Stand in front of a mirror and say "Candyman" five times and you will summons him and he will kill you. That is the premise of this film which is a horror that is more than just a gore-fest but has a strong narrative throughout and has some genuinely scary and tense moments.
At the time I watched the original back in the early Nineties I hadn't watched too many horrors and I was so creeped out by it I've never wanted to revisit it. I suspect I'd find it a lot less impactful now, but perhaps it would still get to me by association.
At the time I watched the original back in the early Nineties I hadn't watched too many horrors and I was so creeped out by it I've never wanted to revisit it. I suspect I'd find it a lot less impactful now, but perhaps it would still get to me by association.
I've not seen the original and this new film is meant to be a continuation from the original story rather than a remake.
I did wonder how many people watching this film would have refused to say Candyman 5 times in front of a mirror, just in case something happened to them. I'm not a superstitious person but I wouldn't do it, well there's no point in tempting fate.
I did wonder how many people watching this film would have refused to say Candyman 5 times in front of a mirror, just in case something happened to them. I'm not a superstitious person but I wouldn't do it, well there's no point in tempting fate.
Yes, it's a direct sequel to the original Candyman film but not having seen any of the earlier Candyman films, I don't know if they acknowledged anything from the previous sequels.
Why do I have this feeling that it didn't end well for them?
Incidentally, there's a scene in Urban Legend where a couple of girls do something similar by repeating the phrase "Bloody Mary"*, so I suppose they're both variations on the same legend.
*There was also a godawful straight to video sequel called Urban Legends: Bloody Mary, but the less said about that the better.
It's quite some years since I last watched it, and longer still since I watched it in isolation rather than as part of a chronological rewatch of HItch's films.
It holds up as well as ever. Anthony Perkins makes Norman Bates fascinating and likeable with his insecurities and nervous laugh and mispronunciations. Janet Leigh is a commanding presence and Vera Miles makes Lila Crane nice and ballsy. I also love the casting of character actors for smaller roles: from the woman who wants to give the ants a painless death; to the sheriff's wife who takes a liking to Sam Loomis and lowers her voice when mentioning a couple "in bed"; to Hitch's daughter Pat as Marion's colleague who popped tranquillisers on her wedding night and blames her wedding ring for not being flirted with.
The structure of the film is fascinating. It switches focus, protagonists and even genres with each new act without breaking stride or feeling disjointed. Each shift feels natural and right and fascinating.
well the film is a f... masterpiece but not my favorite Hitch film that would be North By Northwest (1959) that's my favorite of his anyways.
i bought The November Man (2014) the other night at Dollar Tree of all places and i enjoyed the hell out of it when i watched it late last night 10/10
I'm pretty sure I've only seen this once before, and that was many years ago. Blessed with a terrible memory, I couldn't remember a thing about it other than both Anthony Perkins and Vera Miles returned. This meant there were a few little twists that genuinely surprised me.
All these years on from the original and it's clear that this is a very different animal. It lacked the divergence of the first film where we were thrown off about who's story we were following. Apart from a couple of short scenes with Lila Loomis (née Crane. She married her sister's lover which is a tad icky), this was entirely Norman's story. Arguably as it should be, since the original was ultimately his film. But the first time round, we saw him through the eyes of others, whereas this time we saw things through his eyes far more. He's played incredibly well by Anthony Perkins and remains fascinating, but ultimately what's known is always going to be that much less frightening and fascinating than what's not known.
That said, there was a new variety of unknown with the question of just how sane Norman now is: something that's not fully shared with the audience. Norman was a very likeable, vulnerable and fragile character in the original and I appreciated that this was built on. As things progressed and he inevitably questioned his sanity, I was rooting for him to recover, while at the same time excited to see what would happen when he didn't. I really liked the angle of Norman trying to find his place in the world after being released from psychiatric care. This aspect felt very real and would have made for an interesting film even without the obligatory slasher elements.
There were some great character actors involved who brought out really interesting colours in Anthony Perkins. Hugh Gillin as the Sheriff was terrific, as was Robert Loggia as Norman's doctor (kind of analogous with Halloween's Dr Loomis, but this time you really sense that the doctor cares for and connects with his patient).
