Thats not true. Candyman killed the white chick at the beginning from the backstory one of the students was telling Helen. Candyman also killed the Dr. Burke, the psychiatrist..He even framed Helen..He wasnt targeting only black people..
Yes, white people die too but his concern is the terror/belief of the members of the housing project who (as evidenced by the burning/funeral scenes), are shown to be exclusively black. Seems kinda like an odd response. Were I the son of a former slave and lynched by racist white folk, I think I'd spend my undead energies terrorizing the kind of people who were responsible for my misery. Were I just Candyman, I might just go after racists but, were I in a bad mood, I'd probably take out my ire on most whites. The last thing I would do would be to spend my time terrorizing an exclusively black housing project where the people are all likely descended from slaves who were likely to have experienced the same horrors and lynchings that created me.
But thats the point. Framing Helen was to prove to her that Candyman is real.
Ummmmm....how? Just saying, "that's the point" is seems to be a get out of jail free card for plot holes. How does framing someone else for your crimes help prove you exist?
Let's start from square one. We've got this group of people (in the housing project) who believes in a super-natural entity that kills people when they say his name 5 times. Then, we have some annoying white lady who comes to this group and says, "he's a myth" but also seems strangely obsessed with him. Then, the annoying white lady finds some gang leader and convinces everyone that he is really the Candyman and the whole ghost story is a fake.
Now, were the REAL Candyman to kill more people then this could generate belief in him. People would be found dead, having been killed by a hook, but the lack of any evidence or anyone else on the scene would point to a supernatural killer. Everyone would start saying, "it must have been Candyman."
On the other hand, if the same crazy white lady who was obsessed with Candyman is at all the crime scenes (every time covered in blood and holding a weapon); it seems like the residence are likely to conclude that she's nuts and started killing people once she'd gotten rid of the gang member. In fact, that's what the mother of the stolen baby OBVIOUSLY THINKS because she attacks Helen, assuming she killed her dog and stole her baby.
It's another instance where this film has some interesting ideas but it's too damn lazy to actually make them work in a cohesive script. It almost feels like they kept re-writing the movie as they were filmming because so much is so illogical and contradictory.
Also, Cabrini Green residence would still believe that the Candyman still exist..You could just say Helen was taking the credit for Candyman's murders the whole time..
Once again, that makes no sense. If Helen can destroy their belief in Candyman by giving them one human killer (the gang leader); then why the hell would another human killer (herself), suddenly give them belief in a supernatural entity? It's just a rather dumb plan on Candyman's part, especially if he's so damn concerned with people believing in him.
Because Helen isnt the killer, its Candyman and he's entangling Helen into the myth.
Don't know what point you're trying to make here. I agree, Helen isn't the killer because the movie shows numerous things which can't be explained without an element of the supernatural. However, many people seem to claim this is an intelligent film for being open-ended and lending it'self to multiple interpretations. Sadly, this really isn't the case. The film can't seem to make up its mind what it's about and if it's a psychological horror film or just a gory slasher movie. It ends up unsatisfying in both respects.
Candyman burned to a crisp..
So...apparently this undead ghost creature is able to live forever, fly out windows, and survive with a small colony of bees living inside him but a little fire is able to take as easy as any undead person.
reply
share
Verdugo85
10 years ago
Yes, white people die too but his concern is the terror/belief of the members of the housing project who (as evidenced by the burning/funeral scenes), are shown to be exclusively black. Seems kinda like an odd response. Were I the son of a former slave and lynched by racist white folk, I think I'd spend my undead energies terrorizing the kind of people who were responsible for my misery. Were I just Candyman, I might just go after racists but, were I in a bad mood, I'd probably take out my ire on most whites. The last thing I would do would be to spend my time terrorizing an exclusively black housing project where the people are all likely descended from slaves who were likely to have experienced the same horrors and lynchings that created me.
Candyman's ashes was scattered over Cabrini Green prior when he was murdered and the legend lived on from there.
Let's start from square one. We've got this group of people (in the housing project) who believes in a super-natural entity that kills people when they say his name 5 times. Then, we have some annoying white lady who comes to this group and says, "he's a myth" but also seems strangely obsessed with him. Then, the annoying white lady finds some gang leader and convinces everyone that he is really the Candyman and the whole ghost story is a fake.
That's the turning point of the film. Candyman's power is through people's fear, by believing in him. The thug took the Candyman moniker kept the legend alive but Helen destroyed that, she ruined the faith of the Candyman's congregation..Thats why the real Candyman came for her, to revive his legend restore belief in him. She even ended up believing and fearing him..
Now, were the REAL Candyman to kill more people then this could generate belief in him. People would be found dead, having been killed by a hook, but the lack of any evidence or anyone else on the scene would point to a supernatural killer. Everyone would start saying, "it must have been Candyman."
