I decided to revisit the 1992 Candyman before seeing Nia DaCosta’s new film, hoping to fully appreciate it without struggling to remember the details. Even though I really like Philip Glass' music in the first movie, Bernard Rose’s adaptation of Clive Barker’s story isn’t a top-tier classic for me, despite my appreciation for it. I wasn’t aware of who directed it when I initially saw it, but I was interested to see what DaCosta would do with this well-known narrative. I don't think I'm the best person to engage with the serious subjects explored in this newer movie. From a noticeable and powerful viewpoint on gentrification to the perspective of white critics, the director has a distinct point of view and clear messages about cultural unfairness. As a young European man, I won’t pretend to have any experience or even enough understanding to address these vital and delicate discussions; it's better if other reviewers—particularly Black writers—share their perspectives. I do have complicated feelings about this sequel, though. Despite the gorgeous cinematography (by John Guleserian), editing (by Catrin Hedström), and score (by Robert A. A. Lowe), the screenplay that focuses on themes sometimes feels artificial and occasionally overly moralizing. The characters aren't well-developed, and the film’s length seems unusually brief. Repeated visual summaries of what happened in the earlier movie don’t add anything, and strangely enough, a significant plot point in this sequel is lessened by simply watching the original again. There’s still plenty of graphic violence, although it appears to be somewhat reduced, at least to me. From a technical and visual standpoint, it's genuinely one of the most captivating films released this year. Unfortunately, that quality isn’t extended to the two fundamental elements of filmmaking: plot and characters. Rating: C

Source on TMDB