It's not that the film is bad
It's just that the name "Candyman" makes people expect something more comical or whimsical. This movie was actually terrifying.
This is a fantastic film. One of my favourite horrors. Easy 8/10
sharehttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103919/reviews?sort=helpfulnessScore&dir=desc&ratingFilter=2
I'd say it is rated low because people in this generation hate 90's movies and gratuitous violence over a psychological thriller. It's a 90's movie, it isn't supposed to be some glossed up CGI fest pretending to have a deep story when everything is all superficial.
Ironically the '92 movie is gorier than the remake which I thought was just boring.
shareIt caught me by surprise. I thought it would be one of those silly, over the top 90s slasher. I was not expecting this.
I guess because there's not a lot of jumpscares and all the detective work puts people off.
I was expecting a movie about a guy who targeted children by using candy.
As for the score, perhaps a lot of people were underwhelmed by the lack of kills.
There's also the issue of the scene with the dog...
I haven't seen this film in a long time but I remember liking it. All I really seem to remember is the title character's origin where he was a black man who was wrongfully accused of a crime, beaten by a mob of people, covered in honey, and then dragged to a bee hive they knock down so that he dies a horrible death via getting stung by bees. Which is way better than the stupid new remake where he's killed by cops.
shareIt's not that the film is bad
It's just that the name "Candyman" makes people expect something more comical or whimsical. This movie was actually terrifying."
I would've thought seeing the trailer the 1st time would've shed this notion??