as the original script had done. Why bother changing the main character when you didn’t actually flesh out his backstory enough to have a narrative impact in the first place? This movie really had the potential to bring the Candyman legend back in a fresh way but ultimately failed to do so in my opinion and wound up just being another piece of woke ideology packaged as a horror film. Again, plenty of POC on UA-cam that agree. Totally forgettable and I’ll take watching the original over this one any day.
Awful film. Ruined opportunity. The main dude cant carry a suitcase, nevermind a movie! ..
The movie wasn't even scary. Not one bit. No one jumped. No one closed their eyes... except when a few people fell asleep.
All that racist Anti white crap too. Just awful
Give me a break. #notavictim
Haven't you heard? Every black person is a noble and oppressed victim. That is why I always make sure to let the multi-millionaire black person who owns my business know that I am so sorry for being superior. Oh, wait a second...
Hello I am from the future, this film is terrible, it's just woke politics and Tony Todd has a 60 second cameo. On top of all that the film was incredibly boring. I hope the people of the past are not to disappointed
I’m also from the future, I thought it was great
It was bad. Heavy handed. No atmosphere. Bad pacing. Incoherent story. Cinematography and acting was good though.
@@spinebot7556 that is false. Plot holes everywhere. Just because it attempts to cover social injustices doesn’t mean it’s a good movie
@@Dmvgold1995 It’s a really good movie though I said actually continues on the original story of the first movie also know that but I think it Does a good job saying the message that it is trying to say Also the acting was really good in the movie and it deafly felt real and authentic
This movie sucked