Completely pointless and unnecessary sequel to the moderately successful 1992 horror film "Candyman", which was both co-produced and loosely adapted from a semi-popular short story by Brit Clive Barker. The continuing story gets a drastic change in geography this time around as it is transferred from the bustling streets and skyscrapers of Chicago, Illinois to the muggy, bourbon soaked south of New Orleans, Louisiana where the towering hook-handed would-be-urban-legend character of "Candyman" decides to wreak havoc by slicing and dicing through the family of his unwitting and white great, great, granddaughter (I believe it was) who, much like the first film, makes the lame-brained mistake of repeating his name into a mirror five times on a dare. For the most part this film is pretty lousy as the acting is some of the worst I've seen in a flick with a budget as large as this films' is, the scares are also somewhat predictable as well as unoriginal---however though, when I think about it now how psychotically creative (for lack of a couple of better words) could one really be with a hook anyway? Not very I imagine---and in particular the plot itself tends to confuse the audience as it has virtually no connection to the first (which sequels really should have, though a number of them rarely do)! Apparently the screenwriters unwisely chose to base this one on a small section of dialog that was spoken between characters in the first film which most people --myself included-- didn't even bother to pay any real attention to at the time due mostly to the simple facts that it was just plain trivial, and not exactly pertinent to the plot. I'm talking mainly here about the scene where a professor friend of Virgina Madsen's character's husband regaled back to her in a smug, arrogant, know-it-all fashion over a big dinner at a fancy restaurant the origins of the Candyman character/myth that claimed he had sired a half-white child with the daughter of a man who commissioned him to paint his daughter's portrait as he was quite the artist, and as a result of this he was hunted down and basically butchered shortly thereafter by an angry racist mob led by the woman's enraged father. It was like I said a part of the first film that should really have been overlooked in the first place, and certainly not made into an entire feature-length film that wound up being both unintentionally laughable and pretty darn awful even by crappy horror-sequel standards! Overall, this flick doesn't exactly come highly recommended in my book unless you were a die-hard fan of the first film, and or need a good hearty laugh to cheer you up which this film, if nothing else, is sure to provide. Also what may be of some notice to a few audience members out there is that this flick was the first legitimate cinematic directorial debut by now-respected director Bill Condon, who later went on to great success with a couple of somewhat controversial, and rightfully Oscar-nominated if you've actually seen them, films entitled: "Gods and Monsters" (1998), and "Kinsey" (2005). (Turkey-Zero Stars)