Candyman (4)
 

Tony Todd is supposed to be in it, so I'm not quite sure what to make of this.

Also, I didn't even realize... that's Vanessa Williams (no, not THAT Vanessa Williams) reprising her role from the original Candyman movie. That settles it -- full-on sequel!

The sequels to Candyman were lame as hell and the only good one was the first one as i'm glad it ignores those and continues 28 years after the first

Debating about seeing this (it's out now). I just really worry it's going to be "You thought you were seeing a horror movie? Hahaha! Joke's on you, this is actually another statement about racism!" or something.

It's apparently supposed to be dealing a lot with gentrification, whatever that is. First time hearing that word but it sounds more like more wokeness to me.

The original Candyman played on race. Would be nothing new for these films to be honest.

True. I just suspect it might be suddenly 500% more heavy handed in that.

I'd never heard of the others. in the series.. but seems like the mainstream press is interested in the film because it has a minority director and hit number #1.
https://deadline.com/2021/08/candyma...er-1234824013/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-...an-box-office/

Looking at the box office numbers from this past weekend, it really does take me back to the pre-inflated hauls of movies from the mid-to-late 1990s, when $100 million domestic was considered a "blockbuster."
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/date/2...?ref_=bo_hm_rd

I read a lot of spoilers since depending on what happens in it, I may not bother seeing it.

.

Yeah, I read a little about it. And while those themes were still in-play in the earlier movies, this one apparently beats the viewer over the head with the "White People Bad" sledgehammer. Like SUPER hard. Especially near the end.

Saw it. It's pretty good if you kind of squint at certain moments. It's brutal when it wants to be, in a good way. Tons of nods to the first movie and Tony Todd is in there. In new stuff, in surprising ways. Also... I felt the same sort of abrupt ending that Quiet Place 2 had. WHAM! The end! Wait... can we get like an epilogue or something?

But yes... it is agenda-driven, way more than the first one. Literally EVERY white character in the movie is evil or racist, and all the cops. Every single one. The only white character in the whole movie that isn't a bad guy is a barely there gay dude.

Also if you wait to the end of the credits, you won't find a Marvel-style after the credits scene setting up Candyman 5. What you will find is a literal PSA with a URL where you can go to get more information about white on black violence. Pretty telling.

LMAO They can't even make horror movies without cramming a 'woke' message in there anymore. Now they even gotta add extra PSAs just in case all the sledgehammering STILL didn't get through the viewer's thick skull. Sheesh.

Eventually we need like a 'white actor' walk out where they won't come back til they stop with this nonstop 'white people bad' stuff.

Lol you're complaing about this but again, the original Candyman played on race. The literal book was about race. I can understand other movies being woke for the sake of being woke but this film isnt one of them.

No, not the same. There was a strong racial component to Candyman 1 but it wasn't preaching and it wasn't even exactly demonizing anyone in particular. More it was lamenting a cultural shift and even a divide. There were plenty of white characters in Candyman 1 that weren't bad guys, or racists.

It'd be like seeing a "Chucky 8" where everyone is a voodoo priest and all they do is sacrifice chickens in the movie nonstop for 90 minutes, people complaining about it, and then someone telling them "Hahah... stupid on you idiots, there was voodoo practiced IN the first movie!!! Did you forget? Hahahaha!!"

Sidenote: after having seen the movie, I didn't come out of it with any really compelling reason why they didn't just use Tony Todd throughout the whole movie as Candyman, rather than create this other guy who was killed in the 70s (it even muddies things a bit... like, why didn't this cop-killed guy from the 70s ever show up when people were summoning Candyman in Candyman 1-3?). It even would have saved time. The only reason I can come up with is because they really, really wanted to show some cops killing an innocent black guy, they felt like that was important and that's about it.

The original candyman is so good, it feels like a modern horror movie and I love it. I also really like the theme. Never saw the sequels, does Candyman 4 remove 2 & 3 or are they still canon? I think it's bleeping annoying when a sequel to a previous movie is named the same as the original, if it isn't a reboot just give it a title.



Is the saga worth watching or should I just stick to the original.

Well, 2 definitely stands. Candyman wasn't given a name until 2 (and they mention it in this) and the details of his origins in 2 seem like the same ones shown in the new movie. 3 still works but it doesn't really matter.

Gentrification is a very complicated thing.

In short, its about impoverished people being made homeless. Which makes it an important thing to pay attention to.

Long story...its about businesses and developers buying locations in 'poor' areas on the cheap, then investing in the area which increases rent/cost of living appropriately. The higher rent in the area means that the poor people who already lived there probably wont be able to keep up with the increase...meaning they have to leave. Even when they do, less housing in their price range means more demand on those places which increases those rents as well.