IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,3/10
15.229
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Der Candyman kommt in New Orleans an und richtet sein Augenmerk auf eine junge Frau, deren Familie Jahre zuvor von dem unsterblichen Mörder ruiniert wurde.Der Candyman kommt in New Orleans an und richtet sein Augenmerk auf eine junge Frau, deren Familie Jahre zuvor von dem unsterblichen Mörder ruiniert wurde.Der Candyman kommt in New Orleans an und richtet sein Augenmerk auf eine junge Frau, deren Familie Jahre zuvor von dem unsterblichen Mörder ruiniert wurde.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Russell Buchanan
- Kingfisher
- (Synchronisation)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
They had to do it. They had to make a sequel to one of the greatest horror movies of the 90s. But it's always sad to see how much difference in quality there has to be. I have to say, as far as sequels of slasher movies go, this ain't that bad. It has good production values. But of course the great acting performances of the original are gone except for Tony Todd's, who is almost equally as good as he was in the original. But also gone are the great editing and photography, the gritty realistic feel of the original, the eerie and moody score of Philip Glass. Candyman just continues ripping people up with motives that are standard in slasher movies. The bees are involved more in the gory scenes, but are still underused.
Not half as good as the first movie. I haven't seen the third nor am i interested in doing so.
Not half as good as the first movie. I haven't seen the third nor am i interested in doing so.
It has a good story line and also a fantastic musical side to it as well that adds to the atmosphere of the film...does anyone know if there is a soundtrack? Highly doubt it. Kelly Rowan is well sexy (in a girl next door kinda way)and plays the lead really well. Each to their own on this film I guess, but it's good to see that I'm not on the only person in the world that rates it....Just something about it, the whole New Orleans/Mardi Gras thing just adds that special something to it. The first film is cool as well, def a little more freaky, especially the last couple of scenes. But this one is my fav and it does sound as if I'm not missing much when I say I haven't seen the third film.
Ok, before I begin I'd like to clear up a little squabble. This sequel to the early 90s original is called Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh. NOT Candyman 2. Anyone who disagrees with this statement might as well have said the aforementioned killer's name a certain number of times. The film, obviously, loses any sense of the originality that made the first in the series so breathtaking, but so what? People who claim sequels of this kind are ALWAYS bad should not watch them, because they never will be as good as their originals. This outing sees the hook-handed serial killer return for another gut-wrenching, blood-soaked dose of supernatural shenanigans, with the emphasis on BLOOD. Because there's lots of it, which is not a bad thing, cos we'd die without blood. If that makes sense. Final verdict: watch if you're a fan, don't if you hate sequels. Oh, by the way, i liked it. But that's maybe just me.
Schoolteacher Annie Tarrant travels to New Orleans, to investigate her father's death, foolishly she summons The Candyman, and faces an almost impossible challenge to stay alive.
Farewell to the Flesh is actually a pretty decent follow up to the original, classic horror. I'm surprised to read a few comments where people say they prefer it to the original, no way on Earth, some elements are better, but the overall package just isn't in the same league.
The best thing about this film, and where it scores over the original, the storyline, it's actually a great story, we've got the origins of The Candyman himself, and a good backstory for Annie, our central character.
Tony Todd, what can you say, he's just got something, when he's on screen, you watch, he just has a natural charisma, mix that in with the dark elements of the character, it's winning mix.
Unfortunately, it looks a little cheaply made, and some of the scares are lacking, neither are enough to stop this from being a rather enjoyable sequel, just don't bother with the third.
6/10.
Farewell to the Flesh is actually a pretty decent follow up to the original, classic horror. I'm surprised to read a few comments where people say they prefer it to the original, no way on Earth, some elements are better, but the overall package just isn't in the same league.
The best thing about this film, and where it scores over the original, the storyline, it's actually a great story, we've got the origins of The Candyman himself, and a good backstory for Annie, our central character.
Tony Todd, what can you say, he's just got something, when he's on screen, you watch, he just has a natural charisma, mix that in with the dark elements of the character, it's winning mix.
Unfortunately, it looks a little cheaply made, and some of the scares are lacking, neither are enough to stop this from being a rather enjoyable sequel, just don't bother with the third.
6/10.
I think the original Candyman is a very good horror film and builds upon the mythos of such urban legends as "Bloody Mary" and so on and so forth. It didn't feature the best acting in the world but it was suitable and the atmosphere was very scary.
The sequel, "Candyman II: Farewell to the Flesh," is as most horror sequels typically are -- inferior and less scary. It's like "Halloween II," "Friday the 13th Part II" and "Psycho II": not as good as the original! Yet for what it is, "Candyman II" is quite entertaining, and still manages to remain rather atmospheric. The film takes place in New Orleans around the Mardi Gras and it's got some good scary segments. Some aren't so scary but are fun to watch. We know what's going to happen but it's still entertaining.
No this isn't expertly made but it isn't mind-numbingly bad as some of the genre are. Basically it's loads of blood but it also retains its creepy cinematography and the direction is better than expected.
Overall this kept me entertained, which is all I expected in the first place.
The sequel, "Candyman II: Farewell to the Flesh," is as most horror sequels typically are -- inferior and less scary. It's like "Halloween II," "Friday the 13th Part II" and "Psycho II": not as good as the original! Yet for what it is, "Candyman II" is quite entertaining, and still manages to remain rather atmospheric. The film takes place in New Orleans around the Mardi Gras and it's got some good scary segments. Some aren't so scary but are fun to watch. We know what's going to happen but it's still entertaining.
No this isn't expertly made but it isn't mind-numbingly bad as some of the genre are. Basically it's loads of blood but it also retains its creepy cinematography and the direction is better than expected.
Overall this kept me entertained, which is all I expected in the first place.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesBernard Rose originally conceived a sequel to his 1992 hit Candymans Fluch (1992) as not featuring the eponymous character at all but instead continuing to explore the nature of urban horror myths. This was quickly scotched when the producers figured that audiences would show up because they wanted to see Candyman eviscerate his victims.
- PatzerAs Annie's brother falls down the steps, he is obviously replaced by a stuntman with long hair.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 6.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 13.940.383 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 6.046.825 $
- 19. März 1995
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 13.941.216 $
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was Candyman 2 - Die Blutrache (1995) officially released in India in Hindi?
Antwort