White Girls Need to Stop Talking to Mirrors

It’s hard when a film you love has really terrible sequels. I think one of the most famous films to have absolutely wretched sequels is The Matrix. That first film is absolutely phenomenal, a masterwork of sci-fi and martial arts all used to tell an engaging superhero story, and I could watch it over and over again. If it had remained just that one film (which, as I’ve noted before, has a perfect ending) I think we’d all hold the film up today in shockingly high esteem, the film only gaining more and more praise as its legacy lived on. But then we got three worse and worse sequels (The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions, and The Matrix Resurrections) that each took more and more pieces away from the legacy such that while that first film is still beloved, the series as a whole is regarded with more of a shrug. It would have been better if they hadn’t gone back to the well at all.

I tend to view the Candyman series in the same way. Sure, these aren’t big budget sci-fi extravaganzas but are, instead, low budget horror cheapies, but the first film was made with such style, it has such vigor to it, that it could have been left alone and fans of the genre would discuss it like it was a grand, singular piece of cinema. Instead, two sequels came along and absolutely ruined it’s legacy, running the franchise into the ground with their shoddiness and lack of scary or talent. The franchise as a whole would have been better if it had remained as just 1992’s Candyman because then we wouldn’t even have to think about the direct-to-video threequel, Candyman: Day of the Dead.

If there’s anything good we can say about this film it’s that it somehow makes Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh look good by comparison. That second film was a shoddy and unnecessary sequel that added nothing to the Candyman canon and, in fact, diminished the villainous character in many ways. But at least it wasn’t this truly dreadful third film, which lacks any kind of skill or filmmaking know-how. It was released direct-to-video, clearly to capitalize on the name and make fans of the original think they somehow missed seeing the theatrical run of a follow-up. But even putting it direct-to-video feels too good for this trash. They would have been better off taking the money, throwing it in a trash can, and burning it. At least then we wouldn’t have had to watch this crappy film.

The movie focuses on Caroline McKeever (Donna D'Errico), daughter of Annie Tarrant, heroine of the previous film (seen in this movie in dream sequences and flashbacks, now played by Elizabeth Hayes). Caroline has grown up knowing the stories of her great-great-grandfather, the former slave-turned artist-turned lynching victim Daniel Robitaille (Tony Todd), although she’s never believed the stories about him as the mythical, murderous spirit, the Candyman. Presenting her collection of his artwork at a downtown L.A. hole-in-the-wall museum, Caroline is challenged by the museum’s owner (who is also her friend), Miguel Velasco (Mark Adair-Rios), to say the Candyman’s name into a mirror five times to prove she doesn’t believe. Of course she does and, of course, this then summons the Candyman.

From here, Caroline is stalked and haunted by the Candyman. He slowly goes around killing the people she knows, like her roommate or the racist cops investigating her case. The Candyman wants Caroline to be his next victim, to give herself to him to fulfill the family legacy, or something. Whatever the case, Caroline naturally wants nothing to do with it. She’s met a nice guy, David De La Paz (Nick Corri), and she’d like to go on living while she dates this guy and sees where it all goes. But the Candyman wants what he wants, and one way or another he’s going to force a confrontation whether Caroline likes it or not.

To be as blunt as possible: Candyman: Day of the Dead and an atrociously stupid movie. It’s a film made to capitalize on the franchise’s name, but it has so many logic holes and stupid jumps in its story that nothing about the film really makes sense. The biggest issue is, of course, that the last film ended with Annie breaking the mirror that trapped the Candyman’s soul within, and thus broke his power. But somehow just saying his name again brings him back, at full strength, so what even was the point of the previous film. Yes, he’s a slasher film villain, but when so much time in these films are spent building up his backstory and making him a character (not one we like, or care about, but a character all the same) then the logic of the heroines’ actions has to make sense. It has to be logical. Because. If it isn’t then it’s pretty clear nothing matters and these films have no point.

Here’s a simpler one: when does this film take place? Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh references the events of the first Candyman film, and that film clearly took place in 1992. We have newspaper clippings and other sources you can see in that film, and the sequel, that date it. If the second movie happens even months after the first film, that would mean that Caroline, who was born to Alice from the second film and who is an adult here (the actress was 31 at the time of filming) had to have grown up and enough time had to have passed from the first film that this movie would take place in the 2020s (presumably 2022 at the earliest). Except not only is the technology (phones, cars, computer) all clearly from the 1990s but there’s a calendar clearly in full view in a shot showing the year as 1997. That’s bad continuity, of course, but also just really stupid in general.

I get the impulse to continue the story forward. Caroline was set up in the last film as the next probable heroine for the franchise. But by aging her up you add so many requirements to the next film that you have to pay off. It’s not like I want to watch a pseudo sci-fi film set in the 2020s from the perspective of 1997. That sounds like hot garbage (although, perhaps more interesting than this film). But the films all but require this kind of jumps in logic to actually hold up their continuity. This film, instead, clearly ignores all of that, and more, just to tell its own story.

And that story is just a rehash of the first two films. Dumb white girl that clearly should know better decides to say Candyman’s name five times into a mirror and is then shocked when the Candyman is shown to actually exist. It was interesting the first time around when the film was exploring what this meant for Helen Lyle, especially when the surrounding film was moody and interesting. It was less fun the second time around in a movie that wasn’t nearly as interesting or as fun. And this third time around, the same story slapped into bargain-bin shlock reads as lazy and stupid. The Candyman can stalk anyone, anywhere, and all they have to do is say his name five times into their reflection. Why on Earth do we keep getting the same stupid story over and over again?

Even if we can somehow get past that, though, there isn’t anything else even remotely redeeming about this film. In part that’s because the acting in this film is awful. There isn’t a single good actor in this whole film, across the whole cast of reject TV performers and porn stars clearly trying to make their way out of the industry. The worst is Donna D’Errico, a former Playboy Playmate turned Baywatch actress who did a string of TV episodes and direct-to-video films across her run. She’s horrible here, neither having the chops to play an engaging character in general, nor showing any ability to at least be a believable scream queen. While I’m sure the producers for this film could have found a worst actress, D’Errico shows they were already down to scraping the bottom of the barrel when they hired her.

The film is also shoddily made. It has no style or substance to it, lacking even a modicum of scares at all. The kills are all basic and one-note, with a lot of CGI bees, fake bees, and Candyman stabbing people with a hook. And I have to say, these two sequels both use the hook wrong. Over and over Candyman stabs people with the top of the hook. Not the actual hook itself, but the top curve. Most kills feature him coming up behind someone and pushing his hook through their back. It makes no logical sense as the top of the hook isn’t the part people tend to think of as a weapon. If that’s how they wanted him to kill people they should have just given him a knife or a sword. Weapons meant for stabbing.

The biggest problem with this film is just that it’s repetitive and redundant. This is a story we’ve seen before, with kills that have been recycled over and over again. By the third time, on a lower budget and with such terrible acting, it’s hard to find anything in the film to get excited about. This is a bad movie made to keep a name going when no one cared anymore. Should the film series have stopped at two movies? Nope, it should have remained just the one.