I know people were bummed we only had a few seconds of Tony Todd's greatness, but if you aske me if he was seen throughout the movie, the ending wouldn't have been as special.
Yeah, I liked parts of it like how they handled the kills and the cinematography and soundtrack were top-notch. But I didn't like a few things such as how Brianna's backstory about her dad amounted to nothing.
I don’t like how they boo hooooes about white whites didn’t create the ghetto Chicago New York Philly Baltimore Once we’re all paradises, and then the Blacks sold their farms in the south move to the big cities which caused something called white flight or white immigration, which made white people leave leaving Black people to fend for themselves which then created all the ghetto you see today this is a historical fact
I wish they would have explained Brianna’s trauma more as well. Great review and thanks for pointing out the coat being there in the laundromat all along. I didn’t even catch that. 😳 Evil man, it’s like he had a plan all along for Anthony to be part of the Candyman legend..and that phone call to the police.. what a messed up guy, actually wishing for the cops to shoot his fellow brother... 😩
Thank you! Yeah he has this planned all along. I wonder why William worshiped Candyman so much. You would think he’d hate Candyman after he killed murdered his sister 🤷♂️
The horror made myth of Daniel Robitaille that wreaked havoc around Cabrini-Green in the original movie was a tale of social injustice. From the derelict row houses of Cabrini-Green, to horrific method of Daniel Robitaille's death to the real life Medicine Cabinet murder of Ruthie Mae McCoy (1987) the movie is based on and shined a light on that wasn't investigated when it occured because it occurred in a Black high crime area of Chicago similar to Cabrini-Green. All those points in the original movie are social commentary of it's time. This movie is just a continuation of themes. Personally, I like how codified all the previous iterations of Candyman into one. The original Clive Barker book had none of the social commentary of the 90s movie. Barker's book was about a Blonde hair serial killer in Liverpool. It was a conscious choice from the 1992 director to place the movie in the Chicago high crime, overpopulated, unsupported row houses/high rises of Cabrini-Green and to focus on the then low coverage story of Ruthie Mae McCoy. I think they didn't include Tony Todd because he's so old and the cgi to de-age his face will look weird lol. It feels like an odd retcon, but I can see how it works if Candyman is an amalgamation of beings. It just means that Candyman can personify different people to different people. For example, to Helen Lyle and the people of Cabrini-Green in the 90s Candyman was Daniel Robitaille. To Domingo Coleman (crazy dude who owns the laundromat), Candyman is the mentally handicap man who was wrongfully murdered by the police and whom he felt responsible for killing. To Anthony, it was 70s Candyman because laundromat guy helped breathe him to life in Anthony"s head. To Teyonah Paris, it's Anthony McCoy who was wrongfully murdered in her arms. The addition of the Candy guy from the 70s works thematically with the current movie by the end.
That’s an interesting theory! This movie would’ve benefited from an extra 15-30 minute run time so it could explore a lot more of the plot points it introduced.
Just come out the cinema, watched this with my girlfriend and honestly was a bit sceptical after we had seen the conjuring together earlier this year, however it really surprised both of us ! Really good and thanks for the great detailed video explaining parts we had missed out too !
I just found this channel a couple days ago and I’ve binged all your videos, you have done amazing work! One of the better horror movie channels I’ve seen keep up the amazing work!
Man. you did a great job. Been watching your vids all day... and you approached this with a fair amount of satisfaction and skepticism. Keep the Horror Mine going!
@@HorrorMine no problem man. I prefer the first movie over this one tbh. I don’t feel like this is something I’ll watch again bc of the social issues and identity politics being presented throughout the movie... would have preferred more horror scenes but 🤷♂️ Nevertheless, I enjoyed your video very much.
I agree! The first film was much better than this one. I feel that they should’ve had a lot more horror elements and explored the plot points they introduced because it all feels rushed and incomplete.
Thank you so much! I saw it on a second viewing because it’s so easy to miss since the twist is revealed at the end. I think it’s so cool they had that there!
also notice in the scene where the officers are slaughtered, briana only says candy man 4 times, and the detective says candy man for the fifth time. There for making him the target and not briana
He had to leave one alive to tell his story, or that version of Candyman would not exist. It's a reason why the "Helen Candyman" version does not exist because she killed the one person that could have kept her story going Trevor.
The reason he sees a reflection of Sherman in the elevator is because the Candyman absorbed Sherman into the hive. That fact is seemingly independent of his innocence.