I see what you're saying but Helen held a weapon in Annie Marie and Bernadette's crime scenes. She was gonna get charged for Bernadette's death regardless..
Once again, that makes no sense. If Helen can destroy their belief in Candyman by giving them one human killer (the gang leader); then why the hell would another human killer (herself), suddenly give them belief in a supernatural entity? It's just a rather dumb plan on Candyman's part, especially if he's so damn concerned with people believing in him.
People still believed in Candyman. You can notice at the end of the film when the boy Jake, his friends and other Cabrini Green residence goes to burn up the garbage pile thinking its Candyman not realizing its Helen who's inside trying to rescue the baby.
So...apparently this undead ghost creature is able to live forever, fly out windows, and survive with a small colony of bees living inside him but a little fire is able to take as easy as any undead person.
Hey, I myself found it strange but there wasnt a specific way to kill Candyman, was there?
reply
share
beierfilms
10 years ago
I think we're talking across purposes. I'm aware of the plot of the movie and how things are supposed to fit together. My problem is that there are so many contradictions in the film that it shows a lack of internal logic and plain sloppy writing.
As I said in another post, I couldn't help but get the strong sense that the script was heavily altered during filming or they started filming without a complete script because so many things really don't work out.
It seems like the the filmmakers liked the idea of playing with urban legends, adding some social commentary (in regards to race and poverty), and even adding an element of psychological horror (by, at times, making it appear as if Helen could be the killer); but they didn't put in the work to really make these themes work and also wanted there over-the-top tits and gore appeal. It's a frustrating film because it bungles some good ideas in such a way that the movie is frustrating because of how short it falls of a good premise. Kinda reminds me of Prometheus in that respect.
Candyman's ashes was scattered over Cabrini Green prior when he was murdered and the legend lived on from there.
Except other things indicate that Candyman isn't just localized to Cabrini. As you yourself pointed out, they interview other people NOT from the housing project who also have stories of him. He certainly has no problem leaving the area to bust Helen out of the crazy ward when he needs to.
I'm sure there's some half baked explanation that fans can come up with but it's really just sloppy writing. The filmmakers clearly had a reason to move the story from London (where the Clive Barker story this film is based on took place); to poor/exclusively-African-American housing project. They also clearly had a reason in creating a backstory for Candyman as the son of the former slave killed by white racists. Both plot points seem designed to suggest racial/social elements in the story but the writers were too lazy to make them work together and, as a result, they end up making the story needlessly muddy.
That's the turning point of the film. Candyman's power is through people's fear, by believing in him. The thug took the Candyman moniker kept the legend alive but Helen destroyed that, she ruined the faith of the Candyman's congregation..Thats why the real Candyman came for her, to revive his legend restore belief in him. She even ended up believing and fearing him..
Even this is rather vague though. Candyman appears to have been around for a while. Some murders may have been caused by this gang member but he looks pretty young so it's doubtful that hey alone has been keeping the legend alive. The fact that we hear of other, non-Cabrini reports of Candyman which all seem pretty supernatural in nature also suggests that he hasn't been dormant since he died.
I see what you're saying but Helen held a weapon in Annie Marie and Bernadette's crime scenes. She was gonna get charged for Bernadette's death regardless..
BUT CANDYMAN PUT HER IN THAT POSITION! He didn't just go kill Annie Marie's dog and steal her baby so that she'd tell everyone that Candyman was real (as would likely be the case). Instead, he commits these crimes and then places Helen at the scene of them (leaving her asleep in a pool of blood); so that Annie Marie assumes that she is the killer and tells everyone that she is the killer. He claims to want people to believe in him yet then goes to great lengths to provide evidence that disproves his existence.
I'm not going to argue with you that Helen is stupid beyond belief in this film (another example of bad writing). It's dumb (but maybe understandable) that she grabs the weapon the first time out of fear (though she never seemed to feel the need to grab a weapon in the first half of the film when going into dangerous situations). The fact that she grabs the knife after the second murder in her apartment is so stupid it's insulting; especially given the fact that she's already been framed once.
People still believed in Candyman. You can notice at the end of the film when the boy Jake, his friends and other Cabrini Green residence goes to burn up the garbage pile thinking its Candyman not realizing its Helen who's inside trying to rescue the baby.
Once again, you're just telling me the plot of the movie which we've already established. It doesn't clear up any of the contradictions. Yes, they are shown to be burning stuff indicating they believe in Candyman. My issue is that this doesn't make a whole lot of sense given they apparently stopped believing in him a few days earlier (after one gang member got put in jail); and given the only new development (from their point of view); is a murder which seems to have been committed by that crazy white lady (as both Annie Marie and the Police believe). This is what I mean by sloppy writing.
