Genuinely disappointing to see a standout horror film that had twisted frights, something to say, and an identity all its own get a follow-up that's largely a bunch of generic Halloween, trick or treat bullcrap filled to the brim with crummy jump scares like this. The whole thing feels kind of phoned in and cheap in a made-for-TV sort of way. The acting is flat across the board and Philip Glass's new score is a hollow imitation of the work he had done just three years prior. Tony Todd isn't even menacing anymore. Removing the voice filter certainly made him more audible, but at the expense of the otherworldly quality that in hindsight was crucial to making him scary. Oh, and he kills everyone in literally the exact same way every time in this outing. Oddly enough though, I think this is better written than its predecessor. The story and characters themselves aren't as interesting, but outside of the suspension of disbelief necessary to accept that a half-black girl was raised white and "no one suspected the truth," there isn't anything here that feels nonsensical or lacking an explanation. It even answered the questions I had from the first movie, such why the franchise's killer is called Candyman, all while ensuring I didn't end up with any new ones by coming up with solid reasons for how ol' Daniel Robitaille is able to come back after getting torched the last time we saw him and why the setting has moved from Chicago to Louisiana. The only thing missing from the plot is the subtext. Without it you get the feeling that all of the shots of black people in their community are just there for decoration. Even worse though is that there is a repeated jump scare where a white person notices someone black behind them and freaks out because they think it's the Candyman. I suppose you could view this as a bit of social commentary on society's distrust and demonization of African-Americans, but considering that kind of thing isn't found anywhere else in the movie I would have a hard time believing that. It comes off more as poorly thought out attempt at giving the audience a jolt. In closing, this is another case of a distinguished and creative horror flick getting an uninspired sequel with second-rate production values solely to cash in on the originals success, as opposed to them actually having a compelling or meaningful new idea for the property. The one saving grace is that it was written by Clive Barker. His work to fill the holes in the backstory of this cinematic version of his creation may even make this mandatory viewing for some fans. However, not even the lore hungry like myself will walk away completely satisfied due to how dull the surrounding content is.