Well, here we are yet again. Back with another edition of this segment. And this time I look at the reboot, remake, re-whatever of Candyman, and a movie I didn't existed until the start of this year, No Man of God.
Why Didn't I See Candyman?
Simple, my theater didn't have a showing. And when they did, it was far too later for me to give a review, because the film was out for at least a month, maybe two.
What is Candyman?
Candyman is a supernatural slasher film, as well as a direct sequel to the 1992 film of the same name. It's also the fourth film of the series. The movie was produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Bron Studios, and Monkeypaw Productions and distributed by Universal Pictures. Candyman was written by Nia DaCosta, Jordan Peele, and Win Rosenfeld and directed by Nia DaCosta. The story is it's been twenty-nine years since the events of the first film, and Anthony McCoy is now a visual artist. But things aren't exactly going well for him at the moment, so in order to find some inspiration, he goes to Cabrini-Green and hears the story of Candyman. Soon, people start dying left and right, and Anthony soon realizes the Candyman isn't just another urban legend.
My Thoughts
The Good: The only two things the movie's got going for it, is the acting and the cinematography. That's it. Everything else is just awful. So while it is good, it's kind of sad that those two things just couldn't help.
The Bad: One of the many terrible things about the newest Candyman is the retcons. One of them was Helen's story. Everyone in this movie made Helen seem like a psychopath, but that doesn't work because in the '92 film, we saw the citizens of Cabrini-Green know that wasn't the case. You mean to tell me that either A) the Cabrini-Green folks never came to her defense, or B) They did come to her defense but somehow the myth only grew? Then we the rules of Candyman. Apparently in this movie, you can just make your own Candyman. Yep, if you want a Candyman you just make one. Now let's talk about the newest Candyman, Sherman Fields. This was a terrible Candyman. One, they try to make him seen innocent, but it doesn't work. Any grown adult who just goes around giving kids candy and it's not their own kid, just because, is never gonna look innocent. That makes you look like a creep. And they really try, because they say that after he's death, kids were still getting razor blades in their candy. So basically, this movie wants us to believe, there just so happened to be another guy walking around Cabrini-Green given candy, not only in the same location, but also to the same exact kids. I can only suspended my disbelief so long folks. Not to mention, but Sherman's first appearance is him coming out of a hole in the wall, awhile creepily laughing. Like I said, there's no way anyone's gonna think this guy is a innocent. Then there's the fact that he barley interacts with Anthony. Where Helen and Daniel had a great horror story between, Anthony and Sherman have nothing. They barely have a story that interconnects. They interact twice, and that was it. Sherman doesn't even try to frame Anthony for murder like Daniel did with Helen. So was the point of having these two be the front and center of the story, if they only meet twice? I also didn't find this movie scary. I mean it. From beginning to end, I wasn't scared. Even when there were murders and jump scares happening, I didn't care. I was mostly bored. Now have the last two problems, and they're just as worse than the retcons and Sherman, one of them being that by the end of the movie, they trying making Candyman (Daniel not Sherman) be a anti-hero. What?! That doesn't work! Daniel's Candyman is ruthless monster. In the original movie, he was killing everyone who stood in his way. Old, young, black, white, etc. it didn't matter who you were, Daniel would kill you! Here's his very first quote in the original '92 film is this, "They will say that I have shed innocent blood. What's blood for if not for shedding? With my hook for a hand, I'll split you from your groin to your gullet". Yeah, THAT sounds like someone who could be an anti-hero, that wasn't a villainous thing to say AT ALL. Not too mention, even if we didn't have that quote, nobody in Cabrini-Green is gonna look at Candyman as some short of folk hero! They were absolutely terrified of the guy! So much so that in the '92 film heavily implied that the kids of Cabrini-Green were giving him candy with razor blades in it, in the hopes that he would eat it and kill him. So it's not gonna make sense for them to now of all of sudden treat him like a hero to the people just because a few bad cops got killed. They're still gonna be horrified of the guy, because they were tormented for so long because he was out there hurting people. Now we have the biggest crime, and that's not only wasting Tony Todd, but baiting and switching him. He was wasted, because he doesn't show up until the last 10-15 seconds of the movie. And he was bait and switched because during the marketing of the movie back in 2021, the filmmakers were making a big deal about him [Tony Todd] coming back, and they basically do nothing with him. And they knew what they were doing too, because he's the Candyman in the movie,
and here's the poster for the movie.
Hmmmm, kind of funny that poster Candyman, bears more of a resembles to Tony Todd's character, then he does to the guy in the movie. Like I said, the filmmakers knew what they were doing.
The Okay: I've got nothing.
Final Verdict: Awful.
Why Didn't I See No Man of God?
Another simple reason, I didn't know this movie existed. I mean it too, I didn't know about this movie until I did some research for what movies I wanted to review this segment.
What is No Man of God?
No Man of God is a crime mystery film. It was produced by XYZ Films and Company X and distributed by RLJE Films. No Man of God was written by Kit Lesser and directed by Amber Sealey. The story is infamous serial killer Ted Bundy is sentenced to death. Just before he dies he wants to detail his horrendous crimes to FBI agent Bill Hagmaier. Over the course of these conversations the two start to form a complicated relationship.
My Thoughts
The Good: There are a lot of things to love about this movie, and one of those is Elijah Wood and Luke Kirby's performances. With Elijah, we really see how he brought out being nervous and overwhelmed. He really showed how this case was really dragging Bill down. Then there's Luke. I found that he really nailed playing Ted Bundy. He showcased how weirdly charming he was, and also nailed a lot of his mannerisms. He also almost sounded like Bundy. Then we have the score. It's really beautiful, but in a very eeire way. The music really helped with how uneasy it would feel being around a notorious serial killer like Bundy. Now what I also really loved about No Man of God was it was intense but it didn't use any violence. It's more of a psychological intensity, if that makes sense. There's this one moment where Ted tells Bill how he killed one of his victims, and by the time the scene was over, I let out a breath I didn't even know I was holding in. True story. The last positive for this is the friendship between Ted and Bill. This story of these two and they were around each other was interesting, and it's mainly because they were trying to get in each other's heads, and that really did have an effect on both of them. Whether there was alternate motivates or not.
The Bad: The only downside I found was you're not gonna get anything new about Ted Bundy, other than his friendship with Bill. Cause there are things we already know about Ted, and things we can pretty much imagine that's how things went. Like him not being exactly happy about being executed.
The Okay: I've got nothing.
Final Verdict: Great.
Okay that's all for now. Come back on Monday, Sept 5th for my A Look Back at review of 1940's Pinocchio. Until then, enjoy the rest of your day.
No comments:
Post a Comment