Watched this one right on the heels of watching the first _Candyman_ and have to say that I enjoyed this one a bit more. I agree with some of the other comments that the whole Candyman character is kind of vague and unexplained; I still don't really understand the story behind it all. Is it just rage and revenge? What's the deal? No real explanation in the first two, but I _did_ feel like a bit more emphasis and story was given to the character in this film. For the sequel to come a mere 3 years after the original, the acting and storyline seemed much better and more developed. The "special effects" were, of course, atrocious by today's standards but still decent. On a side note: as a photographer, I found the moodiness of New Orleans absolutely riveting; made me want to actually take a weekend trip just to photograph some of the spots seen in the movie. (I've only been there once on a 6-hour turnaround business jaunt with no time at all to take in any of the sights.) The "abandoned" old house was absolutely spellbinding, a place I would LOVE to have found and explored. (The "creeping vinery" on the staircase banister was quite laughingly fake, unfortunately, but everything else looked exquisitely desolate.) Wasn't sure how they were going to "relocate" the Candyman to a completely different setting but they pulled it off beautifully here; New Orleans was a terrific setting for a story like this one. (I did find it slightly embarrassing, however, that a "spirit entity" - such as the Candyman supposedly is - was so subject to elements like a flooding basement and the cascading rush of water. One would think that ghosts wouldn't be bothered by a sudden rush of water, but the Candyman appeared to be not a great swimmer. I'm thinking someone should have thought a bit more about that particular part of the story?) Different than many sequels, I found this one actually BETTER than its predecessor. I still don't understand the "terrifying" effect this franchise seems to have had on so many viewers back in its day (judging from comments and reviews here and around the web); I didn't find it scary at all. A good creepy movie and definitely worth a watch, but not anything really to write home about. Maybe it's better if you *do* watch it alone, in the dark…

3 Thoughts After Watching ‘Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh’:

1. I thought this was a proper sequel to the original. I honestly don’t think it was any better or worse than the first one… perhaps giving the predecessor a few more points for starting it all. And for Virginia Madsen.

2. I appreciated how this chapter built upon the original story and mythology. How we learn more about the man behind the monster and his connection to the mirror. I thought it was important that they put more emphasis on the mirror this time around. It makes sense to have the source of what calls him be the thing that also sends him away.

3. I love New Orleans as a setting for this story. It fits very well.

Bonus Thought: I agree with another commenter here who said that they don’t really get Candyman. As much as I enjoy the first two films, this has been my biggest problem with the franchise. I can’t quite grasp what his motives are, what he’s trying to accomplish, other than trying to remain an immortal urban legend. I don’t know why he frames our protagonists or even keeps them alive. I wish his agenda was better explained — even if it were simple revenge for those who destroyed his life, but that doesn’t even seem to be a factor at all.