TeenzTen An action-packed slog

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

TheBlueHairedLawyer Candyman is legendary nowadays, a nineties horror film that not only featured a terrifying killer, but also brought attention to life in the Projects, a very real ordeal outside the silver screen.What's wrong with its sequel? Well, I will give it some credit; it has the same classic look and style of the first film, decent actors and even features some of the originals viewers have come to love. However, Candyman 2 is stripped of nearly everything that made the first one memorable.Professor Purcell, formerly a pretentious blowhard who belittles everyone in sight, is now a depressed wreck who gives people cheap thrills for a living and visits the bar frequently. I ended up feeling sorry for the guy, honestly. Why? I wanted to punch him in the face while watching the first film! He was very effective, one of those characters you love to hate, and in the sequel, he's just a victim to be knocked off right away. Where's Helen Lyle, the woman who went for the truth until it took away her soul? Where's Chicago's infamous Cabrini-Green, the eerie housing project with a dark history? Why did they shift the story away from a perfectly good setting, only to drop it in New Orleans for no apparent reason? The first Candyman was daring, innovative for its time, a cult classic and an almost poetic slasher film. The sequel is mostly jump scares, excessive gore, unmemorable characters and a plot that doesn't entirely make sense.Candyman 2 isn't terrible, it's just hollow, dull.

ersinkdotcom Although its roots lie in the legend of Bloody Mary, the "Candyman" franchise built a mythos all its own in the span of three movies. Actor Tony Todd would argue that the entire series revolves around a tragic story of unrequited love and the vengeance rained down upon those who dare disturb the tortured soul of the title character. I would absolutely agree with him, especially after "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" expands on the backstory of our antagonist.Candyman moves on to New Orleans and starts his horrific murders once more. This time, his intended victim is a school teacher. Her father was killed by Candyman, and brother wrongly accused of the murders.Instead of the usual horror film retread we get when it comes to sequels, "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" actually expands on the history of the character by visually telling his tale on screen. It pounds home the tragedy surrounding Candyman and brings more of a sense of humanity to the "villain" of the story. Tony Todd brings Candyman to life and makes you both feel sorry for and fear his character. He brings an air of refinement to what could have been just another slasher icon. Veronica Cartwright plays a widowed southern belle who has a secret of her own to keep. Even in 1995, she was already a veteran of the horror genre because of roles in "Alien," "The Birds," "The Witches of Eastwick," "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," and more.I'm fascinated by writer and atheist Clive Barker's attraction to Christian religion and Catholic imagery as showcased once again in "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh." This time it's exemplified through the events of Mardis Gras in New Orleans and the religious meanings behind the celebration. I also found it interesting that one of the main focuses of the lynch mob was a middle-aged lady carrying her Bible and encouraging the torture of Candyman. "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" is rated R for violence and gore, and for some sexuality and language. There's the expected amount of blood and on screen butchering you would expect from a horror movie. A couple are shown having sex in public on two occasions. They're nude and shown from the side, but no actual privates are shown. "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" rises above what could have been just another pedestrian follow-up to a slasher flick. Instead of simply lining up new faceless victims for the killer to take out with his hook hand for no reason, our dreadful anti-hero is given substance and motivation for his actions. An air of mystery and a dark family secret add another level of elegance to the movie.

callanvass Candyman sets his sight on New Orleans and goes after a school teacher (Kelly Rowan) It turns out that Annie's father was murdered by The Candyman, but nobody believed it. This sequel P*************ed me off! I love the original and consider it to be one of the scariest horror movies of all time. They took a giant dump all over Candyman's legacy just to make more money. There is some OK suspense at times, but I didn't give a damn about any of it. New direction was needed and once again, they didn't have the balls to go in a creative direction. There were two things they could have done with this sequel. They could have done a complete prequel, showing Candyman's origins. We get snippets of it in this movie and the first, but a full prequel could have been really interesting. They show Candyman's death as a human in flashbacks and it had no effect on me. It was emotionless and boring. To be even more audacious, Helen could have taken over Candyman's role and supplanted Tony Todd, leaving Candyman as a side character. The first movie was in a similar place as Halloween IV. They took the safe route in Halloween V, and they did the same with this movie. I wanted to see Virginia Madsen return and unleash hell. Her and Candyman could even reluctantly team up! They obviously saw dollar signs and gave us this predictable BS. The New Orleans setting had major potential and it's not fulfilled. Even the deaths are boring. If you like very bloody stabbings with a hook, this movie's for you. I get so tired of the "incompetent cops" storyline and it's become one of the most annoying horror clichés. The evidence is clearly there that something unusual is happening!!! The acting is OK. Tony Todd is fine, but he's on-screen way too much. He was so effective in the first, because his screen time is limited. He was a creepy person, but here he's on way too much. He also had way too much dialog. It isn't Tony's fault though. Kelly Rowan gives an inconsistent performance to say the least. Sometimes she's on, others she's off. She wasn't convincing enough for my liking. Bill Nunn looks like he doesn't wanna be there. He phones it in and collects that check. There is a clever tease in the ending, but the ending was horrible for the most part. When Tony Todd says he dislikes the sequels, you know there is something wrong. This is a boring sequel that should have never been made. I have yet to see Candyman III, but I'm dreading it. This one had so much potential, but it's nothing more than mediocre. 4/10

disdressed12 i liked this follow up to the original Candyman movie.i found it entertaining and the acting is pretty good.i also liked that there was a back story that fleshed out the title character and gave him some humanity.i didn't find the movie scary and there wasn't a lot of gore,so gore hounds will be disappointed.the story itself doesn't have a lot of depth to it,other than the back story.still the movie goes along at a good clip,and it's very stylish,more so than the first one was.was it as good as the original?i think so.i don't think it was better,but it was as good.in terms of entertainment,i thought it was a good movie.if you expect to be scared,you might be disappointed here.otherwise,you might like it.for me,Candyman 2:Farewell to the Flesh is an 8/10