I think that there’s something about horror films that prevents them from having anything higher than a three star rating on IMDB.
I mean, maybe that’s not a bad thing, but I’ve noticed that as I’ve looked up the release year on films.
I may have already reviewed Candyman, but I’m not sure. I have, however, reviewed The Forbidden (the source material for this film).
Clive Barker’s film adaptations are in the love/hate relationship group for me. I love them, I think that his imagery is potent enough to make the jump to the screen in a sort of Silent Hill, mind-messing way. On the other hand, I swear that they all end with a similar image. All of them. You could swap out the ending of Hellraiser with the end of Candyman and end up in pretty much the same place.
There are some pivotal differences between the Forbidden and Candyman, mainly in relationship to the titular villain himself. The movie also tends to strip out the sociological emphasis that I love so much in the short story but I suppose that most people don’t want to hear about the follies of a grad level sociology program. I feel that, while certainly being gritty, the building complex in the short is actually presented as both darker and more confusing. There are some fairly large changes made to the plot when it makes the jump to screen that may or may not be important to the viewer. I feel that for myself, I was able to handle the changes smoothly but at the same time, having rewatched this film after reading the source story, I’m a little confused and disappointed with the shifts.
But has the actual film stood the passage of time? Actually, I think that it does. I think that there is a certain creepiness that goes with urban legends that gives the movie something timeless.