So I think I may have an explanation for why the Sherman Candyman was dropping candy with razor blades in them. The first film had a lot to do with folklore, namely the ritual of summoning Candyman and Helen's theories for why the community of Cabrini Green perpetuated that urban legend. But I think this film is more about how the story creates the reality in a way, or I guess in how the story takes priority over reality. Sherman was going to be associated with candy and razor blades regardless of what the truth was, so his spirit appears with them. William wanted the Anthony version of Candyman to be a focused weapon against racial injustice rather than an vengeful spirit that targeted anyone that made the mistake to summon him, so Anthony saves Brianna from the police (who in turn were trying to ensure that their own story, of Anthony being a genuine threat and thus justify them murdering him, would become the official one). The story is what matters rather than the truth. (God this is just making Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story get stuck in my head.)
Excellent video. I loved the film, and it had a lot to offer. However, when you are trying to accomplish a lot in the film, there are parts that will suffer. I feel that there must be a sequel to explain everything that was missed.
@@HorrorMine The best content always attracts my friend.......!! I will now just wait for more videos every week......!! Keep it up......!! And Thanks of the videos.......!!
I was excited for this movie. It had a lot of potential, but comes no where near the level of the first one. It would have benefited from giving Tony Todd a bigger role imo.
I was pleasantly surprised that the movie referenced the events of the original and was more or less a direct sequel. The events involving Helen Lyle in 1992 becoming a part of the Candyman urban legend was nice and as the story is retold over the years some of the details change. As for Sherman appearing when the Candyman was summoned might be because that is the version of the legend the current generation are familliar with and which William says at one point, Candyman means different things to different people. I have to wonder what would happen if someone should say Helen five times in front of a mirror, would she appear as well if someone did? All in all a good movie but I feel it should have been longer to let some of the plot points breathe a bit more.
Most likely the way Trevor died, Candyman or the girl he was having an affair with will take the blame, so there is no way for the "Helen" legend to go beyond Trevor's death, since he was the only way for the story to continue. Look at the end of the new one, Candyman left Brianna alive to "spread the tale". Had Helen appeared and killed the girl and left Trevor alive her story of calling Helen would put her legend in motion.
Brianna does not say ‘candyman’ 5 times. She says it FOUR times in the cop car. The cop in the front seat says it the fifth time, summoning Candyman himself. That’s what gets her to fully smile
off topic but colman domingo sounds kinda like a young morgan freeman, just that sultry smooth base tone with a slight southern lull. perfect for exposition/monologues
I watched the original candyman last night a just realized when he took Anthony he was feeding him “honey”. Maybe that’s why that sting took over his body
I think he told him the guy was innocent so he'd keep digging. If he had stopped, he would've given up his "destiny". It wasn't so much that he was innocent but that he was killed by the police out of racism and denied his right to be tried by a jury of his peers. The police decided to be judge, jury & executioner and that's not how it should be.
A good sequel to the original. I think the film's metaphor of inner city poverty and social inequality being horrific to endure was well done. I really wish they could have made a way for Helen's spirit to have warned everyone what was happening. Her death seems rather futile in retrospect.
my biggest question after watching this movie was which candyman shows up when his name is said? daniel showing up for anthony makes way more sense than sherman. also does that mean that a random candyman is chosen to kill the victims once the name is said or if given context like william talking about sherman brings the specific candyman out? it's so vague
Exactly. That part made absolutely no sense. If Sherman died in 1977 it only makes sense if he was the one terrorizing Cabrini-green in the original Candyman. If Daniel Robitaille showed up specifically for Helen, then he should’ve showed up specifically for Anthony. I really wish they would’ve stuck to 1 or the other to make the narrative make more sense.
@@HorrorMine having different Candymen makes it way too confusing lol which Candyman do people even refer to that universe? do the Candymen in the hive draw straws or do "nose-goes" to see who goes out lmao
This movie is beautifully made but it left me feeling empty. We're introduced to so many new this and little of them is explained. Brianna ad Anthony's relationship is so poorly explored that I struggle to feel for them at the end. I'll definitely give it a watch again and see if my perspective changes because I found it a bit meh
Make no mistake this movie was garbage..editing and story telling made me feel like I got up to pee 10 times and missed something.. but never got up once lol
I’m sorry but I don’t get it … why is William sucking on razorblade lollipops? 😅 & if your asking me … I think Sherman fields put the razor blades in the candys 🤔
The cinematography always suffers when the focus becomes too social centric. Having a background of racial injustice is very powerful but that IMO should've been like side running shadow and not the main focus
Well Brianna's definitely going to jail now but should make for a good starting point if they decide to do a sequel perhaps someone comes and interviews her thus starting the cycle all over again.
Trying to make candyman an anti hero is stupid. In the first movie he said “some will say i have shed innocent blood but what is the purpose of blood if not for shedding?” Does that sound like an anti hero to you?
Makes no sense why didn’t Helen get that weirdo guy from 1970s?? Why did she get the original. No one else got that weird Candyman with the razor candy not the babysitter or the psych or anyone else in any of the Candyman movies. Also where would the bees fit in with that weird candy man from the 70s
The original Candyman was one of my favorite horror movies growing up so I was pretty hyped about this one. Unfortunately, this was quite a disappointment due to the heavy handed social commentary. I understand while some people loved it, I just wanted to enjoy a good horror movie w/o all the political stuffs.
