From: lorenzo@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Eric J. Lorenzo)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Candyman
Summary: *SPOILERS*
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:31:27 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

Seems like Mike beat me to posting about this film(you forgot to add spoilers
warning Mike. . .SHAME).  All in all, I would definately suggest going to see
the film, try to go to a showing where the theatre is full ;^)  I'm going to
add some spoilers, but seeing as how I don't know how control-L works, I'll
just hit returns a bunch of times. . .

























That should be enough :^)  I've read 'The Forbidden' so I'm going to be
comparing the flick to the story.  I thought it was over all a very good horror
film.  It didn't rely upon gore as much as Barker's other films.  The scary
parts would be 'jump' scenes where something pops out of nowhere and every
screams and jumps at it.  It makes the film very intense.  There was one
scene where there was non stop screaming for about 1/2 a minute.

	I didn't catch the actors names so I'll just use their characters 
names.  Helen, who is working on her thesis on urban folklore, stumbles upon
the tale of the 'Candyman.'  The Candyman shows up whenever you look in the
mirror and say his name 5 times.  Now this is comletely different from the
story, which was only 62 pages as opposed to a 2 hour movie.  As you would
expect a typical horror movie person to do, she tempts fate and calls to the
Candyman not believing he is real. . .he shows up.
	The way the movie desvribes the Candyman is that he was the son of
a slave.  The Candyman had a talent for painting and so the master asked for
him to capture his daughter's 'virginal beauty.' They fell in love and she
got pregnant.  Being unacceptable, Candyman was chased, had his right hand
cut off with a 'rusty blade' and a hook inserted into the stump.  They then
broke open several bee hives and smeared the honeycomb over his body; he was
stung to death.
	Now, the book follows the story in the sense that the Candyman doesn't
kill Helen until she is ready.  Instead he lets her live but commits a few
brutal murders, each one incriminating Helen more and more. The first murder
incriminates Helen for kidnapping a baby, but we know that the Candyman has
the child.  She ends up committed and put in a hospital on counts of 1st degree
murder.  The Candyman ends up freeing Helen and she returns to the Candyman's 
'hangout'. There we learn that Helen looks remarkably like the master's 
daughter through some paintings on the wall.  Now up until then the Candyman
has shown great interest and some passion for Helen saying that 'It was always
you Helen.'  Helen hears the kidnapped babies cries coming from a large pile
that has been set-up for a bonfire.  She climbs in and finds the child.  
Meanwhile, the locals of the area set the pyre on fire unwittingly thinking
the Candyman is inside the wood.  The pyre burning, the Candyman appears
telling Helen that they'll finally always be together.  Somehow, Helen escapes
from the fire with the child while the Candyamn burns up.
	The BIG climax: Trevor, Helen's husband, is seen grieving in the
bathroom and they make sure you see the mirror behind him.  Oddly enough,
in his sorrow he mutters 'Helen' several times and turns off the bathroom light
and in some cheesy strobe effects, Helen appears and proceeds to Kill Trevor.

	Hope that wasn't too long, I'm not good at telling stories.  I just 
kind of wanted to add some opinions of mine.  I thought it was pretty well
made with some very effective camera shots.  The gore is kept to a minimum,
but when it is present it very graphic.  The 'jump' scenes make the movie very
intense and though there are some predicatble places for one of these scenes,
you always fall for it.
	I thought the Candyman was portrayed very well.  It is almost as you
would picture him from the story, but a little more 'noble.'  He did indeed
have his hook and he did have the bees in his chest.  The scene from the book
where the Candyman wants his kiss is accurately protrayed with bees flying
out of his mouth.  How the actor could do that is beyond me.
	Most of the key parts of the short story are included.  The boy getting
mutilated in the public bathroom's, the candy with razor baldes on the ground,
the painting and the bonfire.
	I was very excited towards the end when Helen and the Candyman were
in the bonfire.  I actually beleived they would end the movie like the story,
but it continues and unfortunately has a cheap, Hollwood ending.  The 
beginning and the film are very intense and interesting, it dropped off at the
end and lead to a dissapointing ending IMO.  Though having read the story I
was biased.  When I was walking out, I heard several people say it was a great
movie and a quote 'Clive is the man!'  
	Being no horror expert, I liked it a lot and just wish it ended a 
little bit sooner.  I guess they had to make allowances considering the story
was oly 62 pages while the film was close to 2 hours.
	I have to add a bit about the atmopshere in which I saw this film.  It
was a free preview on a THursday night at midnight.  We were all crammed into
a large lecture hall that holds 500 people. . . 500 college students.  Needless
to say it was loud and people were always cracking jokes.  But I'll never
forget how the audience reacted when Helen is in her apartment, the Candyman
breaks through the wall and she tries to flee from him.  He keeps reappearing
and the audience would *not* stop screaming.  It was great.  Well it is 2:30
now, but I wanted to share this experience.  It's been very long since I've
seen a good horror film in a theatre.  If you've stuck with me this far and
have seen the movie, please get back to me.

Thanks for *ALL* the time,
Eric



-- 
       --    O   The race is not always              Eric J. Lorenzo
     ---   </\_       to the swift,                 (AKA: Rico & Spam)
   ----  -\/\        but to those who         lorenzo@Rintintin.Colorado.EDU
      ---   /_       keep on running.  -?         also: @UCSU and @Spot
Newsgroups: alt.horror