Candyman (2021)

Mr E

First trailer. Gives a bit too much away, sadly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loHJlpekLfg

brevity

It really does. Handy for me as I had no real intention in watching it

RocketRaccoon

Surely the original movie gave too much away?

Mr E

Different settings, characters, protagonists. It's not a scene for scene remake.

tunguska

Looks good. Im in

Basq

Not really doing it for me..

.. although Tony Todd is back at the very least!

S.M.B.

Jordan Peele produced is it not?

I've a soft spot for the original. Probably due to nostalgia plus quality Philip Glass score.

jill_valentine

S.M.B. wrote: »

Jordan Peele produced is it not?

I've a soft spot for the original. Probably due to nostalgia plus quality Philip Glass score.

It has a really striking urban gothic quality I can't really find anywhere else. I'm very fond of it, intrigued by this.

gmisk

Looks interesting.

CastorTroy

Does seem to give away a lot.

Rewatched the original recently since had the tune in my head

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjUdh91y0hU

arcticmonkeys

Looks better then the terrible Jacobs ladder movie released last year. I doubt they'll keep the score from the original don't want to draw too many comparisons,Vanessa Williams who played the mother in the original is in this one.

johnny_ultimate

S.M.B. wrote: »

Jordan Peele produced is it not?

Yep, he’s a producer and co-writer. The film is from director Nia DaCosta. Haven’t seen her feature Little Woods, but by most accounts it seems to have been a very good film indeed

Mike Guide 69

Loved the original,thought Virginia Madsen was brilliant in it, why a reboot,can they not just leave the classic as it is??????

Looks like a spoof of the original. Like it’s a comedy. Not digging this at all

gandalf

Can't believe they remade this.

The original is a classic, even at my ripe old age I still can't say Candyman in front of the mirror 😁

thebostoncrab

Wait, I thought this was a sequel to the first movie? Not a remake?

conorhal

Deleted User wrote: »

Looks like a spoof of the original. Like it’s a comedy. Not digging this at all

It doesn't look like a reboot of Candyman so much as it looks like a remake of one of the awful slasher sequels to the movie that ultimately damaged the reputation of what I (and many) consider a genre classic.
Seriously, WTF is with Beyonce's 'Say My Name' in the trailer? Jesus, how on the nose is that? I'd even accept the Blumhouse cliche of 'creepy slow piano version of popular song in the trailer' over that really jarring choice. It sure is a long way from the haunting and memorable Philip Glass score from the original.

I also believe that Tony Todd isn't involved at all, which is kind if sad. While not quite as iconic as Robert Englund's Freddy Kruger, Todd, like Englund brought a certain x-factor to the roll and his distinctive deep voice and charmingly creepy and intimidating performance will be next to impossible replicate.


It just looks awful.

S.M.B.

I get the impression that it's a 'legacy sequel'. It's probably irksome that 'legacy sequel' is a necessary addition to our movie vocabulary but alas it is.

ScrubsfanChris

Wish more teasers were like this.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9O9_-bv5qE

Potential-Monke

That's really well done. Reminds me of the Deathly Hallows scene in Harry Potter. Out of nowhere and just beautifully done.

Bacchus

Powerful trailer. Quite a timely movie too given the current BLM movement.

johnny_ultimate

This has been delayed into 2021:

https://twitter.com/niadacosta/status/1304758133999493120?s=21

I’ve recently seen both DaCosta’s last film Little Woods (which is really good - in Prime if anyone’s interested, under the title Crossing The Line for some reason!) and the original Candyman in the cinema. A very promising young black filmmaker taking on one of the most socially-conscious horror films of them all is an intriguing prospect, so really looking forward to checking this out when it does arrive.

Agent Coulson

I forgot this was even a thing.

pixelburp

That actually looks pretty good; honestly, I can barely remember watching the original so have no prior resting bias. Trailer might give a little bit too much away - are they perhaps implying

the Candyman isn't real this time, and just hallucinations of this lead character going crazy, himself the killer?

Mr Crispy

^That's what I thought also. Hopefully it's deliberate misdirection rather than too much being given away.

Fandymo

Haven’t rated any of Peeles movies so far. Doubt this will change that.

Fandymo

Fandymo wrote: »

Haven’t rated any of Peeles movies so far. Doubt this will change that.

No doubt will end up being more woke than a toddler with ADHD who consumed a whole 2 litre bottle of full fat Coca-Cola

Peele is a man with the fecal midas touch for the most part imo - most things coming from him or associated with him are shyte -> e.g.

Twilight Zone series reboot (dire)

"Us" (rubbish)





("Get out" was ok but also very over-rated)

jill_valentine

glasso wrote: »

No doubt will end up being more woke than a toddler with ADHD who consumed a whole 2 litre bottle of full fat Coca-Cola

Peele is a man with the fecal midas touch for the most part imo - most things coming from him or associated with him are shyte -> e.g.

