He couldn't bare when he realized Helen was gone for good, although she left much earlier than that bonfire night. She was crazy, Trevor knew that because, deep down, he was nuts as well. He pulled the knife on himself just as Helen did on her victims. Candyman is just a pattern to pull mad men's legacy into a folklore of the urban setting.
My Top 100 Movies - http://www.imdb.com/list/ls073884968/
Suicide? Thats what Stacey will say to the police.
shareYep, because that's what really happened. There was never a "Candyman", just mad people doing mad things. Helen's obssession with Candyman led her to commit those horrible crimes. Candyman was just in her head and we as a viewers are led to see through her eyes, to see things that were never there, to believe as everybody else who saw Candyman as a real killer and not just urban myth. In the end, we are the ones who will contribute to keep the legend of Candyman alive as long as we believe that it was him all along. In reality, it was always Helen, she is the killer of those people and baby's savour, she is the victim of the mob that wanted to burn Candyman while Trevor was suicidal; in urban mithology, she is a victim of phantom figure, set to become legend herself and kill her unfaithful lover.
shareCandyman was real, he wanted Helen to believe it was her who committed the murders but it was her. Candyman killed the psychiatrist in front of Helen while she was strapped in the chair..
shareThat's your interpretation; mine is that your contributing to the myth of Candyman while I see the death of psychiatrist as Helen's deed. She freed herself from the chair (or she was freed by the doctor) and then she killed him. In her mind, Candyman killed him and then set her free. Everything that we see is not what is seems to be. Going further, this movie is dealing with white guilt which can be seen as Helen's commitment for redemption as well our own point of view as a viewer.
My Top 100 Movies - http://www.imdb.com/list/ls073884968/
Candyman was always real. He framed Helen for the murders so that she would have no choice but to surrender to him. This is clear when nobody believes she's innocent, not even her cheating husband. All she had left was meet with Candyman and rescue the baby.
Where did she get the murder weapon to kill the doctor? And how does Trevor eviscerate himself? Shock from pain alone would've made him pass out before he could complete the job. There is no way he could stay cognizant enough to do that much damage/trauma to his own body.
shareNo, Trevor was killed by Helen. This is what was shown to the audience. We have no reason to believe otherwise.
I'm Oddly Even, who the hell are you?
Except there's nothing in the movie to even remotely hint, build up to or suggest that as a possibility. He cheats on her with a skank putane, and doesn't even visit her in the hospital, prison or ward. There's no indication he loved or even cared for her. The film gave no proof of the notion he'd be distraught enough over her death to kill himself, so there's no reason for me to buy into it.
Officially Canadian for 26 years. Never heard "aboot."
Wrong. Just before he's about to die, he looks at Stacy with regret like she was his life's biggest mistake. Then he enters bathroom and calls Helen's name. By this time, he's on a verge of tears. You can treat someone like sh.t for a long time and then be haunted by the past once you realize that it's too late.
My Top 100 Movies - http://www.imdb.com/list/ls073884968/
So he's only distraught for what he did because he cheated with the wrong skank? What if it were quality skank than? Than it'd be alright? Nah, not buying that as an argument.
Officially Canadian for 26 years. Never heard "aboot."
He did call Helen's name and not because of skank's quality but because of Helen herself.
My Top 100 Movies - http://www.imdb.com/list/ls073884968/
I'm with you, BJ-Bobinatz.
There is a lot of hints in the movie that suggest that The Candyman is not doing the murders, at least not directly. The movie depicts The Candyman urban legend as something people has fear about but in reality there is always someone real behind doing the murders, like those gangsters. There is no Candyman coming out from a mirror but someone trespassing through the hole behind the bathroom mirror.
When I saw the scene in which Helen wakes up bathed in blood with a butcher knife in her hand, I got the idea. Maybe The Candyman is just in her mind or maybe is a real supernatural being that is posessing her, but she is the one killing the others at that point. That misterious writing in the Candyman's lair "it was always you" also makes me think that way. I even thought that Helen could be the reincarnation of the white lover of the murdered candyman, as the drawing of her suggest. Helen becomes a new urban legend.
At the ending scene I noticed that while Stacey founds Trevor slaughtered in the bathroom, she's yelling hysterically while holding the knife she used to slice the meat and she cut herself with. Someone would probably think that Stacey would kill him herself (maybe led by Helen in some way)...
Candyman was always real.
Candyman gets his power by feeding off the fears of those who believe in him especially in Cabrini Green where his legend originated. If you debunk his existence he'll get weak and die. This is the same principle with Freddy Kruger.
Helen "debunked" that the Candyman isnt real. It was just a folkore that a street thug used to scare people to get street credit. This is the turning point of the film. Helen destroyed his congregation, she made people stop believing in Candyman. Helen paid the price by being haunted by the hook-handed boogeyman. He frames her for the murders so that she's left with no choice and surrender to him thats why he used the baby as a hostage. She knew he was doing killings but she couldnt prove it..
Even The Candyman himself admits that he isn’t real....that he only exists through myth/urban legend (writing on the wall etc).
You can attribute the killings to Helen, however, she was in the hospital for a month while the baby survived. It seems to me that whilst there is a subtext about storytelling shrouding murderous deeds, ultimately you have to acknowledge a supernatural element within the literal framework of the story.