@@floraxanhh9093 precisely. What people are calling heavy handed, I call the way black people (especially black women) tell black stories. We pull no punches when it comes to cautionary tales because doing so isn’t conducive to survival. We’ve also never had the luxury of film going out of its way to make us comfortable so we don’t go into movies with that expectation. Finally, it seems that being this straightforward is necessary because many reviews and comments I’ve seen indicate that the subtext of the original film went way over people’s heads.
@@starkman78 what? A former slave was tortured and killed for the crime of sleeping with a white woman he loved and that went over heads? Seems pretty obvious
He became Candyman when violence of extreme magnitude was perpetrated on him just as it had been on Daniel. Candyman isn’t a singular vengeful spirit, he is the accumulation of this kind of evil being done over and over. All of these men (and sometimes even boys) are him. He will continue to exist as long as the evil keeps happening.
Depends on what story you get and who is telling it. I think this movie was a play on how urban legends change depends on who is telling the story. For instance, a person will say "well this is the story I was told" and then another person will chime in and say "Well, this is the real story and how it went down." Or if you line up a group of people and tell the first person to mime an action and by the time it gets to the end of the line it's a completely different action. That's the same idea here with multiple "candymen".
This movie was massive let down. i was hyped for it, but it exchanged the majority of its horror elements for social commentary. it was too heavy handed with it.
This movie could’ve been something good. It was thumbs down 👎🏽 obv. Compared to previous. The only good one is the 92. Way too rushed. Also don’t need a high body count to be good as you can see. This one they tried so hard. Last one was more sad depressing romantic theme
Honestly I do like the idea of there being a generational series of Candymen that represent the continual plight of African Americans and the racially motivated targeting by a dominantly white group of corrupt individuals in positions of power throughout history. While I do think they could've instilled more or less the same message (and the original film kind of does in my opinion) by way of sticking more to the original Candyman Daniel Robitae, it was still a bold choice that put an interesting spin on the original while also doing its own thing, something that adaptations and sequels can often benefit from doing if handled carefully and with respect for what came before. I felt this film was pretty respectful towards the original and I think it deserves its merit. All of that being said, I still prefer the original 1992 movie, but this take is also worthy of praise. Also, total sidebar here, but I always really liked the way the name, "Daniel Robitae," rolls off the tongue. It's pretty neat and kind of badass!
There's moments of greatness in the film, but the script hemorrhages upon itself as the film progresses and shits itself with it's ham-fisted approach to racism, especially with that ending. When the cops shot Anthony, I had restrain myself from yelling "Oh fuck off" in the theater. And why did the cops get killed afterwards? The rule to summon Candyman is that YOU say Candyman FIVE TIMES in a mirror, not by being some rando saying it the fifth time. Also, Brianna's subplot about her dad went nowhere and just padded the plot. An easy fix would've been that he wasn't making a living off of his art and it drove him to suicide, not insanity. Adds to Brianna's character of being a art promoter, as her dad's inability to survive as an artist would've pushed her to ensure it doesn't happen to others instead of padding the film with his maybe-kinda-sorta ties to Candyman. While Candyman 2 is nothing special, it added to Daniel Robitaille's character and made him into a sympathetic force of nature by showing his love & death (yes, it's mentioned in the first film, but, again, the sequel shows it). By adding the "there's multiple Candymans" may add to the legend, but it severely diminishes Daniel's character/legend. And god, the film needed more than the two minutes of Tony Todd. He steals the film from a legitimately solid cast with just his enthralling yet powerful voice.
Okay here is the answer if why the pepole say candyman 5 times in the mirror... Because some people are stupid. Like there's people that eats frozen honey!! That shit gives you diherrea. But that is a very good sequel/reboot to review. good choice 👍👍👍👌👌👌
I loved the film. The reason why yall hate it is because it puts in your face the problems that are faced with today. But y'all rather turn a blind eye & act like racism doesn't exist.
I don’t think its the runtime that contributed to the major plot holes and plot lines that go nowhere but in fact a result of Jordan Peele’s influence, whose movies are surface level thought provocation spectacles with plot and story elements that don’t connect with the overall story or just plain go nowhere just for the sake of saying “oh look at that!” Or “what a twist!” It’s very obvious to see after rewatching his movies once. I’m a Big fan of the original Candyman and this ridiculous butchering of the lore is just plain ludicrous. I liked the simple tragic love story at the core of the original with the social commentary and horror that enhances the overall work instead of what we got with the 2021 version.
It’s ironic that one would believe that the story would have been “stronger” if it had gone further to prove Sherman’s innocence. That wasn’t included because it wasn’t important. What is important is that his GUILT was never proven. Proof of his innocence never should have been considered necessary to the story and I think that’s a point that this film aims to drive home.
