Night 29 of 31 Nights of Horror

Clive Barker neither wrote, nor directed this film, but it is based on one of his short stories from the Books of Blood collection (Volume 5, “The Forbidden” if you want to read it yourself). Bernard Rose is both writer and director, and the movie stars Tony Todd and Virginia Madsen.

So the story starts out amazing. It is moody, atmospheric, lots of benign jump scares to get your heart going. They set up the characters and their relationships, It’s a cool premise, with two PhD candidates working on their theses about urban legends, when they hear the tale of “Candyman” and begin investigating it. Not believing it to be real, they naturally perform the ritual to summon him. Well, Virgina Madsen’s Helen does. Her colleague Bernadette (played by Kasi Lemmons) only says his name four of the required five times, while standing in front of the mirror and of course, nothing happens… or does it.

*SPOILER ZONE*

So this for me is where the movie takes a turn and wastes potential for a really amazing story. Helen is later walking through a parking garage and hears a voice calling her name. She turns around and sees the silhouette of someone who looks like Candyman, then she passes out. When she wakes up, she’s in a bathroom that’s not hers, she’s covered in blood and there’s a woman screaming on the other side of the door. So of course, Helen gets arrested for murdering a dog and child abduction (because the baby from the apartment is missing). This sets up a fantastic premise, they could have made this a much better horror mystery. Was Helen framed by the gang member she identified to the police earlier? Did the spirit of Candyman do it? Was it really Helen, who did it while she had blacked out? Was she possessed? That’s a great story, but it doesn’t last long.

Bernadette is killed in Helen’s apartment and Helen is taken to a psychiatric hospital. So at this point, the criminal framing her theory is out the window, but it might still be Helen who’s the real killer. Nope, we are quickly disabused of that notion when her psychiatrist is killed, while she’s strapped to a chair in front of him. It’s impossible for her to have done the deed. So they took what could have been a fantastically told mystery and turned it into a standard supernatural killer movie.

Now, I will say, Tony Todd is amazing. The man has a presence and charisma that carry this movie. I firmly believe it would not have been as successful a franchise without him, because the “lore” of Candyman makes no sense.

First, why is he called Candyman? The legend is about a black artist who is murdered for falling in love with and getting pregnant a wealthy white woman, and is then mutilated and murdered by hired thugs. Where’s the candy? And why would the murderers cut off his hand and attach a hook to it, only to then kill him with bees (random) and burn the body? The whole thing SOUNDS made up, like a tale that is exaggerated and built upon by different tellers over generations, which many urban legends are, and that’s an idea worth exploring. It could have been about how legends are exploited by people to control others (like the gang leader) or how the stories can inspire people consciously or unconsciously to mimic them (Helen is the killer all along), instead we have a ghost who can do almost anything, has a hook for a hand and is covered in bees because it looks cool.

I may be overly harsh with this, but I think it’s because they took what could have been a psychological horror masterpiece and turned it into a standard supernatural slasher flick that is saved from obscurity only by Virginia Madsen and the aura of Tony Todd. I don’t know anything about the films production, but the feeling I get, and it is just a feeling, is that the studio saw the first half of the film and said, “Naw, we need more blood and more Candyman. Oh, and add in a lot of bees. Bees are scary.”