Twilight Zone series reboot (dire)

"Us" (rubbish)





("Get out" was ok but also very over-rated)

Jaysus, it would be desperate if there was anything about race or local urban tensions or gentrification or anything in a Candyman film.

What next, kinky weirdness in Hellraiser? These kids today, eh?

jill_valentine

jill_valentine wrote: »

Jaysus, it would be desperate if there was anything about race or local urban tensions or gentrification or anything in a Candyman film.

What next, kinky weirdness in Hellraiser? These kids today, eh?

when it becomes the over-obvious and over-arching consuming aspect of the piece it's not a movie anymore - it's some socio-political sketch.

over-woke.

Tony EH

Aside from all the woke nonsense yap from the usual quarters, I can't say that I've been that impressed by anything Peele has done myself. 'Get Out' was ok. But, really, it was just ok. It wasn't some amazing revelation in cinema or anything. 'Us' was disappointing, to put it mildly, and the rebooted 'Twilight Zone' just flat out sucked balls, although I don't think his participation in that was that deep.

This thing doesn't seem to be any better. I remember seeing 'Candyman' on a whim in the 90's (a decade of such neutered horror that it's probably best forgotten almost entirely) and to my surprise it turned out to be quite a good little movie. It was nothing brilliant, mind you, but that remake trailer did absolutely bugger all for me, and if ever there was film that didn't need a remake...

Still, I am totally at a loss as to the gush that Peele gets. He's competent and can direct a film. But other than that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

johnny_ultimate

Once again, Jordan Peele is not directing this film. He's just a co-writer. It's being directed by Nia DaCosta. I've removed Peele's name from the thread title as it keeps coming up as if he's the main creative force behind it.

And secondly, complaining about 'wokeness' and 'socio-political' themes around a bloody Candyman film is deeply funny to me. The first film is perhaps the most overtly 'socio-political' slasher film ever made, with issues of class and race deeply embedded into its very DNA. Boggles the mind anyone could have watched that film and come away with any different impression.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Once again, Jordan Peele is not directing this film. He's just a co-writer. It's being directed by Nia DaCosta. I've removed Peele's name from the thread title as it keeps coming up as if he's the main creative force behind it.

And secondly, complaining about 'wokeness' and 'socio-political' themes around a bloody Candyman film is deeply funny to me. The first film is perhaps the most overtly 'socio-political' slasher film ever made, with issues of class and race deeply embedded into its very DNA. Boggles the mind anyone could have watched that film and come away with any different impression.

Obviously And hence Peele is there.

Like a fly on a shyte.

He was also a writer and producer on the Twilight zone and us (as well as director there) and look how they turned out

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peele_filmography

Anything he has touched as as writer has not ended well in general.

pixelburp

Horror as socio-political commentary?

What a crazy, outrageous and never-before-seen idea :pac: Keep politics out of my fish-hooks!

johnny_ultimate

And just as a counterpoint, even though this isn't actually 'A Jordan Peele Film' - Us and Get Out are extremely well-made films and both individually bloody good fun on their own very different terms. (Us is messy as all hell, but lots and lots to like about it too).

"Us" is an indulgent boring mess.

Kingp35

glasso wrote: »

"Us" is an indulgent boring mess.

Agreed. I really enjoyed Get Out. Us was poor though. The story was nonsense, really disappointing. My Wife was not impressed that I made her sit through it!

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

This thing doesn't seem to be any better. I remember seeing 'Candyman' on a whim in the 90's (a decade of such neutered horror that it's probably best forgotten almost entirely) and to my surprise it turned out to be quite a good little movie. It was nothing brilliant, mind you, but that remake trailer did absolutely bugger all for me, and if ever there was film that didn't need a remake...

Still, I am totally at a loss as to the gush that Peele gets. He's competent and can direct a film. But other than that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

Yes Candyman was a fairly inconsequential and unexpected minor success back in the day. It wasn't brilliant by any means (quite uneven) but somehow the "Candyman 5 times" thing sticks in the mind of those who saw it at the time.

Also the theme of the 1992 movie was very much primarily about folklore (and persistence of same) and urban legend than anything else.

Retrospectively it has been "remembered" as something different in the light of the last number of years and primarily the reason for this remake.

Chances are this will be over-egged.

Peele is not the director here but it's his writing and in particular the ham-fisted symbolism and try-too-hard social commentary style that is his downfall.

On a technical level he can direct yes but it's his writing that is the problem - see "Us".

"Get out" was decent as said.

What sort of adult uses the term woke?

Padraig Mor

glasso wrote: »

Yes Candyman was a fairly inconsequential and unexpected minor success back in the day. It wasn't brilliant by any means (quite uneven) but somehow the "Candyman 5 times" thing sticks in the mind of those who saw it at the time.