Ahh yes whyte peepo bad. It's hard to take these movies seriously after a while when they can't have an original message. Every single Jordan Peele movie has done this before.
Love the scene where they talk about white ppl building the ghetto only to move it and create a new "ghetto"...I hope ppl realize you can actually vote on the city's mayor, local senate, state senate, city organizer (Barack Obama at one time). Can there be a black movie not always blaming "white ppl" that is pretty racist since u can no longer say "black ppl"
@@ShannMcG716 Funny you mention that Shannon cause I am a person of color I'm a brown dude. And I'm still tired of hearing about it in every form of media. Bringing up race this much doesn't make society less racist. It just makes people talk about race more which shouldn't be the goal.
So Helen saved Baby Anthony from Candyman just for him to become Candyman himself later on... 💀
Exactly 🤦♂️ I guess the legend of Candyman was too powerful
@@HorrorMineyeah.. 6/10 for me because I don’t think it was that scary unlike the original Candyman 😢
I agree. This movie wasn’t scary at all. It had really nice horror elements but not nearly enough.
@@HorrorMine the original is skin crawling but the kills in this film were quite creative :O I’ll wait to watch it again when it’s free haha
@@viviannguyen9187 yes the kills in this film were definitely a highlight!
I know people were bummed we only had a few seconds of Tony Todd's greatness, but if you aske me if he was seen throughout the movie, the ending wouldn't have been as special.
You got a remember in 1992 Helen openly tried to discredit him on a large scale so it makes sense that Daniel Robitaille will go after her
Yeah, I liked parts of it like how they handled the kills and the cinematography and soundtrack were top-notch. But I didn't like a few things such as how Brianna's backstory about her dad amounted to nothing.
I agree. This movie definitely would have benefited from a longer run time so they could explore more plot points they introduced
Yea they left almost 45 mins on the street.. Helen was supposed to be a main character in the film
I don’t like how they boo hooooes about white whites didn’t create the ghetto
Chicago
New York
Philly
Baltimore
Once we’re all paradises, and then the Blacks sold their farms in the south move to the big cities which caused something called white flight or white immigration, which made white people leave leaving Black people to fend for themselves which then created all the ghetto you see today this is a historical fact
A sequel to this would likely be about Bri though, giving time to lay all that out.
I wish they would have explained Brianna’s trauma more as well. Great review and thanks for pointing out the coat being there in the laundromat all along. I didn’t even catch that. 😳 Evil man, it’s like he had a plan all along for Anthony to be part of the Candyman legend..and that phone call to the police.. what a messed up guy, actually wishing for the cops to shoot his fellow brother... 😩
Thank you! Yeah he has this planned all along. I wonder why William worshiped Candyman so much. You would think he’d hate Candyman after he killed murdered his sister 🤷♂️
The way he was faking it when he called the cops too. That’s fked up man lol
@@jshadow6412 It was! but the voice was absolutely hilarious
@@jshadow6412 🤣🤣🤣
He talked mad white when he called the cops
The horror made myth of Daniel Robitaille that wreaked havoc around Cabrini-Green in the original movie was a tale of social injustice.
From the derelict row houses of Cabrini-Green, to horrific method of Daniel Robitaille's death to the real life Medicine Cabinet murder of Ruthie Mae McCoy (1987) the movie is based on and shined a light on that wasn't investigated when it occured because it occurred in a Black high crime area of Chicago similar to Cabrini-Green. All those points in the original movie are social commentary of it's time. This movie is just a continuation of themes. Personally, I like how codified all the previous iterations of Candyman into one.
The original Clive Barker book had none of the social commentary of the 90s movie. Barker's book was about a Blonde hair serial killer in Liverpool. It was a conscious choice from the 1992 director to place the movie in the Chicago high crime, overpopulated, unsupported row houses/high rises of Cabrini-Green and to focus on the then low coverage story of Ruthie Mae McCoy.
I think they didn't include Tony Todd because he's so old and the cgi to de-age his face will look weird lol. It feels like an odd retcon, but I can see how it works if Candyman is an amalgamation of beings. It just means that Candyman can personify different people to different people.
For example, to Helen Lyle and the people of Cabrini-Green in the 90s Candyman was Daniel Robitaille. To Domingo Coleman (crazy dude who owns the laundromat), Candyman is the mentally handicap man who was wrongfully murdered by the police and whom he felt responsible for killing. To Anthony, it was 70s Candyman because laundromat guy helped breathe him to life in Anthony"s head. To Teyonah Paris, it's Anthony McCoy who was wrongfully murdered in her arms. The addition of the Candy guy from the 70s works thematically with the current movie by the end.
That’s an interesting theory! This movie would’ve benefited from an extra 15-30 minute run time so it could explore a lot more of the plot points it introduced.
