Episode 52 – Candyman

In episode 52 of the CTGY podcast, Kelly and Rich delve into the urban legend of Candyman.. Candyman.. Candyman.. no.

Other topics include thoughts on The Dark Tower trailer, Stranger Things 2, Gears of War, Unbreakable, Godzilla vs. Kong, Polaroid, Blood Feast, The Thing and plenty of urban legend talk.

*Apologies for the sound this week – Kelly was in a different room so it sounds like she’s stuck down a cave.. oops. It will be better next time!*

Trailer – Candyman (1992)
Outro song – The Strangeloves, ‘I Want Candy’

If you liked this episode, please feel free to follow us on the social media accounts listed on the website, comment about the film or rate/subscribe/review on iTunes. And always tell all of your friends.

Cheers!

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Episode 52 – Candyman

  1. As heard on the podcast, the most interesting thing about Candyman is how easy it is to either view Candyman as being real or not. It sounds as if both hosts not only quickly came to the conclusion that their stance was correct, but that it’s so obvious that they never spent much time thinking about whether the other stance could be correct. I find that really interesting and at least in the context of this sole movie, ignoring the sequels, both hosts are correct.

    While watching the movie, I took everything at face value. Not only was it a little more fun to go along with the idea that the Candyman was real, but the film was going a little too hard at causing everyone to assume Helen was the killer that it made me less likely to believe that she was. Rework the script some and you’d have a nice M Night twist with the end revealing that Candyman was all a delusion in Helen’s head and she was the one who had killed everyone.

    There were two moments in the film that kept me from going down the path where I’d suspect that Helen was actually the killer. The first, Rich actually explained away, with Helen’s escape at the mental asylum. The whole idea of a single worker at the hospital not paying attention and leaving one of the straps loose enough for her to escape is simple, but it works. However, the scene I can’t wrap my head around how it supports Helen as the killer is the end with the residents of Chicago putting flowers on Helen’s grave. I don’t know if Rich reads the comments on this site, but I’d be interested in hearing his explanation for the funeral scene.

    Take away that scene and you would have plenty of explanations for why Helen became the killer. Not only is she dealing with the stress of knowing her husband has been unfaithful, but she’s probably becoming a bit too obsessed with these Candyman urban legends. Throw in her run in with the gang leader called Candyman and it makes total sense for why a seemingly normal woman would just snap.

    Being that it had been years since I last saw the Candyman trilogy before my recent re-watch that prompted my request of the film to be covered on CTGY, I was left extremely disappointed by the sequels. I wasn’t a fan at all of either sequel having the female lead be related to Candyman while still having the sexual tension of the first film still be there. To make matters worse, the writers kept changing the rules to beat Candyman and even his backstory. They took what was a promising new horror icon and ruined him before a Candyman series could properly start getting “Big”. With horror TV shows being all of the rage these days, I’d be interested in seeing a Candyman TV series.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yeah I still agree that it’s alright to go along with the whole “he’s real!” thing. I totally forgot about the funeral part and how everyone attended. If she really was so bad and crazy, why would they go? Rich is just a moron.. or really into the more psychological side of things haha, which is fine.

      I am not sure if I will ever really bother with the sequels – only if I’m really that bored. – Kelly

      Like

      • I wonder if there was a scene missing from after Helen died in the fire to the funeral scene explaining what had happened so that the residents would understand. Whether that means the residents found out for sure that Helen was missing, giving them a great reason to care about Helen and say goodbye for basically sacrificing herself to save the baby or learning for sure that Helen was Candyman and possibly realizing that Helen was a victim herself thanks to mental illness. Just a scene from the script that answers any remaining questions the viewers may have about Helen.

        If it wasn’t for the flowers, I could even understand the residents going to Helen’s funeral. It’s not about mourning her death, but rather giving themselves some closure in seeing the casket, and knowing that this fear of the Candyman is finally dead. The flowers make it complicated for me and since Helen is dead, the film doesn’t have the benefit of having the perspective of the shot be from a crazy person whose interpretation of what’s happening should not be entirely trusted.

        If you were just a casual horror fan, I’d suggest not bothering with the sequels since neither are good and lack the depth of the original. However, you’re obviously not a casual horror fan and you’ve got a great amount of horror knowledge. I’d recommend at least watching the sequels once just to gain a bit more Candyman knowledge. They’re not worth going out of your way to watch immediately, but if you have a lazy Sunday without anything to do and you’re looking for some movies to watch, pop on the Candyman sequels and prepare to groan and roll your eyes at the screen a lot.

        Like

  2. “M. Night Sham, you either love him or hate him.”

    Personally, I am indifferent to him. Out of all his movies, I’ve seen four. The Sixth Sense – I loved it when I saw it on its theatrical release, but it hasn’t held up for me in recent viewings. I don’t hold on to nostalgia. I don’t remember much about Signs. I sort of liked Unbreakable, and I think Split sucks. “Meh”, seems to be my response toward him. He has had some great concepts and twists, but his delivery is for a bubble gum audience. Take Split, if he had written it geared more towards life like scenarios, conflicts, and overall darker subject matter, it might have been good – especially with the reference at the end to lighten the mood a tad, to indicate there are heroes in this world inhabited by monsters.

    Onto Candyman. That must partly explain how the sequels lacked, since they were devoid of the open ended interpretation of the first one. It’s another of those franchises where its first should be looked at unofficially as a standalone. I had already read some of the trivia you shared a while back, including gang members providing protection. If I had read about Madsen going through hypnosis, and Todd having real bees in his mouth – it felt like news. Eddie Murphy as the title role would have only worked (somewhat) if it was instead a horror-comedy, enabling him to deliver zingers before each kill. It seems “Once you go black, you never come back” would have been among those. Maybe America brings over its own Wolf Creek, giving Will Ferrell or John C. Reilly the role of lead villain. Good ol’ movies.

    Also thanks for the reminder of “Casting Jon Benet”, just watched it after listening to #52, and I was given some insight on other theories with the case. The two most common ones I heard was Patsy or Burke. It was a great idea to show the different choices to play each role, the viewer is given the ability to be their own casting director. Some laughs included the “Sex educator”, as well as having Santa Claus discern that maybe Patsy was a royal bitch of a mom. And the jailed pedophile, it was obvious right away who was fit for that part. The men who were uncomfortable by even trying to fathom that kind of person were obviously uncut to even act enough to pretend NOT to be disturbed. Those two duds must have been there only because of their imposing size. Some sick humor here: when it comes to children, you don’t need to be a big ‘on. I’d also like to read further into the sex ring operation, because that’s been covered up in industries such as American film, so it wouldn’t surprise me in the least. If anything, I expect it – business as usual.

    Kelly: Since you follow a lot of true crime, do you have any unique/unsolved cases that would be worth reading/watching documentaries?

    Also enjoyed your inclusion of local lore and your own spooky adventures. I wish I did more of that. New Jersey is chock full of that stuff. Read “Weird NJ” if you haven’t heard of it.

    If you’re taking in suggestions for episode subjects, one I’d like to listen to you two talk about is Session 9. Only saw it last year, but it warranted repeat views, and has not simmered down. It became an instant favorite right away.

    Question for Crypt: Would it be creepy if an adult who can’t draw were to submit his picture, posing as a child, to the Monster Project, in order to have his crap drawing actually turn out well?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s