Also the theme of the 1992 movie was very much primarily about folklore (and persistence of same) and urban legend than anything else.

Retrospectively it has been "remembered" as something different in the light of the last number of years and primarily the reason for this remake.

Chances are this will be over-egged.

Peele is not the director here but it's his writing and in particular the ham-fisted symbolism and try-too-hard social commentary style that is his downfall.

On a technical level he can direct yes but it's his writing that is the problem - see "Us".

"Get out" was decent as said.

I think you undersell the original somewhat. I loved it back in the day and actually only watched it again fairly recently. Great show, elevated by Philip Glass' music. I accept some unevenness and am ambivalent about the "Candyman x 5" trope which wasn't in the original novella IIRC. And while the central theme is about folklore, I think it's fair though to remember it as a race commentary in part - Helen pointing out that the police managed to shakedown the whole neighbourhood when she (white, middle class) was assaulted, yet are nowhere to be seen when it's black on black violence is just one of many such scenes throughout the movie.

And doesn't Tony Todd have the most amazing voice?!

winstonia83

winstonia83 wrote: »

What sort of adult uses the term woke?

it's in Wikipedia innit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20(%2F%CB%88wo%CA%8Ak,Vernacular%20English%20expression%20stay%20woke.

What sort of adult doesn't actually know the history and evolution of the term across the 20th century from one of social awareness to its current connotation as an overly virtue-signalling concept of same?

jill_valentine

glasso wrote: »

it's in Wikipedia innit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20(%2F%CB%88wo%CA%8Ak,Vernacular%20English%20expression%20stay%20woke.

What sort of adult doesn't actually know the history and evolution of the term across the 20th century from one of social awareness to its current connotation as an overly virtue-signalling concept of same?

OP didn't say they didn't understand it, they suggested it's terminology they don't take seriously as a criticism in itself. One could suggest, too, it would be especially ironic coming alongside a T2 avatar considering how many definitions of "overwoke" that movie comes under.

Candyman is quite overtly about class and race and how those things interact with the overwhelmingly white establishment. It's a feature of the titular character's origin story, just as it's a feature of Helen's efforts to document the folklore in present day. All of that unfolds againt the backdrop of early 1990s Cabrini-Green of all places, and in the context of a historic lynching.

It would be silly to try to pretend any of that is incidental.

glasso

glasso wrote: »

it's in Wikipedia innit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20(%2F%CB%88wo%CA%8Ak,Vernacular%20English%20expression%20stay%20woke.

What sort of adult doesn't actually know the history and evolution of the term across the 20th century from one of social awareness to its current connotation as an overly virtue-signalling concept of same?

What? I only hear the term on the internet and never spoken in real life.

Maybe you're spending too much time on the former. But do Irish people speak like above in real life these days?

oh deer

as I said the original film's primary theme was folklore and urban legend - which it unquestionably is.

I didn't say that race wasn't featured

but race is certainly the only reason that it's being remade and why Peele is a co-writer on it.

pixelburp

What lately I find most curious of the complaint about "woke" is: this is obviously an American movie, about a distinctly American problem and voice; a subject that's on the lips of a lot of those at the centre of the maelstrom. The movie's creators are themselves from that demographic.

To that end: it's quite clearly a movie made that doesn't care if it resonates with non-Americans or not - so curling ones lip about it feels redundant and just like wasted energy. I think there's an assumption here that we've just become so accustomed to American media, we immediately take it that it's built towards our enjoyment, consumption or speaks to us. When, here? It's not.

Would you complain about a horror movie that dealt with Australia's shocking history with its aboriginal communities? A Japanese film that dealt with Salary Man culture? Any number of countries that might produce a horror film that was also "about" female genital mutilation? Possibly not, because if wasn't an American movie we kinda give those things a pass as "foreign". But that's just it: horror movies are often way more than ostensibly scary things going "boo" (to take the Australian example, The Babadook was bluntly about motherhood and hating ones child).

This iteration of Candyman is clearly engaging with the racial element and there ain't no Subtext here. It's debatable if I'm interested in that but I won't agitate about it being "woke" or not, because the audience clearly isn't for me. A pasty white Irish guy.

winstonia83

winstonia83 wrote: »

What? I only hear the term on the internet and never spoken in real life.

Maybe you're spending too much time on the former. But do Irish people speak like above in real life these days?

it's a cultural term very much in the current vernacular, even in Ireland.

trying to pretend otherwise is at best.... uninformed.

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Once again, Jordan Peele is not directing this film. He's just a co-writer. It's being directed by Nia DaCosta. I've removed Peele's name from the thread title as it keeps coming up as if he's the main creative force behind it.