You must not have read barkers story.. social commentary every where
@@ultimatesunrise ^this
There was much much more to the story, as many of Barkers stories have.
Anthony : *Gets stung by a bee*
Also Anthony : Imma pretend that didn't happen
Right? I would’ve been screaming!
Just come out the cinema, watched this with my girlfriend and honestly was a bit sceptical after we had seen the conjuring together earlier this year, however it really surprised both of us ! Really good and thanks for the great detailed video explaining parts we had missed out too !
Thanks a lot for watching! I’m glad you enjoyed it!
I just found this channel a couple days ago and I’ve binged all your videos, you have done amazing work! One of the better horror movie channels I’ve seen keep up the amazing work!
Thank you very much! I really appreciate it!
HorrorMine, you’re going to get a million subs some day! This was awesome! ⭐️
Thank you so much!! I really appreciate it
@@HorrorMine your welcome! =)
^ He’s going to be one of the big movie critics one day for sure 👍🏽
Yeah
He better
Man. you did a great job. Been watching your vids all day... and you approached this with a fair amount of satisfaction and skepticism. Keep the Horror Mine going!
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it 😃
I’ll say it again, underrated channel. Keep up the good work!
Much appreciated! I’m glad you’re enjoying the content.
@@HorrorMine no problem man. I prefer the first movie over this one tbh. I don’t feel like this is something I’ll watch again bc of the social issues and identity politics being presented throughout the movie... would have preferred more horror scenes but 🤷♂️ Nevertheless, I enjoyed your video very much.
I agree! The first film was much better than this one. I feel that they should’ve had a lot more horror elements and explored the plot points they introduced because it all feels rushed and incomplete.
@@HorrorMine indeed, I thought it was rushed too 😩
Okay, I’m new to your channel but I’m quickly becoming a fan! Loved the review. I was in Auw when you mentioned the jacket at the cleaners😮
Thank you so much! I saw it on a second viewing because it’s so easy to miss since the twist is revealed at the end. I think it’s so cool they had that there!
also notice in the scene where the officers are slaughtered, briana only says candy man 4 times, and the detective says candy man for the fifth time. There for making him the target and not briana
He had to leave one alive to tell his story, or that version of Candyman would not exist. It's a reason why the "Helen Candyman" version does not exist because she killed the one person that could have kept her story going Trevor.
The reason he sees a reflection of Sherman in the elevator is because the Candyman absorbed Sherman into the hive. That fact is seemingly independent of his innocence.
One of my favorite channel that I don't miss to watch.. hoping to see more contents and can't wait see it grow to a million subs soon.. good luck..
Thank you so much for watching!
Underrated movie, it was great and the score was fire. The opening shot with the buildings shot from below was vertigo inducing 🔥
ugh i love your channel dude
Thank you so much! 😀
Another great vid, thank you so much!
Absolutely! Thank you for watching!
Keep going dude!! Such a great channel!!!!
Thank you so much!
So I think I may have an explanation for why the Sherman Candyman was dropping candy with razor blades in them. The first film had a lot to do with folklore, namely the ritual of summoning Candyman and Helen's theories for why the community of Cabrini Green perpetuated that urban legend. But I think this film is more about how the story creates the reality in a way, or I guess in how the story takes priority over reality. Sherman was going to be associated with candy and razor blades regardless of what the truth was, so his spirit appears with them. William wanted the Anthony version of Candyman to be a focused weapon against racial injustice rather than an vengeful spirit that targeted anyone that made the mistake to summon him, so Anthony saves Brianna from the police (who in turn were trying to ensure that their own story, of Anthony being a genuine threat and thus justify them murdering him, would become the official one). The story is what matters rather than the truth.
(God this is just making Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story get stuck in my head.)
Excellent video. I loved the film, and it had a lot to offer. However, when you are trying to accomplish a lot in the film, there are parts that will suffer. I feel that there must be a sequel to explain everything that was missed.
12:16 “oop…yes ma’am.” 😂😂
Great content! Love the videos
Thank you very much!
when i saw tony todd appear and with his deep sinister voice say "hello everyone" i had a shiver run down my spine.. 10/10 wicked film.
Just subscribed. Please do the “Hills have eyes” one day. thank you for such a great video I love this movie.
I definitely plan on doing that movie! Thank you for subscribing!
Awesome video man. Keep up the good work!
Thank you!
I belive that, even IF Sherman is innocent, he has become a part of this legend, this...amalgamation that is Candyman, whether he likes it or not
Great video 🍬
By this I watched all the videos on your channel......
But yeah it was unexpectedly very good......
Thank you very much! I’m truly honored that you took the time to watch every single one of my videos
@@HorrorMine The best content always attracts my friend.......!!
I will now just wait for more videos every week......!! Keep it up......!! And Thanks of the videos.......!!
