by Jeffery J. Rahming, Contributing Writer
Contrary to what the film’s marketing may have led some audience members to believe, Candyman is not directed by Jordan Peele. That credit belongs to Nia DaCosta. Still, as its producer and one of its writers, it has Peele’s fingerprints all over it. The film has a mixture of horror and social commentary that has now become his signature. Unfortunately, this modern-day sequel/reboot struggles to blend these elements as well as previous Peele-led productions did.
Candyman is at its best when it’s a straightforward horror movie. The actors sell the scares, the kills are always creatively shot and disturbing, and the slow burn body horror that happens to the lead character throughout the film keeps your eyes glued to the screen. Every member of the cast brings their A-game. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Teyonah Parris are excellent as the two leads of the piece, but the movie’s MVP is Colman Domingo. I won’t spoil his role in the story, but suffice to say that his performance is strong enough to carry the somewhat convoluted journey the movie takes you down.
While it fulfills its duties as a horror movie, when Candyman tries its hand at social commentary it falls flat, and comparing it to Jordan Peele’s other films can help us see why. While it touched on many things, Get Out was primarily about the commodification of black people’s bodies and talents at the disposal of their personhood and individuality. Us was about the idea of a beautiful life built on a dark past, drawing a parallel between the main character’s situation and the treatment of indigenous cultures in western societies. These themes are very specific, allowing the films to explore these complicated issues in depth. Meanwhile, Candyman so desperately wants to be about something, but fails to commit to any of its ideas. Is it about police brutality? Gentrification? The marginalization of black artists in white art spaces? The film touches on all of these topics, but never actually explores them with any nuance or depth.
The script abandons any attempts at subtlety in favor of grinding the movie to a halt to lecture the audience at random moments. By the time film reaches its climax, you still don’t have a firm grip on what the writers were really going for with its messaging. I think that where the film takes the Candyman mythology is an intriguing concept, but the execution is so scattershot in its approach that it fails to stick the landing. The script just needed a little more focus.
At the end of the day, Candyman is still an entertaining watch. DaCosta is a talented director that knows how to deliver the terror, but the film fails to fully live up to its ambitions. For horror fans, Candyman is worth watching at some point, but it may not be an experience you absolutely have to see in theaters.
Grade: C+