Candyman (2021) Non-Spoiler Film Review: Sweet Experience With A Very Bitter Aftertaste...

 

Anthony McCoy doesn't recall the traumatic experience he encountered as a baby when a spirt named "Candyman" abducted him and Helen Lyle saved him while sacrificing herself. As an adult, Anthony is a struggling artist in a relationship with an art gallery director. When he rediscovers the Candyman legend from the tragic story of Sherman Fields, Anthony becomes obsessed with the legend to the point of making art around it. His newfound success and fascination however becomes a problem as unexplainable murders occur and a normal bee sting manifests into something else. While it does continue from the original classic, the new film feels a lot like a reboot then a conventional sequel as it completely reinvents themes and aspects of the original to both success and failure. When the film is doing its own thing and acts as a supernatural slasher mystery, it really works. But, the third act and ending really drops the ball in regards to the lack of subtlety of the social commentary and the questionable connections to the original. I won't spoil what happens in the end, but the ending itself is far too abrupt and contrived that it almost derails the quality of the rest of the movie. The tone is also a step-back from the original. Yes, the film does take itself seriously for the most part, but Jordan Peele added way too much comic relief and horror cliches to make the movie fun for the broader audience and the jokes and tropes are just not good at all when compared to the uniqueness and class that was the original.

Yahya Abdull-Mateen II as the adult Anthony shows just how great of an actor he is thanks to the range and charisma he gives to the role. The viewer is not sure whether to fully sympathize or hate Anthony as a character depending on the circumstances, but Yahya really plays his part as a pawn and victim really well. Teyonah Parris as Brianna Cartwright is also really good as Anthony's girlfriend who is unaware of the influence and nature of the Candyman myth. While Parris knocks it out of the park, I do think that she takes away too much screen-time from Anthony, especially given the importance of his character and his connection to Candyman. The side cast is similar to that of the original in regards to performances, but their roles are a completely other question. Colman Domingo does a fine job as William Burke, a local resident who acts as a Candyman historian to Anthony and the viewer. While Domingo is a good actor, I do think that the character of Burke gets confusing by the end in regards to his motifs and role in the film. Nathan Stewart-Jarrett as Troy, Brianna's gay brother, is literally there to be the typical comic-relief that's found in all of Peele's horror films. While I don't mind the previous comic reliefs in "Get Out" and "Us", Troy is by far the weakest due to his jokes mostly falling flat and the fact that he doesn't do anything in the movie. Vanessa Williams returns as Anne-Marie, Anthony's mother, shows how great of an actress she is, but she's barely in the movie. Lastly, there's Tony Todd as the titular Candyman, or the lack thereof. While I won't go too much into detail, Todd doesn't show up until the very end and, in his place, Micheal Hargrove acts as the titular spirit appearing as Sherman Fields, an innocent victim of police brutality that becomes another name in the Candyman legend. While Hargrove does an excellent job in playing the character physically as well as his involvement being cleverly implemented in the story, Candyman acts more like a typical silent killer rather than the charismatic and seductive nature Todd gave in the original. I understand that Todd is too old to play the character and that they wrote the film to write around his age, but it still doesn't make sense why they just didn't have Todd voice some dialogue in post? Overall, the actors are all doing a great job in their respective roles, but the only characters that are well-balanced and used are that of Anthony and Sherman. The rest either take too much screen-time or not enough of it.

While Peele's name is plastered all over the marketing, it's Nia DaCosta that directed the film and she manages to knock it out of the park with this one. While Bernard Rose did a fantastic job in making a grounded and etherial film, DaCosta goes one step beyond in making this film look like the art that could be showcased in Brianna's gallery. Unlike the dirty, grimy and gothic depiction of Chicago presented in the original, Chicago comes across as a rather beautiful city in regards to how presentable it looks and the slick modern production. There are still some gothic and vivid sequences, but it's all about the composition now and the atmosphere is now pure dread and mystery compared to the dream-like feel that was found in the original. The cinematography by John Guleserian is pure eye-candy. From the opening credits to the long tracking and stationary shots, Guleserian outshines Anthony Richmond's work by a mile and I will be dumbfounded if his work isn't nominated for an Oscar. The score by Robert A.A. Lowe is on par with Phillip Glass's work from the original as he has a more eerie and tense-fuelled aura than the more gothic and theatre-esque music and choir of Glass. The use of paper puppetry to show the backstory of Candyman is visually unique and masterful in its simplicity. The make-up actually improves surprisingly from the original. While the bees are all CGI now, the gore and practical effects are more disturbing and effective from Anthony's bee sting to the various deaths in the film. Speaking of the kills, this film does double the body count and offer some gnarly deaths scenes with some outstanding directing from DaCosta to make each kill feel visually pleasing and unique from the other. DaCosta's directing is spectacular to say the least and if the rest of the film was just as strong, it would have been just as good or even better than the original.

"Candyman" is an underwhelming sequel to one of the best horror films from the 1990's. From the large departures of the original, the terrible ending that beats you to death with obvious social commentary and insulting payoffs, a tone that falls victim to pathetic jokes and horror cliches that the original never offered, the side cast being overused or underused depending on the character, and the titular character himself loses a bit of his identity by being far more silent than before. While there are problems to be found, this is by no means a bad movie. The story itself does have a great sense of mystery and dread, Anthony is an engaging protagonist in how moral-grey he is and whether or not we should feel bad for him, Hargrove manages to fill the shoes of the titular character very well for the most part, the cinematography by Guleserian is phenominal, the music by Lowe is one of the best horror scores in recent years, the make-up and kills are drastically improved on in a satisfying matter and in a technical view, and DaCosta's directing is fantastic at making this film feel like moving art and making Chicago look oddly beautiful in its appearance. It's such a shame, because all of the pieces were right there to make a film that's not only on par, but better than the original. As is, it's a well-made film that lacks the subtle and sophistication that the original possessed in its identity and legacy.

Verdict: 6.5/10. Decent film overall with excellent filmmaking, but the screenplay needed more time to develop and reincorporate as a far better and faithful follow-up to the original rather than pandering to modern audiences and mindsets. Still recommend, but be warned of some cringe-worthy content by the end.