Hey, I myself found it strange but there wasnt a specific way to kill Candyman, was there?
Once again, the problem is that the film seems to have no internal logic. If we are to by that this guy has risen from the dead, it seems as though he's relatively immortal and impervious to harm. Certainly being able to jump out of window several stories up and survive while being eaten alive by bees would indicate that regular things don't kill this dude. Thus, it seems kinda odd that fire suddenly takes the guy out (especially given that there's not even anything symbolic in his back-story for that would hint at why). It's just another way that the writers seem to be pulling stuff out of their butts.
reply
share
beierfilms
10 years ago
Just to elaborate on why the whole Cabrini thing is bad writing:
Let's take a look at another horror film: A Nightmare on Elm Street.
Now, I don't think this is a great horror movie but it works well for what it is and manages to pull of its premise fairly decently.
In that film, we have a monster (Freddy Krueger), who is terrorizing teens from a local high school. Eventually, we find out that he was once a serial killer (who killed children), but was let loose on a technicality. Several members of the community took the law into their own hands and burned him alive in the high school furnace. In revenge, he comes back to kill their children. Here, we have a setting (high school with teens) and a monster (Freddy, a former child murderer burned alive in the high school) which are related. The monster chooses his victims in a way that makes logical sense for revenge based on the way he died. That's the reason the monster and his victims are linked. Candyman sets up a potential relationship between monster, setting, and victims but then bungles the logic. It would be like if Freddy had decided to kill other serial killers instead of getting revenge on the teens because of their parents' actions.
It's a basic tenant of good writing that, "if you show a shotgun over the fireplace, at some point that shotgun needs to go off." Candyman has a lot of guns that don't go off or just misfire. It draws attention to certain details of a story but then doesn't make use of them or uses them in a way which is logically inconsistent with the rest of the film.
reply
share
Verdugo85
10 years ago
My issue is that this doesn't make a whole lot of sense given they apparently stopped believing in him a few days earlier (after one gang member got put in jail); and given the only new development (from their point of view); is a murder which seems to have been committed by that crazy white lady (as both Annie Marie and the Police believe). This is what I mean by sloppy writing.
Yes, this is why Candyman framed Helen, to revive his legend, to make it look like Helen took the Candyman moniker, which will make people believe that the Candyman murders continues..
reply
share
beierfilms
10 years ago
Yes, this is why Candyman framed Helen, to revive his legend, to make it look like Helen took the Candyman moniker, which will make people believe that the Candyman murders continues..
I really can't tell if we're not understanding each other or what the disconnect is here. Let me try one last time before throwing in the towel.
FRAMING HELEN DOES NOT LOGICALLY REVIVE THE LEGEND.
People are scared of Candyman because they believe he is a supernatural creature that is immortal and can come through your mirror to kill you. That's what frightened them and made them believe in a ghost (which is basically what Candyman is). This is a greater thread than just a regular person who happens to be holding a hook.
Helen, made the people of Cabrini stop believing by telling them that Candyman was not real and then revealing a gang member who was behind some recent killings and using the moniker of "Candyman." After the line-up, the little kid didn't say, "so Candyman is in jail?" he said, "so Candyman's not real?" Their fear was not of a man but of a monster and showing that the threat was from a mere man was what got them to stop believing.
Thus, it makes little sense that another person (in this case a crazy white lady) taking the monkier of "Candyman" is going to instill in them the same terror. Once again, it's just another regular person rather than a supernatural monster who is doing the killing.
reply
share
Sweet_T0209
9 years ago
I think Im the only one that agrees with you. I don't see any sense in her being framed like that because he basically gavr Helen credit for the crime scenes he made.
I also agree with your logic as to why he targeted a black community.
As for the comment about her picking up the knife she did that for defense before saying "get away from me"to Candy man. Therefore she already had the knife in her hand before Bernadette was killed.
I want to share another thing that doesn't make sense. I shared this before and maybe you can clarify it: Bernadette was killed with a hook. Couldn't an autopsy report reveal she was killed with a more obtrusive weapon than a knife??? Also Helen is right handed. How come the authorities didnt notice Helen had a puncture wound near her juggler on the left side of her neck that Candyman created? I know it didn't heal that fast. Idk. Im with you. There are too many inconsistencies and plot holes.
reply
share
jml-inv
10 years ago
Also one might point to the fact that a woman who had previously been denying his existence, to the young boy and in general, is now attributing the kidnapping and murders to this same Candyman. He is thus helping spread the fear and keep his name alive. Sure people would say "No she's the one killing them" etc, but at the same time there would be the what if fear in the back of their minds that he may exist.
Thus his "congregation" would surely still fear him.
List of best tv series voted by IMDB users http://www.imdb.com/list/ubCYOSR-b6E/
reply
share