• R, 1 hr. 35 min.
  • Horror
  • Directed By:    Turi Meyer
  • In Theaters:    Jan 1, 1999 Wide
  • On DVD:    Aug 21, 2001
  • Artisan Entertainment

Candyman 3: Day of the Dead Reviews

Page 2 of 11
charles s. charles s. July 3, 2014
Tell me if this plot sounds familiar; a woman hears about candyman, she doesn't believe he is real, but candyman shows up, tells the woman that he wants her as his victim, he kills people and then dissapears, framing the woman for the murders. Now gee, that sounds like the plot of the first candyman, doesn't it? well if you also guessed that I was summarizing candyman 3, then you would also be right. This movie tries to rehash the first candyman's plot with little to no new story elements. The second candyman was terrible but at least it tried to do something new with kind of an origin story to candyman. This film has terrible acting (with the exception of tony todd), award dialogue, and overall, its just a clumsily directed and lazily scripted film that is just mildly entertaining due to the film being so terrible that it's laughable.
Bill T May 13, 2014
Somewhat silly, but not as silly as 2 was, probably same quality. This time the action switches to Los Angeles, you know, for that latin american hook... not too sure about that one, 2 made more sense in New Orleans.. Actually, nothing really does make sense in this movie, it;s just coon goofy, and I just took it as a dumb scare ride, nothing more.
Joshua L February 8, 2012
I liked it. The acting is shit but the movie itself isn't bad at all.
James H October 30, 2013
Only one word to describe this, shitty!
Wes S ½ July 5, 2013
Uninteresting story with more of the same. The characters are bad, Candyman doen't appear often enough, and the plot goes nowhere. It has some nice gory moments, but otherwise, it's just a repeat of things we've seen before.
Duncan K April 2, 2013
I honestly wasn't expecting much because it was the third installment to a horror series which immediately means awful.
Al M ½ March 15, 2013
Candyman 3 is even more inferior than 2, but it does once again manage to enact an interesting hange of settings. In this film, we are taken to Los Angeles on the Day of the Dead where an exhibit of paintings by the man that became Candyman are drawing a lot of attention. Featuring Baywatch alum Donna D'Errico, who (if you're like me) you probably forgot existed, Candyman 3 features some decent moments of horror but feels like it is getting even more repetitive than the previous entry in the franchise.
Ally L ½ March 5, 2013
I give it 1 1/2 because it wasn't very good at all. Its only redeeming qualities were Tony Todd and boobies.
Carl M February 2, 2013
Caroline mistakenly resurrects the spirit of her murderous ancestor, the Candyman, during the opening of an art exhibit that is being held in his honor, unleashing another wave of terror throughout the streets of Los Angeles during the Day of the Dead celebration. CANDYMAN 3 is filled with ridiculous racial stereotypes, dreadful dialog, and pitiful performances. Playboy Playmate Donna D'Errico only has two things going for her, and they aren't her sharp wit or keen acting prowess. She is simply atrocious in the lead, and would have been better off sticking with Baywatch. Turi Meyer doesn't do much better as director, creating very little suspense or atmosphere as he turns away from the Gothic ghost story and embraces the Slasher genre. His attempt to recreate the stylish and moody Mardi Gras sequence from the second film falls flat. Worst off is poor Tony Todd, who desperately tries to carry the weight of the film himself, but whose performance ultimately suffers from the sophomoric script. This sequel is best left forgotten.

-Carl Manes
I Like Horror Movies
Niklas J January 1, 2013
The shameful black sheep in an else good series.
Alexander C December 7, 2012
BEES!Want to see it! Will have to take into account!
Jessica H October 15, 2012
An insult to the candyman films.
Haravikk K. Haravikk K. September 12, 2012
This instalment in the series appears to have been developed entirely by the greedy executives who want to leech more cash out of the franchise, as this entire film is literally a copy of the 2nd one, which in turn had a plot borrowed heavily from the 1st film.

Here's the formula; blonde bimbo says Candyman too much and proceeds to have the eponymous hook-handed villain murderously follow her about until the end. The plot is almost *literally* identical to the 2nd film, with a big carnival, stupid police, the protagonist having the murders pinned on her, blah, blah, blah.

If someone does happen to force you at gunpoint to watch this, then expect a film in which nobody is trying very hard; other than the director of course, who is busy adding so many cheap scares into the film to the point that you'll see every single one coming, and at the cost of every other element of the film.

It's hard to really call this a series, when all three films all have fundamentally the same plot with nothing truly new anywhere to be seen.
Joe J August 23, 2012
Candyman (Tony Todd) is back, and this time invading Los Angeles.

When his great granddaughter Caroline (Donna D'Errico) summons Candyman through a mirror, he desires to be with the last of his bloodline. Meanwhile, Caroline comes to terms with this evil spirit versus the nice man that Candyman used to be, as well as trying to avoid the police who think she is responsible for the string of murders occurring all around her.

The first two "Candyman" films have been staples in the horror movie industry as some of the best. Not so much for "Day of the Dead." Even Tony Todd later confessed that he didn't care for this movie, because it seems very watered down, and the performances were less than stellar, even in Todd's case. I did like the fact that it followed the path the first two took with Candyman going after his blood relatives and not making up a whole new story, but still, the Candyman franchise would've been fine without this addition.
Robert V ½ August 16, 2012
A disgrace Compared to the original
Sylvester K
Super Reviewer
April 2, 2012
Promising start that didn't last long. Thank goodness they didn't make anymore.
Paul D December 7, 2011
Lightweight horror, but acceptable, although inferior sequel.
TheDudeLebowski65 TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
October 23, 2011
Third entry in the Candyman franchise is wasted opportunity. As far as I'm concerned, this is the worst in the series. I think it's a shame because the second film in the Candyman trilogy was good, but this one is mediocre. The film has a bad plot, it doesn't do anything great with its ideas and the filmmakers scrap the bottom of the barrel of ideas with this one. The cast are terrible, and the actors starring opposite Tony Todd are awful, and even Tony Todd himself is wasted on a poor third entry. Candyman 3 could have been a good film, but the filmmakers are clear out of ideas, and thus the film is pretty sloppy, and really isn't that great. The second film for example, went deeper into Candyman's back story, which is why I think it's a strong sequel to the first. But with this third entry, the filmmakers don't try to do anything creative with its material, and feels tired and uninspired. The film plays out simply as a gorefest and it mostly relies on its gore factor. There is nothing scary, unlike the first two films in this film, and the film for the most part is boring. I think the idea was good, but the execution was bad. Add to that an awful cast, and you have a recipe for disaster. Candyman 3 could have been a great film, but it never tries to do anything new or inventive. The idea might have been good, but in the end, the execution is pretty poor, thus you have the worst film in the trilogy. This is an unscary third entry that simply doesn't deliver.
WrenchLT WrenchLT
Super Reviewer
½ May 23, 2011
Not the biggest lover of the Candyman franchise, thankfully the series ended with this one because as a horror fan I'm compelled to watch these films. The story was silly and predictable, it has some bloody moments though and Tony Todd does have good presence on screen and completely owns the character. I've seen worse but this is still average.
Rachel N April 4, 2011
Another one of those sequels that's not worth bothering about.
Page 2 of 11