There are still too many horror classics that I have not seen. But I’ve been working on them!

For instance, I’ve had Nosferatu on my playlist for a while now, but I keep not having the time or energy to watch it. But I’ll get there soon enough. Robert Eggers’ upcoming reimagining of the tale is enough impetus to get me to watch the original before I see the new one in cinema, so I know I’ve got the wick burning down towards me.

Additionally, I have not seen either version of Suspiria, both of which I hear are quite good. I just haven’t paid close enough attention to where either might be streaming, so I haven’t looked them up. Tell you what: I’ll do it right now. 

Hm, looks like the remake is on Prime, and the original is on Tubi (maybe?). Okay, now I have less of an excuse, at least for the remake.

No More Excuse I had a Sweet Tooth This Week

Another such horror staple I had never seen before was Candyman. And I had wanted to see it for quite a while; at LEAST since the recent reboot/sequel version came out. So imagine my joy at turning on Shudder recently and seeing it playing on there as of this month!

Candyman is, of course for those like me who may not already know, the tale of a University student (or professor?) working on a thesis about urban legends and modern folklore. Living near the housing project of Cabrini Green, she decides to focus on the tale of the titular Candyman, a ghost of a tortured and murdered slave who can be summoned by saying his name five times while looking in a mirror.

Five times is… a lot of times. It’s a bit unwieldy. And I love that someone working specifically on a thesis about Candyman has everyone around her giving her even the mot rudimentary of details about our Man of Candy. Like… did she know ANYTHING before she started this?

Helen, the thesis-writer in question, quickly summons and finds Candyman, and she soon finds herself entwined in his murderous spree. Also, he abducts a newborn, and she has to work at getting him back before… well… newborns don’t last that long on their own, you know?

TWO UPS AND TWO DOWNS

+ Tony Todd is creepy and effective as Candyman. It’s a shame about his barely being in the movie given that he’s the titular character, but when he is on-screen, he is menacing and perfect in the role. 

Todd’s hypnotic voice and deliberate mannerisms are just so enthralling. He really set out here to make the absolute most of his screentime. When he is summoned, he is a complete terror, and a lot of that is due to his performance.

I just can’t get over how little of the movie he is in, though. This Candyman could have used a lot more Candyman, if I am being honest.

+ I don’t feel particularly bad about spoiling thirty-plus year old movies, so I’m about to go ahead and do that. IF YOU DON’T WANT SPOILERS FOR CANDYMAN FROM THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1992, SKIP TO THE OVERALL NOW!

Okay, so I was struggling to find a second Up for this movie. Sorry, I know it’s a horror classic, but it did not necessarily do it for me. Anyway, what else I liked was the ending. After accidentally getting burned to death by the residents of Cabrini Green, Helen finds herself as a new iteration of the Candyman when she is accidentally summoned by her cheating husband. His brutal murder ensues, and Helen presumably lives on to torment any innocents that say her name five times in a mirror.

Though, let’s be honest, saying “Helen” five times in front of one lacks the flavor that saying “Candyman” does. It’s not even “Bloody Mary”. 

– I found the overall production value and editing quality of Candyman to be a total mess. It’s genuinely hard to believe this was a theatrical release by a relatively big studio. It looks like a made-for-TV movie, complete with scene breaks that look and feel like they are leading to commercials instead of a natural next cut in the movie.

This movie had a budget of just under ten million dollars. I don’t expect it to look like Terminator 2 for that money, but it would be nice if it looked better than it does. That said, since I brought up T2, the effects are good. Candyman’s hook is gruesome and the real bees they used look great. So I’m not besmirching the wonderful practical effects here. But the weird commercial cuts and just general value of the flick were definitely a Down for me.

– The plotting of the story is all over the map, and Candyman is kind of a mess as a tale. The character of Candyman is inconsistent, and when you find out why Candyman is treating Helen differently than most of his victims–she either kind of reminds him of his lost love or is the straight-up reincarnation of her, it’s never specified–it’s a bit of a head scratcher. 

Candyman is a ghostly being who murders the hell out of innocents that summon him. Also: he kidnaps babies to hide them? And frames people for his kills? It’s weird. I’m not sure this was ever what I needed from my Candyman character, no matter how well Todd played the role. I just wanted some fantastic and gory deaths. Not a sinister ploy.

OVERALL

Well this was something of a massive disappointment to me after having waited years to see it. I was very excited when I saw Candyman had made its way to Shudder, but upon watching it, I was mostly bored and incredulous at how rough-around-the-edges it looks. Tony Todd, some vicious kills, and a bittersweet ending do their part to make this okay, but it ultimately just isn’t quite enough to overcome the flaws for me.

TWO stars out of FIVE