I knew Jordan peele was involved just by the background music and the cast
Thanks for the review! The visual/acting was great! Felt rushed/ incomplete like you said but I liked it.
Thank you!
@@HorrorMine you’re welcome 😊
@@HorrorMine looking forward to your next video 🔥
the soundtrack sounds awesome
If i was stung by a bee, i wouldn't have such a chill reaction. I'd be crying for 5min and yelling that it hurts. 😭
You sound exactly like Think Story. Y'all are the same person right?
Haha no we are two different people, but people have mentioned that we sound very similar!
This soundtrack/score is insanely good.
Yes it is!
I was excited for this movie. It had a lot of potential, but comes no where near the level of the first one. It would have benefited from giving Tony Todd a bigger role imo.
Nice
Damn, great video.
Thank you!
I was pleasantly surprised that the movie referenced the events of the original and was more or less a direct sequel. The events involving Helen Lyle in 1992 becoming a part of the Candyman urban legend was nice and as the story is retold over the years some of the details change.
As for Sherman appearing when the Candyman was summoned might be because that is the version of the legend the current generation are familliar with and which William says at one point, Candyman means different things to different people.
I have to wonder what would happen if someone should say Helen five times in front of a mirror, would she appear as well if someone did? All in all a good movie but I feel it should have been longer to let some of the plot points breathe a bit more.
Most likely the way Trevor died, Candyman or the girl he was having an affair with will take the blame, so there is no way for the "Helen" legend to go beyond Trevor's death, since he was the only way for the story to continue. Look at the end of the new one, Candyman left Brianna alive to "spread the tale". Had Helen appeared and killed the girl and left Trevor alive her story of calling Helen would put her legend in motion.
Brianna does not say ‘candyman’ 5 times. She says it FOUR times in the cop car. The cop in the front seat says it the fifth time, summoning Candyman himself. That’s what gets her to fully smile
off topic but colman domingo sounds kinda like a young morgan freeman, just that sultry smooth base tone with a slight southern lull. perfect for exposition/monologues
The way he was grunting when sawing off Anthony's arm, it sounded like he was Candyman
Can you make the alpines aswell?
Like previous posts..Vanessa Williams hasn't aged in 30 years. Still so pretty.
I watched the original candyman last night a just realized when he took Anthony he was feeding him “honey”. Maybe that’s why that sting took over his body
The dry cleaner guy sounds like Morgan Freeman
Fun fact, did you know that the original actor Candyman Tony Todd is voiced by none other then venom from Marvel Spider-Man two
Him tryna to remove his fingernail was crazyyyy
Please cover velvet buzzsaw. Really strange movie
vic shy is the coolest names I heard
Haha thanks a lot!
I think he told him the guy was innocent so he'd keep digging. If he had stopped, he would've given up his "destiny". It wasn't so much that he was innocent but that he was killed by the police out of racism and denied his right to be tried by a jury of his peers. The police decided to be judge, jury & executioner and that's not how it should be.
A good sequel to the original. I think the film's metaphor of inner city poverty and social inequality being horrific to endure was well done. I really wish they could have made a way for Helen's spirit to have warned everyone what was happening. Her death seems rather futile in retrospect.
🔥🔥🔥🔥
Happy to see Tony Todd
Not even OJ could kill Candy man
God damn the mom look younger than the son, aged like a vampire
This is a part of the movies that the bad guys win
I thought the white child dad put the razor in candy??!!
Reminds of the that Donald Glovers joke “white people you get Spider-Man and Black people you have Shaft.”
You’re right. Why do these people keep saying his name 5 times?... Imagine if this was a TikTok challenge 😳😳 crazy
That would be insane 🤦♂️so many people would do it too
@@HorrorMine exactly 💯
There’s no cure for stupidity 😅
Exactly but unfortunately sometimes human nature gets the best of us and we just get curious
I think it was poking fun at that fact in the bathroom murder scene with the young girl's.
I honestly loved this movie
Me too
Aww man hell yea!!
Thanks for tuning in my friend!
@@HorrorMine always! I’m working on a video rn
Cool man! Looking forward to it! Also that collab is going to be 🔥
@@HorrorMine yes it will I’m excited
It’s Frank from Lucifer 😃😃😃
my biggest question after watching this movie was which candyman shows up when his name is said? daniel showing up for anthony makes way more sense than sherman. also does that mean that a random candyman is chosen to kill the victims once the name is said or if given context like william talking about sherman brings the specific candyman out? it's so vague
Exactly. That part made absolutely no sense. If Sherman died in 1977 it only makes sense if he was the one terrorizing Cabrini-green in the original Candyman. If Daniel Robitaille showed up specifically for Helen, then he should’ve showed up specifically for Anthony. I really wish they would’ve stuck to 1 or the other to make the narrative make more sense.
