Customer Reviews

Candyman 3: Day of the Dead

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

Taken on its own - without having seen Candyman 1 and 2 - I may well have enjoyed this movie a lot more than I did, because, it's far from garbage; it just never gets close to the bar the others set. It's techically well-made, but lacking on several fronts. My main fault is that the Candyman character's essence seemed to get lost somewhere - previously he was a horrifying but tragic figure, a monster where you can see why he became what he is; whereas here he comes off just evil, not sympathetic or tragic at all, and his prevoiusly poetic lamentations come across weakly, almost whiny at times, which was definately not the case in the first 2 movies. He veers dangerously close to being just 'evil-for-evil's sake', like Freddy Krueger, instead of the way he was. That works well for the "Nightmare On Elm Street" movies; Freddy is Supposed to be a totally evil, unsympathetic fiend without a single redeeming trait in his burned body - that's one of the main things that made the Elm Streets (the best of them, anyway) so excellent and the Freddy character one of the great horror icons. Candyman is a great horror icon too but for entirely different reasons, and it seems to me that kind of got lost in here.

I don't mean to be unnecessarily harsh. "Candyman: Day Of The Dead" certainly has its good points - solid production, some beautiful California scenery (not the least of which is female lead Donna D'Errico), an unnerving and terrific opening sequence, and another fine performance by Candyman Tony Todd, who manages to impress even with significantly weaker material to work with. It was a valiant attempt by the filmmakers (who did better on the movie "Sleepstalker: Last Rites Of the Sandman"), and I guess I'd still recommend this for Candyman fans - some people may enjoy this more than I did - but in my mind it's still a big comedown from what came before. I hope the 4th installment will be a step back up.

After the classic Candyman, this is a good sequel. I think this is a much better movie than part 2. Part 2 I have mixed feelings on, it's not a great movie, but with this third entry in the series, I think it a not bad sequel. I'm not claiming it's an amazing film, but it is good. The two leads of Nick Corri and Donna D'Errico were good. I love Nick Corri-very sexy. (He should be remembered for 'A Nightmare On Elm Street' as rod lane).

If your a fan of the series, then this is a must in the collection.

As an avid horror fan I LOVED Candyman, LIKED Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh, but I have to say that I didn't really like Candyman 3. The acting was pretty bad - even the Candyman himself was not that intimidating or scary. Of course, the Baywatch beauties are an eye-feast but when it comes to intriguing characters no way - I could have cared less about what was happening to them. Watch out for tired, rehashed special effects. What's with the pasted on bees! My advice is to go rent the original Candman again and enjoy the movie.

The saga of the candyman continues in this third installment of the hit series. I can remember the first time I watched the original created by Clive Barker, I luv'd it, the same can't be said for this film. Caroline is last living descendent of the candyman, and he wants to end it all by ending her. All who watch this film and the acting of Donna D' Errico will wish for the same thing. One would only think that she got the job to secure watchers of Baywatch for the film and for that reason only, or maybe it's because a little fragile thing like her can't take on candyman head on. Get a real actress like KATHY BATES in there and she'll kick his ass {MISERY is a classic}.
As far as Tony Todd is concerned he does a good job in this film, but not as scary as he has been in the other films. He does a good job none the less, and serves as a co-producer. As far as the script goes it's a decent attempt at the franchise, Al Septien & director Turi Meyer do what they can. But that doesn't save the film from being less then average. Side performances from the art gallery owner, the two bad cops, and the gypsy women are great and save the film a little.
There isn't much to the story, Caroline is his last descendent and he wants to stop his pain by taking her. People she knows gets killed so it looks like she did it, and she tries to stop him, that's it nothing more to it. Over all a more worthy sequel of its predecessors would be more enjoyable.

I enjoyed the first two films in the "Candyman" series and I was excited to rent the third film (featuring Baywatch babe Donna D'errico). It wasn't at all what I expected and I can't decide if that's a bad or good thing. The plot is kind of dull and simple yet there is some originality in it. The acting wasn't all that great, but the special effects were pretty good. It has a fair amount of violent and lots of gore, but it isn't that scary. That is what makes it different from its prequels. So, I wouldn't recommend you renting this if you want to be scared. Rent it if you want to see something new and different.

This film was very disapointing end to it's predescessors. In Candyman, the original and it's sequel were written by Clive Barker of whom wrote many classic horror films including Hellraiser but this one was written by an entirely written author.