At times I was reminded of the middle act of When A Stranger Calls where it diverged into a story of a frail, vulnerable man finding the world a cruel place, with Psycho II's diner in place of When A Stranger Calls' seedy bar.
I'm really not sure about Meg Tilly. She's pretty and sweet and likeable, which all worked in the character's favour. And she cries well. But her delivery seemed to lack punctuation and sometimes felt like she was spitting out all the words before she forgot them and couldn't afford to stop for breath. I wonder if Jamie Lee Curtis was considered for this role. It would have been a nice touch.
There were a number of soapy revelations. Some kind of worked.
I gave a little gasp when it was revealed that "Mary Samuels" was Lila and Sam's daughter. Which resolved my irritation that her name was "coincidentally" too similar to the "Marie Samuels" pseudonym Marion used in the original. Though it has to be said that this revelation did nothing for any of the characters. Lila in particular felt too one-dimensional, angry and vengeful this time round. She was positively unlikeable.
Some didn't work at all. Did Norman really need
another dead mother? And did we need to find out that his mother from the original wasn't his mother but his aunt?
It's just too silly. Ultimately, all these revelations gilded the lily.
It's also evident that the series is playing catchup with the Eighties slasher franchises. At this point, Halloween, Friday The 13th and The Omen were up to their third instalments. And while this is nowhere near as tacky as the Friday The 13th series, it comes across strongly in moments of violence that this is the crowd they're pitching to. The "creative" kills come across as derivative and a little desperate. And, to Twenty First century eyes, far more dated than Marion's shower scene. The graphic
knife-down-the-throat moment of Lila's
death is incredibly undignified for such a character and it amazes me that nobody involved appeared to recognise this.
But none of the downsides stopped this from being a watchable and interesting revisit to that character and that motel. Otherwise, we'd always have wondered.
Oh, and Jerry Goldsmith's score - wisely going in a different direction from Bernard Herrmann's strings - is gorgeous. I've been listening to it quite a bit in recent weeks.
I'm pretty sure I've only seen this once before, and that was many years ago. Blessed with a terrible memory, I couldn't remember a thing about it other than both Anthony Perkins and Vera Miles returned. This meant there were a few little twists that genuinely surprised me.
All these years on from the original and it's clear that this is a very different animal. It lacked the divergence of the first film where we were thrown off about who's story we were following. Apart from a couple of short scenes with Lila Loomis (née Crane. She married her sister's lover which is a tad icky), this was entirely Norman's story. Arguably as it should be, since the original was ultimately his film. But the first time round, we saw him through the eyes of others, whereas this time we saw things through his eyes far more. He's played incredibly well by Anthony Perkins and remains fascinating, but ultimately what's known is always going to be that much less frightening and fascinating than what's not known.
That said, there was a new variety of unknown with the question of just how sane Norman now is: something that's not fully shared with the audience. Norman was a very likeable, vulnerable and fragile character in the original and I appreciated that this was built on. As things progressed and he inevitably questioned his sanity, I was rooting for him to recover, while at the same time excited to see what would happen when he didn't. I really liked the angle of Norman trying to find his place in the world after being released from psychiatric care. This aspect felt very real and would have made for an interesting film even without the obligatory slasher elements.
There were some great character actors involved who brought out really interesting colours in Anthony Perkins. Hugh Gillin as the Sheriff was terrific, as was Robert Loggia as Norman's doctor (kind of analogous with Halloween's Dr Loomis, but this time you really sense that the doctor cares for and connects with his patient).
At times I was reminded of the middle act of When A Stranger Calls where it diverged into a story of a frail, vulnerable man finding the world a cruel place, with Psycho II's diner in place of When A Stranger Calls' seedy bar.
I'm really not sure about Meg Tilly. She's pretty and sweet and likeable, which all worked in the character's favour. And she cries well. But her delivery seemed to lack punctuation and sometimes felt like she was spitting out all the words before she forgot them and couldn't afford to stop for breath. I wonder if Jamie Lee Curtis was considered for this role. It would have been a nice touch.
There were a number of soapy revelations. Some kind of worked.