@@HorrorMine having different Candymen makes it way too confusing lol which Candyman do people even refer to that universe? do the Candymen in the hive draw straws or do "nose-goes" to see who goes out lmao
LOL right! They’re probably like:
Candyman: Isn’t it Sherman’s turn?
Candyman: No, Sherman is on vacation.
Candyman: Damnit!!
@@HorrorMine 🤣🤣
@@wonderthigh I agree... it’s very confusing as to which Candyman shows up 😩
This movie is beautifully made but it left me feeling empty. We're introduced to so many new this and little of them is explained. Brianna ad Anthony's relationship is so poorly explored that I struggle to feel for them at the end. I'll definitely give it a watch again and see if my perspective changes because I found it a bit meh
Make no mistake this movie was garbage..editing and story telling made me feel like I got up to pee 10 times and missed something.. but never got up once lol
I feel like I just watch the whole movie 👍
Thank you!
this movie is good but it shouldve came out in 2020
Candyverse
Ahem CANDY MAN
YOU HAVE SCARED THELVING CRAP OF ME
Daniel Robita is the orginal Candyman they should of stuck with that. This didn't make any sense to me.
I’m sorry but I don’t get it … why is William sucking on razorblade lollipops? 😅
& if your asking me … I think Sherman fields put the razor blades in the candys 🤔
The cinematography always suffers when the focus becomes too social centric. Having a background of racial injustice is very powerful but that IMO should've been like side running shadow and not the main focus
👍🍻
Cheers!
I never knew it was racial motivated 🤣
Well Brianna's definitely going to jail now but should make for a good starting point if they decide to do a sequel perhaps someone comes and interviews her thus starting the cycle all over again.
Trying to make candyman an anti hero is stupid. In the first movie he said “some will say i have shed innocent blood but what is the purpose of blood if not for shedding?” Does that sound like an anti hero to you?
Makes no sense why didn’t Helen get that weirdo guy from 1970s?? Why did she get the original. No one else got that weird Candyman with the razor candy not the babysitter or the psych or anyone else in any of the Candyman movies. Also where would the bees fit in with that weird candy man from the 70s
This was a good movie but it’s not as good or scary as the original 😞
I totally agree! Good film but the original was better in almost every aspect.
@@HorrorMine they should have shown more of the original Candyman, Tony Todd.
@@ladyt9662 Exactly! He is way too iconic to have had that little screen time
This one is much better voice
Thanks! I listened to the feedback and tried my best to fix it :)
The original Candyman was one of my favorite horror movies growing up so I was pretty hyped about this one. Unfortunately, this was quite a disappointment due to the heavy handed social commentary. I understand while some people loved it, I just wanted to enjoy a good horror movie w/o all the political stuffs.
I agree!
The original Candyman was subtle about the racial issues... this one... not so much 😅 But I expected it since Peele is anything but subtle 🤣
@@floraxanhh9093 that’s why so many people didn’t like it lol
@@floraxanhh9093 precisely. What people are calling heavy handed, I call the way black people (especially black women) tell black stories. We pull no punches when it comes to cautionary tales because doing so isn’t conducive to survival. We’ve also never had the luxury of film going out of its way to make us comfortable so we don’t go into movies with that expectation. Finally, it seems that being this straightforward is necessary because many reviews and comments I’ve seen indicate that the subtext of the original film went way over people’s heads.
@@starkman78 what? A former slave was tortured and killed for the crime of sleeping with a white woman he loved and that went over heads? Seems pretty obvious
Needs more Tony Todd. Sweet gut when I met when I met him. The soundtrack from the first Candyman was way better.
So Candyman is a good guy ?
Idk
I wish they did a version based more closely on the Clive Barker novella, which I by the way recommend everyone to read. It’s scary af.
Someone explain why and how Sherman was also the candyman. Was he being manipulated by Daniel
He became Candyman when violence of extreme magnitude was perpetrated on him just as it had been on Daniel. Candyman isn’t a singular vengeful spirit, he is the accumulation of this kind of evil being done over and over. All of these men (and sometimes even boys) are him. He will continue to exist as long as the evil keeps happening.
Depends on what story you get and who is telling it. I think this movie was a play on how urban legends change depends on who is telling the story. For instance, a person will say "well this is the story I was told" and then another person will chime in and say "Well, this is the real story and how it went down." Or if you line up a group of people and tell the first person to mime an action and by the time it gets to the end of the line it's a completely different action. That's the same idea here with multiple "candymen".
This movie was massive let down. i was hyped for it, but it exchanged the majority of its horror elements for social commentary. it was too heavy handed with it.
Candy Man. The hero we need.
