I love the first half of the film...*spoilers* - Candyman (1992) Discussion

[–] Dan_Garten 9 years ago

Yeah. Strangely, it has always kind of lost me during the third act. At the point where she gets locked up in the mental institution. The very end is pretty memorable, though.

reply

[–] zimbabwebob 9 years ago

I agree, I am rewatching it. I think it was really good until she meets candyman in the parking garage and blacks out before waking up with the dead dog, it sort of falls apart at that point.

reply

[–] Verdugo85 9 years ago

Helen concluding that the Candyman is not real, that its just a bad guy using the moniker to scare and harm people is the turning point of the film.

She destroyed the people's belief in Candyman and then she pays the price when she meets him.

reply

[–] T-eschberger 9 years ago

Yawn. All of this nonsense about "falling apart" and nobody actually says why.

reply

[–] fiatlux-1 9 years ago

*Yawn* I posted clearly in my original post why it 'fell apart'.

The body count was too high, the gore too intense.
Not to mention the film lost all its subtle menace we'd seen building from the start.
It turned into a bad version of a 'Hellraiser' film.

I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.

reply

[–] Verdugo85 9 years ago

But Candyman only killed two people or three if you count the dog, this isnt a slasher film.

Not to mention the film lost all its subtle menace we'd seen building from the start.

Like which part?

It turned into a bad version of a 'Hellraiser' film.

This movie wasnt suppose to be like 'Hellraiser'.

reply

[–] fiatlux-1 9 years ago

Which part?! When Helen *wakes up* in the apartment, soaked in blood &with Anne Marie shrieking her head off.
Like others here have agreed, it was an excellent film until it lost direction here.

I never said it was supposed to be like 'Hellraiser'. It was a comparison, a description.
I was saying the film turned into a "BAD version of this film", meaning it was similar when it wasn't supposed to be.
It became a bloody gory mess.

I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.

reply

[–] Verdugo85 9 years ago

Which part?! When Helen *wakes up* in the apartment, soaked in blood &with Anne Marie shrieking her head off.
Like others here have agreed, it was an excellent film until it lost direction here.

But explain whats wrong with that?

reply

[–] simonwilliams555 8 years ago

Personally i completely disagree , that section of the film is really interesting, it turns the whole movie on it's head
and you're left feeling completely disorientated and confused , unsure as to wether Helen is completely insane or not (this is open for interpretation)

i think it was a very well written third act and not something rushed at all and in no way lost direction.
i suppose thats the thing with films/art we'll all have different opinions.

reply

[–] alex-simmons-843-329258 8 years ago

it's actually very terribly written because we as an audience know that the candyman is not just the main character going crazy. if you felt disoriented or confused, it's because you were watching crap. The third act is slow as hell when you know she's just gonna kill more people while she's under the candyman's spell

reply

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

The Candyman is not "going crazy" he is a ghost that is reengaging Helen's soul as she is his lover reincarnated.
And we don't know she's going to kill more people, she did not kill anyone, it's a shame you didn't understand this great writing from Barker.. I bet you hated Hellraiser too?

reply

[–] alex-simmons-843-329258 8 years ago

learn how to read you dumbass. You've added nothing and your post shows you didn't even clearly understand what I said, which wasn't complicated in the slightest.

reply

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

Hahahaha Thats your comeback? Wow another moron crybaby, you've managed to not backup anything but sit there and cry, you tell me what you think I should know without saying it, because you don't know s**t. Unless you bring up points or relevant facts about this movie shut the *beep* up idiot.

reply

[–] HellboundHero 8 years ago

It's centered around an urban legend involving a ghost with a hook who guts people. Saying there shouldn't have been any death or gore is like saying it should have been totally un-supernatural and the real Candyman never should have appeared.

reply

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

Well you didn't understand the story; Candyman was a freed slave tortured by men, when they discovered he had an affair with Helen, Helen in the movie was her soul reincarnated, his whole goal was to reclaim her soul, albeit in an evil way.. I suppose being a woman you could not handle the gore, but the whole theme is a murder/love story.. Maybe stick to romantic mysteries, versus mature horror movies?

reply

[–] MinnieStronieGoodsoup 8 years ago

"I suppose being a woman you could not handle the gore"

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hang on there, I'm a woman and when I read the first post I was going to reply that there's no such thing as gore that's too graphic! :-D

****** So says Mr. Stewart. ******

reply

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

The whole movie was great, great acting, and the third act was brilliant, if anything I felt the first act dragged on a bit too slow, but I believe that was the point to throw you off for the main course.

reply

[–] FirstBlood1982 8 years ago

This is a very strange film to criticize for a "high body count" as he barely kills anyone in it.

You see the aftermath of one Candyman murder (Helen's friend) and one onscreen (the psychiatrist).

You also see Helen kill her husband in the final scene, and there's a shot of decapitated dog.

The two deaths in the beginning were totally offscreen and we see nothing of them but some blood dripping through the floor.

This is very far off from being a "high body count" film.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

So basically you enjoyed this horror movie until it became a horror movie. OK.

reply

[–] bexlyspeed (84) 4 years ago

It falls apart because the rules change, candyman just starts showing up, somehow he’s taking care of the baby and keeping it alive for weeks?!?
And then it goes from I’m terrorizing you because you doubted me, to Helen is the reincarnation of his lost love?!?

I do like the film but there are a lot of holes

reply

[–] legnadibrom (5697) 3 years ago

you may have missed the scene where Candyman feeds the child with baby formula from the tip of his finger

reply

[–] bexlyspeed (84) 3 years ago

Is he changing his diapers too with a bloody hook hand!?!?

reply