callanvass The first movie is a perfect example of how to make a classic horror film. After the mediocre sequel, I thought it couldn't get any worse! I was dead wrong on that. This went STV and it shows. At least the second sequel had semblance of suspense, this sequel nearly put me to sleep. It's extremely cheap and clearly here to make some quick cash. They try to force the "Candyman" is a myth thing on us. Uh....how many times has Candyman killed people? Surely, someone would start to think he's for real at this juncture. I didn't buy it and it felt like they were going to the well one too many times. I also hate how they keep showing snippets of Daniel Robitaille's past. WE KNOW THE STORY!! Enough already. There is virtually no suspense, no thrills, and absolutely no scares. Not only that, but it's really boring. There are far too many times where I felt like dozing off. That shouldn't be happening with Candyman. There is gore, but I didn't care. We get your usual hook carnage and some CGI bees. The acting is pretty bad. Tony Todd looks disillusioned and embarrassed by this sequel. He knows what a piece of crap this sequel is. He's shown way too much and the mystique is gone. What a shame! Donna D'Errico felt like a model and nothing more. Her performance is amateurish, and she had no business being the heroine in this movie. Needless to say, she failed to evoke sympathy from me. Jsu Garcia (NOES fame) grabs a quick paycheck. A reviewer on this site called this a "pathetic end" I couldn't have said it any better. It ranks as one of the worst endings to a horror franchise. Hopefully they give Candyman the send-off he richly deserves. 2/10

FlashCallahan The ghostly serial killer returns once again from beyond the grave this time to haunt a Los Angeles art gallery owner named Caroline McKeever, a distant relative of the Candyman.In order for him to claim her soul so she will be next to him, the Candyman goes about killing all those associated with Caroline in the usual gory ways with his hook and making it appear to the authorities that Caroline is the one responsible for the killings....Tony Todd said in an interview in 2003 that he didn't really care for this movie.And I wonder why? This film has to be one of the worse sequels ever to such a good first movie, and sadly, even from watching it from a 'straight to DVD third movie, so it could be cheesy fun' angle, the film has no redeeming qualities to it.First off, the lead actress D'errico (the one from baywatch) has the most annoying scream in the world,and soon you wish she had a hook in her throat.Secondly, Todd looks beyond bored, and in some scenes, it's as if he has had a drink, because words cannot explain his facial expressions.It's plot is ripped from the first movie, right down to the best friend, and the inclusion of a silly twist at the end, makes the film even more ludicrous.It's not even a film you can laugh at. It's one of those movies you will find yourself giving dirty looks, and hating yourself for watching it.

idiotboy For years I thought I'd seen all three of the Candyman movies, but on a whim I watched them through again recently. I wish I'd stuck with my assumption and stopped after the first two, for the Day of the Dead was an utter disappointment.My first impression, given during the opening credits was: "They dropped the Philip Glass music, and all they can show me is a shiny red hook from about fifty different angles. This movie is going to suck." My second impression was from the very first shot of our new 'heroine', Ms. D'Erico. Seeing her trying to act I was reassured that this must be the obligatory 'stupid person calling Candyman and dying instantly to prove what film it is' scene. To my horror, this was entirely not the case. My eyes were assaulted by the unfortunate attempts by various people to act throughout this poor excuse of a sequel. My ears were assaulted by each and every high-pitched squeak of a scream that Donna uttered when she was told to act scared, or surprised, or happy, or mildly confused... My sense of common was assaulted when Donna dropped her keys through a heating vent in her corridor, and I had to watch the horrifying effort she put into wedging her hand through the tiniest gap in that vent after she knocked into the hinged section leaving a gap large enough to fit her head through. Twice! Tony Todd, the legend himself, did however do a valiant job for about half the movie, before he gave up from being given the same lines to parrot he'd had in his previous two movies, over and over. He was still a formidable presence though, and kudos to him for giving it a go.I realise that I'm being quite negative about this awful awful movie, though that is probably because it hurt my brain so much to watch it. I can't recommend this movie to anyone, but there's a chance you might enjoy it anyway. If you were very drunk. Or not watching it.

disdressed12 while i actually liked the first two Candyman movies,i didn't' like this third and(so far Final)installment.i found it boring and repetitive and i didn't like the story very much.there's a lot of filler here,which suggests to me that the filmmakers didn't have enough of a story for a complete movie.i also wasn't too impressed with the acting.there was a lot of overwrought theatrics.as well,there were some things in this movie that did not fit with the previous movies,basically throwing out certain aspects of the lore.maybe i'm just imagining things,but this is my opinion on things.finally,this movie has none of the style of the second movie.adding it all up,this third installment in the series is much lower in quality on all counts.my vote for Candyman 3:Day of the dead is a 3/10