I gave a little gasp when it was revealed that "Mary Samuels" was Lila and Sam's daughter. Which resolved my irritation that her name was "coincidentally" too similar to the "Marie Samuels" pseudonym Marion used in the original. Though it has to be said that this revelation did nothing for any of the characters. Lila in particular felt too one-dimensional, angry and vengeful this time round. She was positively unlikeable.
Some didn't work at all. Did Norman really need
another dead mother? And did we need to find out that his mother from the original wasn't his mother but his aunt?
It's just too silly. Ultimately, all these revelations gilded the lily.
It's also evident that the series is playing catchup with the Eighties slasher franchises. At this point, Halloween, Friday The 13th and The Omen were up to their third instalments. And while this is nowhere near as tacky as the Friday The 13th series, it comes across strongly in moments of violence that this is the crowd they're pitching to. The "creative" kills come across as derivative and a little desperate. And, to Twenty First century eyes, far more dated than Marion's shower scene. The graphic
knife-down-the-throat moment of Lila's
death is incredibly undignified for such a character and it amazes me that nobody involved appeared to recognise this.
But none of the downsides stopped this from being a watchable and interesting revisit to that character and that motel. Otherwise, we'd always have wondered.
Oh, and Jerry Goldsmith's score - wisely going in a different direction from Bernard Herrmann's strings - is gorgeous. I've been listening to it quite a bit in recent weeks.
I had low expectations for this film when I saw it shortly after it was released because it original film was so iconic and so well loved that a sequel was always going to seem like unnecessary and just a way of cashing in on the Hitchcock film. However, I thought it was a pretty good film with some nice twists and shocking moments. I didn't like Psycho III though.
I had low expectations for this film when I saw it shortly after it was released because it original film was so iconic and so well loved that a sequel was always going to seem like unnecessary and just a way of cashing in on the Hitchcock film.
That's completely understandable. After over twenty years it would seem that a classic film like this would be safe from the sequel trend. I can't imagine too many fans of the original (or of film in general) relishing the idea of a second film.
Agreed. I found it a decent enough film, though equally I can understand why all the sequels have been largely forgotten and even as I watched there was a part of me that thought of it as non-canon or an alternative universe.
On reflection I'm not entirely sure why I watched this film. British TV sitcoms to big screen transfers are often nowhere as good as the TV series on which they are based and I never watched Father Dear Father because I was either not born or too young to watch when it was on. However, for some reason I was aware of this series so I gave the film a watch to see what it was all about.
Not many laughs in the film and it had a very cliched UK sitcom set up with a clash of different generational values between the father and his 2 teenage daughters who he is bringing up alone. When they brought out a vicar with a faulty hearing aid I couldn't help thinking how many times have I seen something like this before. Richard O'Sullivan turns up playing a character very much like Robin Tripp in Man About The House, he even wore the same brown leather coat. There were also some dodgy racial jokes which was typical of 1970s sitcoms. Patrick Cargill, the star, had a certain screen presence and is quite watchable but even he couldn't save this film.
British TV sitcoms to big screen transfers are often nowhere as good as the TV series on which they are based and I never watched Father Dear Father because I was either not born or too young to watch when it was on. However, for some reason I was aware of this series so I gave the film a watch to see what it was all about.
As expected with movie spin-offs from the era, it resurrected a number of threads, scenarios and gags from the UK series without ever being quite as funny as the series itself. Still, very enjoyable and unlike other sitcom films this one largely kept the same cast, locations and sets as well as the gags.
If you disliked the film, I'd definitely advise steering clear of the other spinoff: Father Dear Father In Australia, an Australian-made version (as you'd expect) which had Patrick Cargill and Noel Dyson moving Down Under and sharing a house with his two long-lost nieces who happen to have identical personalities to his daughters.
I thought the main UK series was pretty decent, though it's four years since I watched it so I couldn't testify to that.
My goodness: Cooke and Mortimer really like Richard O'Sullivan, don't they. Two roles in the series and a major role in the film version. And they also cast him in lead roles in their other series of the era (and just afterwards): Alcock and Gander; Man About The House and Robin's Nest. Throw in Dick Turpin and Me & My Girl and it's no wonder I remember him being a televisual omnipresence during my childhood.
As I remember, the series of FDF had an episode with a VERY similar premise to Man About The House, which at the time I felt sure must have inspired them to do the series.
