The Lemon Fool

Sunnypad wrote:Anyone seen this?
Film descriptions are very confusing, some are calling this a slasher film, which I'd put in the category of "literally can't watch", others calling it supernatural thriller.

I'm not good with blood but the trailer looks fab. Anyone seen it? If the gory moments are few and signposted then it will be fine.

Thank you

Sunnypad wrote:
Anyone seen this?

Film descriptions are very confusing, some are calling this a slasher film, which I'd put in the category of "literally can't watch", others calling it supernatural thriller.

I'm not good with blood but the trailer looks fab. Anyone seen it? If the gory moments are few and signposted then it will be fine.

Itsallaguess wrote:

Sunnypad wrote:
Anyone seen this?

Film descriptions are very confusing, some are calling this a slasher film, which I'd put in the category of "literally can't watch", others calling it supernatural thriller.

I'm not good with blood but the trailer looks fab. Anyone seen it? If the gory moments are few and signposted then it will be fine.

I use this site quite a lot when checking for family-friendly viewing, and it's got both an 'official' comment section and also a couple of very useful 'Parents say' and 'Kids say' user-comment sections as well -

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/candyman

From the official report section -

What parents need to know -

Parents need to know that Candyman is a follow-up (but not a reboot or a direct sequel) to the 1992 movie, which was based on Clive Barker's short story. Directed by Nia DaCosta and co-written and co-produced by Jordan Peele, the movie takes a progressive approach to themes raised in the original -- including the power of art and storytelling -- and it's both scary and thought-provoking. It has tons of blood and gore, with several killings. Expect to see stabbing, strangling, shooting, throat slashing, broken limbs, jump scares, a gross hand wound creeping up to the rest of the body, a child watching her father die via suicide (jumping from a high window), and more. There's kissing (both affectionate and passionate), cuddling, and interrupted foreplay; a man is shown without his shirt on. Language is very strong, with uses of "f--k," "s--t," the "N" word, and more. Adults drink socially and smoke pot.

Hope this helps - enjoy the film!

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

AleisterCrowley wrote:To decide if you should watch it , look in the mirror and say "Candyman" five times

No! Stop! Do not tempt fate

Sunnypad wrote:

AleisterCrowley wrote:To decide if you should watch it , look in the mirror and say "Candyman" five times

No! Stop! Do not tempt fate

Done it
I'm going to go.

Sunnypad wrote:I really enjoyed it. And it was quite moving.

If anyone else is squeamish, there were only two scenes where I had to look away. Describing it as a slasher film, which some sites did, can't be right?

I thought the storytelling was great. It's not a long film and does a great job of conveying a lot in very compact ways.

language

There is strong language ('f**k', 'motherf**ker'), as well as milder terms such as 'bitch', 'ass', 'asshole', '[expletive deleted]', 'dick', 'hell' and 'damn', and a rude middle finger gesture.

violence

Strong violence includes beatings, stabbings, slashings with a large hook, throat-cutting and dismemberment. There is extensive bloodshed and gory aftermath injury detail, including the skin on a character's hands infected by a bee sting taking on a progressively gruesome appearance through the film.

flashing/flickering lights

This work contains flashing images which may affect viewers who are susceptible to photosensitive epilepsy.


There are scenes of intense threat. There are references to racial discrimination and violence. In one scene, a Black high school student is verbally taunted by a group of white counterparts. The work does not endorse such discrimination. There is a peer-to-peer use of the term 'nigga'. There is a brief, undetailed suicide scene. There is infrequent drug misuse. There are infrequent moderate sex references.

Sunnypad wrote:Bobby
That's my point though

All the web descriptions, including that one, make it sound full of gore when it isn't. If you put together the screen time for me looking away, it was probably a total of 2-3 mins.

Normally I just ask people I know but the only person I know who saw it was very tired and manage to doze through most of it

Sunnypad wrote:Soundtrack for this one was good too!

servodude wrote:

Sunnypad wrote:Soundtrack for this one was good too!

Finally having seen it I'll second that!

It references the original really well while bringing it bang up to date
- which is probably what I'd say of the film in general

-sd