This movie could’ve been something good. It was thumbs down 👎🏽 obv. Compared to previous. The only good one is the 92. Way too rushed. Also don’t need a high body count to be good as you can see. This one they tried so hard. Last one was more sad depressing romantic theme
Ooooooo
😀
Honestly I do like the idea of there being a generational series of Candymen that represent the continual plight of African Americans and the racially motivated targeting by a dominantly white group of corrupt individuals in positions of power throughout history.
While I do think they could've instilled more or less the same message (and the original film kind of does in my opinion) by way of sticking more to the original Candyman Daniel Robitae, it was still a bold choice that put an interesting spin on the original while also doing its own thing, something that adaptations and sequels can often benefit from doing if handled carefully and with respect for what came before.
I felt this film was pretty respectful towards the original and I think it deserves its merit. All of that being said, I still prefer the original 1992 movie, but this take is also worthy of praise. Also, total sidebar here, but I always really liked the way the name, "Daniel Robitae," rolls off the tongue. It's pretty neat and kind of badass!
There's moments of greatness in the film, but the script hemorrhages upon itself as the film progresses and shits itself with it's ham-fisted approach to racism, especially with that ending. When the cops shot Anthony, I had restrain myself from yelling "Oh fuck off" in the theater. And why did the cops get killed afterwards? The rule to summon Candyman is that YOU say Candyman FIVE TIMES in a mirror, not by being some rando saying it the fifth time. Also, Brianna's subplot about her dad went nowhere and just padded the plot. An easy fix would've been that he wasn't making a living off of his art and it drove him to suicide, not insanity. Adds to Brianna's character of being a art promoter, as her dad's inability to survive as an artist would've pushed her to ensure it doesn't happen to others instead of padding the film with his maybe-kinda-sorta ties to Candyman.
While Candyman 2 is nothing special, it added to Daniel Robitaille's character and made him into a sympathetic force of nature by showing his love & death (yes, it's mentioned in the first film, but, again, the sequel shows it). By adding the "there's multiple Candymans" may add to the legend, but it severely diminishes Daniel's character/legend. And god, the film needed more than the two minutes of Tony Todd. He steals the film from a legitimately solid cast with just his enthralling yet powerful voice.
Agree completely.
Okay here is the answer if why the pepole say candyman 5 times in the mirror... Because some people are stupid. Like there's people that eats frozen honey!! That shit gives you diherrea.
But that is a very good sequel/reboot to review. good choice 👍👍👍👌👌👌
Indeed. Some people are simply too stupid. They think everything is a joke/ funny 🤦♀️
Haha I never knew that about frozen honey! 😂
People love what’s trending, no matter how dumb or dangerous it may be 🤷♂️
The title should be "runeing classics with race".
I mean candy man had race in it you’re gonna say that about the last three too?
The original had race politics, did you not hear Helen's line before she was confronted by the real Candyman about race?
I loved the film. The reason why yall hate it is because it puts in your face the problems that are faced with today. But y'all rather turn a blind eye & act like racism doesn't exist.
That part. It’s funny because nobody is addressing what the movie is actually about lol
Tony Todd is the man..... The Candyman
I don’t think its the runtime that contributed to the major plot holes and plot lines that go nowhere but in fact a result of Jordan Peele’s influence, whose movies are surface level thought provocation spectacles with plot and story elements that don’t connect with the overall story or just plain go nowhere just for the sake of saying “oh look at that!” Or “what a twist!” It’s very obvious to see after rewatching his movies once.
I’m a Big fan of the original Candyman and this ridiculous butchering of the lore is just plain ludicrous. I liked the simple tragic love story at the core of the original with the social commentary and horror that enhances the overall work instead of what we got with the 2021 version.
It’s ironic that one would believe that the story would have been “stronger” if it had gone further to prove Sherman’s innocence. That wasn’t included because it wasn’t important. What is important is that his GUILT was never proven. Proof of his innocence never should have been considered necessary to the story and I think that’s a point that this film aims to drive home.
Ahh yes whyte peepo bad. It's hard to take these movies seriously after a while when they can't have an original message. Every single Jordan Peele movie has done this before.
Man, the racists are reeeeally outing themselves in these comments.
Love the scene where they talk about white ppl building the ghetto only to move it and create a new "ghetto"...I hope ppl realize you can actually vote on the city's mayor, local senate, state senate, city organizer (Barack Obama at one time). Can there be a black movie not always blaming "white ppl" that is pretty racist since u can no longer say "black ppl"
That's kinda Jordan Peele's thing it's basically the focal point of every one of his movies. It really does get old.
@@Lunk42If you think hearing about racism gets old; imagine being a POC & living with it every day.
@@ShannMcG716 Funny you mention that Shannon cause I am a person of color I'm a brown dude. And I'm still tired of hearing about it in every form of media. Bringing up race this much doesn't make society less racist. It just makes people talk about race more which shouldn't be the goal.
@@Lunk42 I'm Indian and brown, trans and voted for Trump. Called racist all the time by the left.