Never Seen It #343: Candyman

The blog, I can assure you, will be exquisite. As for our attempt to watch 500 movies we've never seen before, there is nothing to fear. Our names will be written on a thousand walls. Our crimes told and retold by our faithful believers. We shall die together in front of their very eyes and give them something to be haunted by. Come with me and be immortal.

Candyman

1992

Bernard Rose

Zoom: October 21, 2026, 9 PM to 10 PM

Participants: Allison, Bobby, Brianna, Joe, Sam

Alright, so here's what happens in Candyman (as it was solidified in my brain, mid-Zoom). Helen is doing her research on urban legends. She is intrigued by one in particular. Then she finds out that there is a community near her that actually believes in this legend, and who are attributing real crimes to the supernatural being of Candyman. She does her due diligence and investigates. She goes to the building where he's supposedly killed. She runs across a gang leader who attacks her. She is traumatized. After she is traumatized, she has a nervous breakdown, and, during blackouts, starts to act violently toward others. She beheads a dog, steals a baby, then kills her friend, kills her psychiatrist, and so on. All the time attributing it to Candyman, who she can see now. She, in her trauma, is attributing these real crimes to a supernatural being, same as those who have been traumatized by severe poverty. In the end, she overcomes the adversity of her trauma, and saves the baby. She keeps the legend alive, because the legend is a balm for this community. They pay tribute to her sacrifice at her funeral.

Now, whether you want to view the movie like this is up to you. If you want to view it as a movie about a horror movie villain who kills and frames the protagonist, that's your right. But if you view it that way, you might find a worse movie. An illogical movie. That's what the Zoom discussion ended up being, a discussion about whether this movie made sense. Which is a good thing to talk about! If a movie doesn't make sense, then it's not going to be an enjoyable experience! So maybe my theory about Candyman being not real within the framework of the movie but instead a symptom of Helen's traumatic break, maybe that is just my way of dealing with the trauma of a bad film. I don't know! But, within my own trauma, I am imagining that I liked this movie a lot.

Some other thoughts that we discussed:

• Was it scary? Is scariness the way we judge horror movies? The quantity and quality of jump scares, etc.?
• Was the acting good? Tony Todd was "doing a lot with a little"
• Comparisons to Hellraiser were apt, in terms of what "internal logic" means in horror films
• Allison pointed out the opening lines ("They will say that I have shed innocent blood. What's blood for if not for shedding? With my hook for a hand, I'll split you from your groin to your gullet. I came for you.") and how the first half "hooks" you, and the second half is silly.
• Would it have been more logical to have Candyman's origin story closer to the community that is spotlighted in the narrative?
• This is a story about stories, about a storyteller whose story becomes her.
• Trevor! The infidelity subplot is silly and/or stupid.
• The VHS cover with the bees was evocative, multiple people remember this cover from Blockbuster days (I specifically remember seeing it at Pathmark's video rental section)
• Source material took place in Liverpool, this takes place in Chicago—missing our Chicago friends for this discussion!
• There are multiple sequels, and the 2021 film is NOT a remake, but a direct sequel (screenplay by Jordan Peele)
• There is lasting imagery here, including the bees (the actor actually put the bees in his mouth)
• Is the character of Candyman iconic? You don't see kids dressed up like him for Halloween, simply because you can't (no mask), which might hurt its commercial appeal?
• Do we care about the protagonist?

I'm arguing that we do, but maybe that's because I'm particularly drawn to the idea of storytelling, of urban legends, of talking to people as a profession, that sort of thing. I felt a kinship with the type of person who is going to follow a lead and go talk to people who are living an experience that you are fascinated by. Let's not go to heavy on the score, but I think I'm comfortable with at least a 3.5 pukes out of 5 on this one. A lot to talk about, and, as a storyteller, that drew me to this film's story.

How about you? What did you think? If you weren't at the Zoom, let's chat about it in the comments!

(NEXT TIME: Our first small group of Film Club Q7 takes us to the House Party.)