Welcome to Second Chances, a recurring feature which gives widely underloved and notoriously maligned genre works another opportunity to impress and redeem themselves with a reviewer who initially found them severely lacking. Maybe these follow-up looks will result in a kinder re-evaluation…or maybe not. Will dull misfires shine brighter after years of distance and nostalgia? Will initially infuriating films somehow reveal their hidden genius?

For this installment of Second Chances, your writer revisits the third and currently final installment of a franchise featuring an iconic supernatural slasher. This week, we’ll be looking at the widely despised third entry of an otherwise respectable franchise that’s been garnering some buzz recently due to its impending resurrection. This much derided sequel hardly merits subsequent viewings or further consideration…or does it?

First Impressions: Candyman. Candyman. Candyman. Candyman. Candyman.

Say the name that many times into a mirror, and your life is likely forfeit – almost surely to be taken by the vengeful hook-handed ghost whose nickname you’ve intoned just shy of a half dozen times. Only five times. That’s it.

It strikes this writer as a shame, then, that we didn’t have at least as many films featuring the character as the times that his name must be called. Though the franchise started strong with the 1992 Bernard Rose adaptation of Clive Barker’s short story “The Forbidden”, it continued on to less success with a 1995 follow-up directed by future Oscar-winner Bill Condon before coming to an untimely end only four years later with a second sequel that served as the final entry for the seven-year old series. And if you’re wondering just how bad a film must have been to have killed the possibility of further follow-ups with a newly-minted horror icon, then it’s unlikely that you’ve ever endured the cinematic train wreck that is Candyman: Day of the Dead.

Only three films. That’s it.

From your writer’s point of view, it’s entirely understandable how the Candyman franchise came to an end after this installment. After having my expectations heightened by both my affection for the series’ previous entries and a great cover article on the threequel that ran in Fangoria, the movie didn’t merely disappoint me, it earned my utter scorn. I hated this movie so much, I swore that I’d never revisit it. Not out of curiosity, not during any Candyman series revisit, not for anything.

Never. Never ever.

…ever.

Second Chance: So I rewatched the film this past week…

After nearly two decades of avoiding a movie I’ve long despised, I took it upon myself to give it another fair shake in the interest of seeing whether or not the years had been kind. I did so not only for the purposes of having a new entry for this Second Chances feature, but also because my interest in the character has recently been reignited by both the talk of the upcoming Jordan Peele/Nia DaCosta reboot and that snazzy new Scream Factory Collector’s Edition of the first film. After revisiting both original and its first sequel Farewell to the Flesh (which still holds up pretty damned well), I took a deep breath and dove into Day of the Dead.

It didn’t go well.

For those who might have somehow missed it over the years (or for those whose memories of it may have mercifully faded), a recap of the film’s plot: somehow set in the late 90s but also around thirty years after the events of the preceding 1995 entry Farewell to the Flesh, Day of the Dead concerns Caroline McKeever, the daughter of the previous film’s protagonist and unlucky descendant of Daniel Robitaille (the unjustly murdered 19th century artist who became the titular boogeyman), who finds herself haunted by the Candyman after hosting an art gallery exhibition which displayed the art he’d created when he was alive. …oh, and she says his damn name five times in a mirror on a dare. In short order, the Candyman appears and gets up to his usual shenanigans – popping up occasionally for some florid monologuing, hypnotizing a pretty blonde lady, and murdering her friends by hook and bee.

Unfortunately, this sequel differs from the previous entries in that, for all its bloodshed, it still cannot manage to wring even an ounce of tension from its proceedings. As helmed by Turi Meyer (who also directed the far superior if still fairly cheesy supernatural slasher Sleepstalker), Day tells its threadbare tale with the most obvious of jumpscares and cheap special effects, failing at generating the dread and terror the previous entries boasted. Candyman’s kills are quick and poorly staged, his hook is often unconvincing (looking like the fake stump it is), and an interminably long sequence involving a woman’s death by a horde of bees is downright embarrassing in its execution – looking as though clumps of fake bees were simply glued into place on the actress (which might be all well and good, if it weren’t for the fact that the camera lingers on the effect long past the point that its trickery becomes obvious).

The Candyman himself is presented just as ineffectively. Rather than keeping him removed from the proceedings early on (or, at least, keeping him to the shadows for the earlier scenes), Day exhibits him clumsily at every turn, parading him around as though he were any other simple slasher. With the exception of Tony Todd’s typically strong performance and a scant sequence or two, the enigmatic character is failed miserably by this film as a whole.

Worse still are the other performances. Following on the heels of previous leading ladies Virginia Madsen and the quite good Kelly Rowan, former Playmate and “Baywatch” star Donna D’Errico can’t help but disappoint here with the main role of Caroline. While her attempts are obviously earnest, the film’s need for serious dramatic chops (and convincing screaming) were too demanding for the relatively novice actress. The movie’s only interest in having her as its lead is obvious from the very first scene, when it parades the beautiful young woman around in panties and a skintight, midriff-baring shirt, taking more of an interest in her erect nipples than effectively setting up the opening sequence’s big scare. Aside from Todd and A Nightmare on Elm Street’s Nick Corri (who plays Caroline’s love interest/dude in distress), the rest of the cast gives performances which range from merely serviceable to downright lousy. But being fair, the script gives the thesps little to work with.

And about that script! Penned by Meyer and his writing partner Al Septien (both would go on to such television shows as “Smallville” and “Midnight, Texas”), the screenplay relocates the Candyman to LA, but otherwise just goes through the motions as established by the first two films. It’s a matter of hypnotize/murder/rinse/repeat, with little in the way of fresh material to justify this entry’s existence. It all acts as a simple clothesline on which to hang the expected kills, presented this time around without a fraction of the class that Rose and Condon brought to their own films. Gore and gratuitous nudity are the biggest concerns here, an approach which is an insult to the preceding movies and their makers. It’s reduces the once classy to the utterly tawdry, and nowhere in the film is this better exemplified than in the film’s score – in place of Phillip Glass’ haunting and iconic strains, we now have a bucket of typical 90s DTV noise, complete with droning, a cappella sighing, and lame stings to accompany all of the equally lame jumpscares.

Yet, for all my bashing, I’d be remiss not to note that the film isn’t entirely without its charms. The attempts at tackling racial issues much as its predecessors did is appreciated, as is the fact that the film is set during a holiday/celebration (again, as with the earlier films). The film bungled both, of course, but at least it made the attempt.

And, as mentioned earlier, Tony Todd is typically terrific, turning in another performance as his signature character that manages to elevate the lightweight material he was given. One is reminded of tales concerning Christopher Lee’s distaste with the later Dracula sequels that he participated in – the films may have been beneath him, but it didn’t stop him from giving it his all and preserving, at the very least, the dignity of the character he helped to make an icon. And while we’re talking Hammer here, I will say that the Candyman’s death in this film is quite marvelous, evoking the finales of those older, classic horror pictures with its grandiosity. The movie may be lousy, but it sends its villain out on a pretty impressive note.

And hey, at least that’s something.

Final Verdict: Failing to capture the atmosphere or class of the series’ preceding entries, Candyman: Day of the Dead cheapens a previously respectable franchise with its overriding concerns with cheap gore and T&A. This film was a disappointment the first time around nearly two decades ago, and it’s aged into an even more unwatchable mess in the years since its initial release. In spite of the interest beginning to build again for the character in anticipation of his resurrection, it’s this writer’s opinion that fans should give this entry a wide berth when electing to revisit the series.

Forget this entry. Never again utter its name (especially into a mirror). Slash it, shatter it, throw it on a pyre and let it burn.