Candyman 2: Farewell to the Flesh
1992's
Candyman was a surprise hit for mini-studio, Propaganda Pictures. The film was well received by critics, was a minor commercial success in cinemas, and did very strong business on video. So a sequel seemed like a good proposition.
Only thing, how do you do a sequel to
Candyman. The film ended in a manner that would make a traditional follow-up difficult. It wouldn't be impossible, as original writer-director Bernard Rose submitted a screenplay that focused on Jack the Ripper's legend. The studio said no. Another suggestion was to bring Virginia Madsen back, and expand from the first film. The studio turned this down too.
The problem was, if one were to follow naturally from
Candyman, there would be no Candyman. Tony Todd's killer was instantly iconic. Tall, handsome, eloquent, and Black. There was nothing like him out there.
So
Candyman 2 pretty much ignores everything from the first film, and has the titular killer return as an avenging boogeyman linked to a cursed amulet. Nosfertu42 recently criticised
Candyman for resorting to an "Eternal Love" angle (I strongly disagree with that reading), but I imagine he would be apoplectic with
Candyman 2, as writer-director Bill Condon really rams home this take.
All the subtext and daring social criticism from Clive Barker and Rose's work is replaced with underbaked gothic romance and the odd mention that, yeah, slavery wasn't nice. Not only that, but the horror aspect has been dialled down.
There is very little gore, or moments of striking terror, as Condon has pretentions of making a classy, psychological thriller. What this means is, expect many moody moments of that classy mid-90s cinematography, and exposition dumps to explain what happened elsewhere when Kelly Rowan was very slowly looking through a desk while being lit through Venetian blinds.
Candyman 2 isn't an awful film. As much as I kicked Bill Condon, his direction is serviceable. The actors are good without really standing out (oddly enough, it's returnees Todd and Micheal Culkin who do the best). It's just that they were following one of the most ambitious and daring horror films of recent years, and they chose to be lazy and cowardly. It's a film less interested in frightening you that it is frightened about what it could have been. Not so much
Farewell to the Flesh, but Farewell to the Mind too.