Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh (1995) - Horror

Hohum Score

93

Hohummer

The Candyman arrives in New Orleans and sets his sights on a young woman whose family was ruined by the immortal killer years before.

IMDB: 5.3
Director: Bill Condon
Stars: Tony Todd, Kelly Rowan
Length: 93 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 19 out of 65 found boring (29.23%)

One-line Reviews (50)

They obviously saw dollar signs and gave us this predictable BS.

She is a compelling actress, and excels in her role as Annie.

Poorly made but fun in a cheesy, entertaining way .

This is a boring sequel that should have never been made.

" Furthermore there is no tension, suspense or dread, killed by a deadeningly sluggish pace and everything being so predictable.

In front of his audience, Purcell invokes the Candyman but nothing happens.

It plods along, Candyman occasionally turns up to spout some dull speeches & kill the odd person until the somewhat predictable ending where Annie defeats him.

We know what's going to happen but it's still entertaining.

I think it's a waste of time totally not worth of the Candyman-title.

Dreary sequel, despite resetting the narrative to the tale's original location of New Orleans (with flashbacks to the Candyman's grisly fate).

Todd is still relatively creepy with his hook for a hand and saying a couple of familiar lines in his cool voice, but the rest of the cast are naff, the origins story is relatively good to watch, and the deaths are still bloody, but it is predictable and a bit ridiculous, it is a rather pointless horror sequel.

Even the deaths are boring.

This begins with a dull retelling of the myth(which, as you may remember, took time to get to last time around...

There are some pacing problems with the movie but generally the film plays well and, despite the odd few scenes that weren't really required, manages to remain at least fairly entertaining.

Whereas the original movie was quite dark and suspenseful, ‘Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh' has a somewhat lighter atmosphere despite obviously trying to remain as dark and serious as the original.

The story delivers an uninspiring lead actress (Kelly Rowan) and gives her an equally uninteresting brother (William O'Leary), neither of whom do much to elicit sympathy in the viewer.

This plodding mess is the reason I hate unnecessary sequels .

The character's are bland & forgettable, the dialogue the same & even though I saw it only a few hours ago I'm actually struggling to remember anything about it apart from a highly annoying DJ called Kingfisher who makes a regular appearance on the soundtrack.

Despite Tony Todd's and Kelly Rowan's incredible performances, the rest of the acting is bland and uninspired, which, I guess fills out the forms of the characters as well.

The only way I can think of that anyone would prefer this to the original is, as much as I hate to use that cliché, that they did not understand it.

First, the pacing of this film is much slower and less taut than the original.

The main attack here concerns the appearance at the curio shop which turns into a thrilling chase through a carnival parade as he continually appears among the patrons, though other attacks are bound throughout here.

It's slow, the actors are dull or annoying, and most scenes of dramatic dialog have all the flare of a made-for-cable TV movie.

Though, it's not as smart, or incredibly gripping this time around, with it leading more towards graphic violence and having some tedious moments slowing down the pace.

A good Philip Glass score – albeit one that's rehashed from the original – is the only good thing about this lacklustre sequel that's more like an endless slasher flick than the evocative and atmospheric ghost story of the first film.

It was emotionless and boring.

Candyman 2 had a better story line than the first and was more thrilling, Tony Todd returns as the Hookman himself, Candyman.

The characters are uninteresting and unrootable, with motivations that are either vague or illogical (both at times too).

The Good: Decent cast The Bad: Desperate use of jump scares Weirdly boring Unengaging plot Things I Learnt From This Movie: The Candymans backstory is considerably more entertaining than the movies

This is just as bleak, pointless, depressing and horrible to look at.

i found it entertaining and the acting is pretty good.

Candyman 2 isn't terrible, it's just hollow, dull.

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.

Some pretty nifty effects are all that are really here, as the weak succession of false shocks and the slow beginning only detract from the picture.

This is utterly predictable, it is no longer clever or layered, and the script increases in stupidity at an exponential rate as it progresses, until it spins out of control and then blissfully ends, on what you know is a low note.

Yet for what it is, "Candyman II" is quite entertaining, and still manages to remain rather atmospheric.

This tries to explain things that ought to remain unclear, and the effort is boring.

"Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" is very much a highly entertaining and enjoyable sequel, building the lead villain into much more of a classic "boogeyman" figure and piling on the scares (and bodies) to new heights.

This movie goes in deep, yet it is very entertaining as well.

I enjoyed it very much.

He's a fantastic character with wonderful screen presence who is tapped in dull, poorly shot movies, and I won't give up hope, because it took a couple of sequels for horror greats like Jason Vorhees to get up to speed.

Candyman Farewell to the Flesh was an alright horror movie and the story could've worked better, but it just seemed like your typical horror sequel and it could be predictable at times.

It just bores me.

Bolstering the legend quite well with the flashbacks to his torture and paring that against his legend between the family really makes for an entertaining horror effort.

The script suffers from too many tedious moments, there's almost no connection with the characters and the voice-over radio dude really annoyed the hell out of me.

Being nothing more than a retread of Bernard Rose's Candyman, this is all rather a pointless exercise in gory effects and lifeless acting.

The end was the best, very suspenseful.

I recommend this purely to those looking for bland horror that delivers what you'd expect and *nothing* else.

This movie is worth checking out for fans of the original and is in general an averagely entertaining horror movie.

And it was a lot better than the stupid "Candyman: Day of the Dead (1999)" Enjoyable.