Las opiniones de los clientes, incluidas las valoraciones del producto, ayudan a otros clientes a obtener más información sobre el producto y a decidir si es el adecuado para ellos.
Para calcular el desglose general de valoraciones y porcentajes, no utilizamos un simple promedio. Nuestro sistema también considera factores como cuán reciente es una reseña y si el autor de la opinión compró el producto en Amazon. También analiza las reseñas para verificar su fiabilidad.
I like this one but I am on the fence what to say. Is it “for the fans”, who enjoyed the first movie’s style and want more? Because I think a lot of them would be annoyed at how much more “movie” this is, and how saying Candyman in the mirror always guarantees a bloody murder, whereas the first movie played it fast and loose with the mythology (Helen didn’t get attacked when she did this, for example). Or do I recommend it to people who wouldn’t necessarily like the first film, with its more grounded elements and slower pace? The best things I can say for this are that, despite being much more of a conventional Hollywood horror movie (and much more conventional in its treatment of race relations too), it does not retread too many elements of the first film. It builds on the first movie, to a point, and does expand its mythology. But it doesn’t take place in such a recognisably real environment which hurts it, and the ending, while spectacular, is a mess. We do get to see Candyman’s origin in this ending, which is good, but having Candyman himself (or Daniel Robetaille) tell it makes him too human. No longer larger than life. Then Candyman gets an Achille’s heel, the source of all his power - a haunted mirror. I mean, get right off. Plus, “be my witness” is nowhere near as iconic and awesome as “be my victim”. Barker’s touch is felt, which is good, but at no point does it feel like you’re watching anyone’s vision, least of all director Bill Condon’s. It’s Bill Condon’s realisation of Gramercy’s pictures collective vision of a continuation of Bernard Rose’s vision based on Clive Barker’s story. It did make me kinda sad that in Jordan Peele’s Candyman soft reboot, those bees will 100% be CGI. I still don’t understand why the Candyman was born and died in New Orleans (we’re told here) but his ashes were scattered in Cabrini Green (as per the first movie)?
Revisited on 88 films new blu-ray, which sits nicely next to the first movie in Arrow’s edition. Looks and sounds great, plus I love the booklet which, joy of joys, doesn’t feature Calum Waddel and in fact does feature two writers centrist enough to call out “triggered” and “problematic” meaningless buzzwords, in an essay that is even handed about the movie’s value and has interjected quotes from the writer. Nice.
Let's face it. No where near the original and yet so much better then the third. Is that a reason to buy this film? I'd say it isn't a reason not too! The movie takes a little more of a look into the man behind the myth and his family tree that has forgotten him. The magic of the first one isn't here but it's a decent view. I think where they tried to make it more about the man behind the myth then the legend itself took something away from this film. That being said. I would say give a watch. It does add something to the story.
The restorations are great, but I honestly just bought it here because i thought it had a Slipcover , just as in the picture. Don't count on it unfortunately. not a bad sequel though, but the first is still the best
Whilst obviously nowhere near as excellent as the staggeringly brilliant original, the first, there was another sequel, sequel is definitely watchable. But that’s about all. Tony Todd is strikingly handsome here and more than carries the film. He gets little, to no, help from the leading lady slash heroine slash damsel in distress, here played by Kelly Rowan, who was Julianne Moore’s upstairs, or downstairs, neighbor in Assassins. She’s so slight as to not even really be a presence in the film. And when compared with the original’s Virginia Madsen she comes off as a wailing banshee of despair. Plus she can’t scream. But at least there’s subtitles and SDH subtitles to boot. This release comes with a recyclable booklet plus some extras. The film is 95 minutes long, and, boy, does it ever drag towards the end.
Seems like everyone had gotten a bit over-excited! As far as horror sequels go this is not a bad one, but seriously it's no lost gem either. That said, it does have some things of note. It cleverly expands on the myth of the original (a far greater film!) ans, satisfyingly, gives Tony Todd loads more to do - he can actually act!! Bu the film lets itself down with ridiculous plot twists and a really, really annoying voice-over/radio D.j that grates immediately. All in all, this is no horror show of a horror sequel (boom, boom!)and if you were a fan of the original it's worth punting a few quid on (A rental is only a pound or so more) but don't expect anything as good as the original, which i whole heartadly recommend by the way!
This movie is okay. I really just ordered it to add to my horror collection. In my opinion, they didn't really need to make a sequel. The backstory stuff is kind of contradictory to the first movie. The first 10 minutes are the best (when the jerk professor from the original gets what's coming to him).
Not as good as I remembered , special features decent , transfer has several pops and lines it's as if they just randomly selected a 35 mm print and made that the transfer . Kinda adds to the b movie atmosphere , but surprising scream factory put such a bland transfer out there usually they do better . I suggest just watch first Candyman