It tries something. It doesn’t quite work, but points for trying. I admire the ideas in abstract- the New Orleans setting, the southern gothic tone, reckoning with racial sin in white America and the instinct for white people to deny it at all costs- but the execution is lacking. It’s not scary, the hypnotically seductive vibe of the first completely gone. The script and performances are missing something, and lines like ‘Caroline’s suffering was greater’ are damning. Two random black guys being jump scares is a very funny bit they did not think through. And these effects, woof. Nothing sticks with you like the blood in Anne-Marie’s apartment and her heartbreaking despair. Tony Todd tries his best, though, and delivers a sad, almost despairing performance that hones in on the essence of the themes even where the script falters.

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…

**That was just bad all around.** Aside from Tony Todd, the acting is terrible. Aside from two minutes, the story is lame. Also, the frequently strobing lights throughout is silly. What a mess.

I admit that I don't really get Candyman, but the movie is entertaining at least.