Anyway, the story continues off in the same fashion. Caroline, the great great grandaughter of Daniel Rubok (aka Candyman) is having some nightmares, nightmares of her relation coming to murder her. That is when she utters his name 5 times.

Candyman has come for her, to claim the last of his bloodline.

Sounds good doesn't it? Or is it what we heard before?

This film was purely made to squeeze whatever was left in the series.

To keep the male audience happy, Caroline is a beautiful blonde bombshell who makes them look.

But the acting is atrocious on her part. Her screams are such a joke and as for the other cast, that speaks for itself. The nudity was totally unnecessary which seemed to mask the true horror of the film. Tony Todd, the Candyman's acting was very much missed in this film. The same storyline exists in this film, and nothing ever changes. Candyman frames his relative with his murders and his classic "Be my victim" still remains but the plot never changes. Also what was missing was the excellent piano score that the previous two had. A sad hypnotic piece it was was replaced by some atrocious music rubbish. Overall an awful film that shouldn't have been produced at all. I rest my case

Oh My God! This movie blew total burrito chunks! I LOVED the first two, but this one was SO bad--the acting, the special effects....everything! (especially the stunts-check out Donna D'errico's fainting..it deserves multiple rewindings! ) DOnt waste your money!

Director: Turi Meyer
Cast: Tony Todd, Donna D'Errico, Alexia Robinson, Jsu Garcia, Mark Adair-Rios, Lupe Ontiveros, Elizabeth Guber, Rena Riffel, Ernie Hudson Jr.
Running Time: 93 minutes
Rated R for bloody violence and gore, sexuality and language.

The third in the series derived from a concept by Clive Barker, "Day of the Dead" (they can't even come up with their own subtitle) staggers down the well-trodden path already navigated by the "Halloween" and "Nightmare on Elm Street" movies: that is, taking a decent concept and flushing it down the toilet. The original movie was a near horror masterpiece and relied on atmosphere rather than gore, while the first sequel was bearable if completely routine. This one is just a load of rubbish. Donna D'Errico, from Baywatch (what a spectacle of credibility), stars as Caroline McKeever, the great great granddaughter of the feared Candyman (Tony Todd once again), once a normal man but now an apparition who appears to slaughter everyone around you if you dare to say his name five times in front of a mirror. Caroline says his name five times in front of a mirror and up he pops to murder her nearest and dearest. As the Candyman hacks his way through various bad actors, Caroline teams up with new pal David (Nick Corri) to find a collection of paintings knocked up by the Candyman while he was still alive, which may hold the key to stopping him.

There's not a single thing here that isn't scavenged from the first "Candyman" film and every other ropy horror movie produced since caveman days. The screenplay is so lazy it can't even be bothered to connect half the characters to the plot, the photography is bright and glossy, which is at odds with what's supposed to be a dark story, while nothing in the direction adds any atmosphere at all. Anyone could have directed this movie, so little effort has been put in to make it scary, while the ending is an outrageous cop out. No thought has gone in to developing themes or structuring the plot because no one here is talented enough to give this movie any depth beyond having D'Errico running around in a variety of tight vests. The rest of the performances are poor too, although none are quite as bad as D'Errico's pathetic attempts at screaming and breathing erratically. Surely more can be done with characters like the Candyman than the constant repetition of scenes where he appears to stick his hook through someone's stomach. The fact that the makers of this movie think Candyman is so terrifying that the very sight of him just standing there will strike fear into our hearts is a sign that they just can't be bothered even to try something a bit different. Clive Barker may not be the master of horror as every at first claimed him to be, but he's right about one thing: the sequels to his movies are garbage.

Candyman 3: Day of the Dead, such a terrible movie, I found myself wondering "Who in the hell could like this movie?" Surely not the people whom flipped for the original film. Candyman (1992) is a very scary film, Clive barker's story was frightening and interesting, this second hand follow up turns the hook handed phantom into a sixth or seventh rate Freddy knock off, I found myself praying to get a glimpse of the BEAUTIFUL female lead in this movie naked, for that would of helped the proceedings along a little bit. But when that is what you find yourself wishing for when watching a sequel to the modern classic, you know that all the lousy FX, sixth grade screenplay and terrible acting have killed the hopes for a decent Candyman sequel.

This movie is just the same as the others but just with a different skin, there is no horror in this film at all, it's more comedy than horror, it is just the same cheap bull as the second one (wich also stinks) and why does he open his jacket when we already know what he has under there.
This movie is stupid do not waste you time/money on it, but still buy it if you really must, but don't say no one warned you.