Many die-hard horror fans (myself included) absolutely worship the original "Candyman" because it's so genuinely scary and intelligently adapted from a Clive Barker story. This sequel (it looks more like a prequel, actually, with all those flashbacks) is not entirely unwatchable, it just immensely pales in comparison to the original, like so many other redundant sequels do. It seems like director Bill Condon and his army of crew members totally missed the point of Barker's tale and of the original film. "Candyman" isn't really about the killer himself! It's about the whole myth/urban legend behind his persona and how it scares superstitious people that believe in it. Is he real or are the bloody murders only committed in his name? "Farewell to the Flesh" pretty much takes away the entire mystery-aspect, as it extendedly reveals the origin of the Candyman character. Besides, we already heard the brief version of that story in the original. The rest of the film revolves on Annie Tarrant, who becomes dangerously close with the hook-handed bogeyman when she starts investigating her family history. The script suffers from too many tedious moments, there's almost no connection with the characters and the voice-over radio dude really annoyed the hell out of me. The violence is not that disturbing here as in the first film, but part two also definitely has its cruel and nasty moments. Tony Todd acts like he realizes that this is an inferior sequel and he doesn't really bother anymore to look (and sound) truly nightmarish. Judging by the other user-comments on this site, "Candyman 2: Farewell to the Flesh" appears to be reasonably successful and repeatedly referred to as a worthwhile sequel... Well, I disagree. I think it's a waste of time totally not worth of the Candyman-title.