Cool so. From this thread, I got the impression he was the director.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

And secondly, complaining about 'wokeness' and 'socio-political' themes around a bloody Candyman film is deeply funny to me. The first film is perhaps the most overtly 'socio-political' slasher film ever made, with issues of class and race deeply embedded into its very DNA. Boggles the mind anyone could have watched that film and come away with any different impression.

Agreed.

jill_valentine

glasso wrote: »

oh deer

as I said the original film's primary theme was folklore and urban legend - which it unquestionably is.

I didn't say that race wasn't featured

but race is certainly the only reason that it's being remade and why Peele is a co-writer on it.

I don't think it's "unquestionable" at all, I don't think you can meaningfully extricate that folklore/urban legend aspect from the friction between the black community it belongs to vs Helen's removed perspective as a white academic.

And if race is the only reason Candyman is being remade, all the other classic horror properties being remade or rebooted in the last ten years, are they being remade for different or more worthy reasons?

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

What lately I find most curious of the complaint about "woke" is: this is obviously an American movie, about a distinctly American problem and voice; a subject that's on the lips of a lot of those at the centre of the maelstrom. The movie's creators are themselves from that demographic.

To that end: it's quite clearly a movie made that doesn't care if it resonates with non-Americans or not - so curling ones lip about it feels redundant and just like wasted energy. I think there's an assumption here that we've just become so accustomed to American media, we immediately take it that it's built towards our enjoyment, consumption or speaks to us. When, here? It's not.

Would you complain about a horror movie that dealt with Australia's shocking history with its aboriginal communities? A Japanese film that dealt with Salary Man culture? Any number of countries that might produce a horror film that was also "about" female genital mutilation? Possibly not, because if wasn't an American movie we kinda give those things a pass as "foreign". But that's just it: horror movies are often way more than ostensibly scary things going "boo" (to take the Australian example, The Babadook was bluntly about motherhood and hating ones child).

This iteration of Candyman is clearly engaging with the racial element and there ain't no Subtext here. It's debatable if I'm interested in that but I won't agitate about it being "woke" or not, because the audience clearly isn't for me. A pasty white Irish guy.

The film medium is global.

My issue is effectively selectively remaking a piece primarily to accentuate an aspect of it in some current societal context.

If that's not the definition of "woke" in the understood context of the term (except those who find it unfamiliar obviously!) then I'm not sure what is.

jill_valentine

jill_valentine wrote: »

I don't think it's "unquestionable" at all, I don't think you can meaningfully extricate that folklore/urban legend aspect from the friction between the black community it belongs to vs Helen's removed perspective as a white academic.

And if race is the only reason Candyman is being remade, all the other classic horror properties being remade or rebooted in the last ten years, are they being remade for different or more worthy reasons?

not sure what your whataboutery point is about referencing other remakes.

the point is that this movie is being remade for purely racial commentary reasons - which it is.

and as said race is part of the original film but you're actually retrospectively exaggerating it to some extent.

you'll love the remake no doubt!

pixelburp

glasso wrote: »

The film medium is global.

My issue is effectively selectively remaking a piece primarily to accentuate an aspect of it in some current societal context.

If that's not the definition of "woke" in the understood context of the term (except those who find it unfamiliar obviously!) then I'm not sure what is.

Again, you're making an assumption that every American film is made to be consumed by a global audience. If this was a Fast & Furious sequel you might have a point, but this is a remake of a niche film, for a niche genre, albeit by a brain trust that has had some mainstream kudos. So by your own logic, no American movie can tackle headlong an inherently American subject, in case Irish audiences (for instance) get irritated with the subject? Kinda proving my point then - US films have to correspond to your tastes, not the homeland's?

Don't think anyone's trying to say this film isn't putting its messaging in the foreground, but just because the messaging is a subject you are personally bored with, or disinterested in, doesn't mean it's "woke". If someone wants to make a polemic about police brutality and attach it to a story that already had a racial element, then that's for them to do, and American audiences to react to.

oh and the original story by Barker was "unquestionably" centralised on the idea of "myth and rumour" and set in Liverpool!

It began with a short story. British author Barker’s major breakthrough came with his “Books Of Blood” series in 1984, and in the fourth installment (published in 1985), there was a story named “The Forbidden” — which shares a title, but little else, with a short film that Barker had directed in the 1970s. Involving the power of myth and rumor, the tale involves a Liverpool university student who discovers graffiti on a housing estate referring to a figure called The Candyman, and ends up becoming his latest victim.

Rose and Barker began meeting to develop the story, and quickly agreed that retaining the Liverpool setting wouldn’t fly with the financiers and decided to move the story into the deprived Carbrini Green area of Chicago.

the setting was moved to Chicago for reasons of a higher chance of securing financing!

https://www.indiewire.com/2012/10/looking-back-on-20-years-of-candyman-whats-blood-if-not-for-spilling-250781/