The structure is rigid and and a little predictable and it can be a little boring. The Candyman character is where the movie shines and I just wish there was more of him to see. He adds depth with his words and really makes the movie way better. Good for an urban legend slasher movie. The music is probably the best horror theme I've ever heard.

One of, if not the best horror films of the 90s. It's class, style and ideas outshine. It features one of the best scores for a horror film period. And a bogeyman that is not only able to compete but outshines the best of them. If all that weren't enough, the social commentary, that's still relevant today, puts this film on another level.

Underrated and underappreciated for sure.

While thematically interesting to an extent, the actual plot/movie is fairly boring and I found myself counting down until it ended. Tony Todd does an alright job being spooky, but he can't carry the entire movie.

One of the greatest horror films of the 90's! Acting, story, atmosphere, music, it all works. A classic in it's genre and stands on it own. Not your average slasher as it might look so if you missed out, go see it!

Full-on cried at the ending this wasn't even scary it just broke my heart.

This film took me by surprise. I was expecting a silly slasher. I was not expecting such depth. Unlike modern horror movies, it takes its time to develop the story.

virginia madsen looked so much like gillian anderson in this; it just made me think 'i wish gillian anderson was in this' throughout

Like the inside of my underwear: there's a lot worth keeping but it ends up being style over substance and leaves many disappointed.

An above average horror flick that suffers from poor practical effects and mostly a story line that doesn't make any sense. If anyone says Candyman in a mirror 5 times, he comes to kill them, but when you're a well off white woman he makes you his partner? WTF where W is Why?

I haven’t seen this since I was a kid and it holds up really well. Tony Todd rules and the exploration of myth and folklore is well done. Plenty of subtext that is intelligently handled except for maybe the very end which seems to kind of just embrace being a horror movie

3 Thoughts After Re-Watching ‘Candyman’:

1. _Candyman_ is a beautiful horror film, with an iconic monster, that teeters on the edge of greatness. The mood is perfect. The story, the legend, has endless potential. It’s a standout horror flick. But what holds it back is its muddled mythology. I honestly couldn’t tell you what Candyman’s ultimate motives were. To remain relevant? To continue to be the writing on the wall? Why frame Helen for murders? Does the mirror summoning _actually_ call him? He seems to show up whenever he wants. Any why the baby? Was it just to lure Helen to her fate? Which was what exactly? I don’t remember having this many questions when I first watched the film, but there are a lot.

2. The score is absolutely fantastic. Bleak, dramatic and haunting. The main theme is Halloween playlist perfection. Certainly one of the film’s greatest strengths.

3. I always thought that Candyman wasn’t particularly scary looking. But when Tony Todd opens his mouth, you’re reminded that you’d rather not hear that iconic voice calling from the shadows.

Don't repeat his name five times in front of a mirror.

…If there's something strange, In your neighborhood, Who have you called? ;)

What the hell is this. It’s not a bad story it’s just odd. The cast can’t act, the camera is of the lowest of quality, it’s filmed from strange angles (a daring yet stupid choice) & the music doesn’t fit the scenes.
3/10

As a young person i went into this expecting nothing different from the dozens of horror slasher flicks I’ve already seen, but I was genuinely surprised by how it began to exceed my expectations towards the last act, there are so many subtle gems in the writing and cinematography of this film that it had me so intrigued with its lore, more than I’ve been with any other horror movie involving a murderous demonic entity.

I feel like the movie got away from itself towards the end, but it's an incredible ride.

I first watched this in the mid-90's and loved it, it was my gateway to horror movies.

I rewatched it recently, and it was horrible.

It starts off OK,but when they get to the point where they start explaining him, none of the explanations actually explain anything. They just make it more complicated for zero gain. It's like they just got stoned or drunk and went "Yeah and he has a hook because X. And there's bees because Y. And there's fire because Z", but then never went back over it when sober to realise how horrible it is. It's just a mishmash of things because -shrug-. The Candyman character was design-by-committee with no bad answers and who cares if mashing it all together makes no sense at all. Just do it.

With a reboot coming out, I hope they improve on this.

Candyman is really creepy but the movie is really slow and a lot more detective work than I thought it was going to be.

Boring only scary scene to me is the bee scene.

I honestly expected something better in this movie. A bit boring at times, but has quite shocking scenes, especially the end.

I get that this movie must have been pretty wicked back in the day, but watching it (for the first time) today it was - at best - "passable". I _did_ appreciate the ample amount of blood being spilled but overall, as a story, it was just kind of.... mehh.... whatever. The characters - including Candyman - were very difficult for me to connect with so for most of the movie, I was completely apathetic to whatever happened, to whomever. I give this a "good" rating but that's kind of pushing it; I will say, however, that it was the ending that earned that rating. I loved the way it ended; kind of a poetic justice type of moment. Worth watching once but I'm not sure it's worth sitting through again. As a storyline - and as a movie - it just wasn't captivating enough. Too much Helen and not enough Candyman, in a nutshell.

Pretty mundane and disjointed. I only gave it a 6 because of tits.

"Candyman" had some nice scares and some way above average acting for a Horror flick. Virginia Madsen played a smart heroine who didn't succumb to the same old Horror movie tropes. Tony Todd was an intimidating figure as the Candyman himself. I really liked the narration provided by the Candyman via Todd. The rundown projects provided a dread-inducing backdrop for the scares of which there were many. I actually didn't think the jump scares were cheap in this movie a rarity with the Horror of today which relies on them along with gore in attempts to be frightening. But purveyors of gore don't discourage as there is enough blood and filth to satisfy that requirement. If you are fond of dark humor with your Horror there is nothing light-hearted or silly about this movie at all. It is a dreary hopeless story. I didn't think Bernard Rose's direction was anything outstanding so "Candyman" wins with me based on the performances of the cast. --whit Fri Oct 15 20:08:29 2010

Better the second (or I think this is my third) time around.

Doesn’t hurt that it was preceded by two garbage Halloween sequels.