I need to watch an episode of the original series to see how it compares. I've seen the Bless This House, Man About The House, Steptoe and Son films and all are inferior to the TV series so I thought I was on pretty safe ground suggesting that the same would be true for Father Dear Father. However, the first On The Buses film was quite good.
I need to watch an episode of the original series to see how it compares. I've seen the Bless This House, Man About The House, Steptoe and Son films and all are inferior to the TV series so I thought I was on pretty safe ground suggesting that the same would be true for Father Dear Father.
Yes, I'd say that's true. I'm not familar with Steptoe (TV or film, though I'm planning to change that soon), but you're certainly right about the others (though I think they have a certain charm).
Again, I'm not too au fait with On The Buses on big or small screen, though I've seen bits and pieces of the series and some of at least one of the films (I specifically remember a safari park scene with a big cat wandering onto the bus). I have heard others say this about the films though.
Oh, it was over in the sitcom thread. I watched the film after watching the entire series which probably didn't help as it reinforces the kind of karaoke/greatest hits thing that sitcom film spinoffs usually have.
He's one of the reasons why my favourite episode of Whodunnit? is my favourite (along with another panellist who I know you're not a huge fan of):
I especially love his reaction to Jan Harvey's ad libbed "taty oggy" recipe at around 32 mins (this was an episode in which the cast had been poisoned and had all keeled over one by one as they were questioned by the panel). He seems like he enjoys a bit of a giggle.
Yes, I'd say that's true. I'm not familar with Steptoe (TV or film, though I'm planning to change that soon), but you're certainly right about the others (though I think they have a certain charm).
I saw the Steptoe film long before the TV series. Again I was too young or not born when the TV series was originally broadcast but I caught a few episodes on a re-run, I think on BBC4 quite a few years ago now. In the TV series all the action took place in the one house and almost every scene was with just the 2 lead characters and you got a better sense of why they annoyed each other. In the film, they opened it up more and the claustrophobic tension was gone which was a key element in their father-son relationship.
Again, I'm not too au fait with On The Buses on big or small screen, though I've seen bits and pieces of the series and some of at least one of the films (I specifically remember a safari park scene with a big cat wandering onto the bus). I have heard others say this about the films though.
That was Holiday On The Buses, the second film, which wasn't anywhere as good. The first On The Buses film worked quite well although it has been a long time since I last saw it so my opinion might be different if I watched it now.
Actually, I quite like Honor Blackman, I just hated her performance in Dagger of The Mind. Henry Caddow on the end of the panel comes across as an irritating know-all.
I love that episode of Whodunnit too, I remember when you reviewed it. When Michael Ward's character answered Richard O'Sullivan's question, he came out of character and answered it as Michael Ward which was hilarious. I do vaguely remember him in Crossroads.
Well, in this film he was Walker: the toothless old handyman in the filthy vest who keeps everything "spick 'n' span".
Walker also had a bit of an attitude with the lady of the house who employs him:
Oh, that's a shame. I watched it on Prime if that's any help.
On the plus side I will add that The Chauffeur is one of the creepiest characters on film. He doesn't even say anything, and he's all the more chilling for it:
In the TV series all the action took place in the one house and almost every scene was with just the 2 lead characters and you got a better sense of why they annoyed each other. In the film, they opened it up more and the claustrophobic tension was gone which was a key element in their father-son relationship.
Yes, I can understand that would change the tone quite a lot. Sometimes a bigger budget and more expansive scope can really go against a translation like this.
Thanks. That rings a vague bell now you've said it. I seem to remember it being shown at Christmastime so I probably had other stuff on my mind which was how I only saw a little bit of it.
The first On The Buses film worked quite well although it has been a long time since I last saw it so my opinion might be different if I watched it now.
I'm still annoyed at myself for not snapping up the "Omnibus" edition of the series and films when they were widely available on DVD. But I do hope to watch the series and films in full at some point.
When Michael Ward's character answered Richard O'Sullivan's question, he came out of character and answered it as Michael Ward which was hilarious. I do vaguely remember him in Crossroads.
That's really funny. Michael cracked me up in that scene when he went on to collapse, easing himself gently to the ground by holding onto the furniture while Jon Pertwee cracked "easy does it" and everyone fell about laughing.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
