Candy

There was a beautiful brief moment in cinema history when film makers freed themselves of the shackles of form and found fun, exciting ways to tell stories. Movies became groovy mind-blowing experiences that forced the viewer to follow the plot as it tripped all over the screen. Unfortunately Jaws came along and reminded the studios of how much money they could be making and the experiment was declared a failure. But during this brief period such wonderful and largely buried treasures as Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Myra Breckenridge, Magic Christian and Vanishing Point (only Easy Rider seems to have survived the era with its reputation in tact) were created and have since been embraced by the odd as their own. But perhaps the most reviled of the lot has been the film Candy.

Candy tells the simple tale of a sweet young thing that goes out into the world to grow but finds herself confronted at every turn by typical male stereotypes (played by some of the biggest stars of the day) who really only have one goal in mind. Along the way she meets up with the artist (Richard Burton), the soldier (Walter Matthau), the healer (James Coburn) and the guru (Marlon Brando) among others. Candy wants to free her mind but each man tries (and some succeed) to free her of her panties. Despite the premise Candy is more like a teasing Roger Vadim film (think Barbarella) and the nudity is kept to an absolute minimum. The biggest surprise is even with the big name cast, the films best performance belongs to John Astin as Candy's Father and also as her lecherous Uncle who has his own designs on her. The supporting cast is definitely one of the films high points along with the terrific score that features some trippy space tunes along with classic rock. Sadly there are some faults though.

The script by Buck Henry is very hit and miss with some excellent lines immediately followed by many that just produce cringes in the audience. The lead actress Ewa Aulin is lovely to look at but delivers all of her lines like she has just learned them phonetically and has no idea what she is saying and the directer allows the pace to drag at many points.

Still if the films from this era interests you than this one should be required viewing. There is an excellent DVD available so there is no excuses for passing on this under-rated gem.

This is a hysterical low-budget film with performances by big name actors the likes of which you will never see again. There will never be another like it unless the 60's return- not likely. No doubt the film languished in obscurity on account of embarrassing performances, e.g., a drunken Richard Burton licking booze off the floor of a glass bottom limo. Now there is an image! Luckily, it has once again seen the light of day. Sure, there are flaws, but there are some classic scenes, e.g., James Coburn's performance as a surgeon! Even the ludicrous casting of Ringo Starr as a mexican is worth watching; we are perverse enough to stare at car wrecks aren't we? Nothing is sacred- everything is mocked: the medical profession, the military, higher education, family values, eastern philosophy, film making, etc. Light up and have some fun for goodness sakes!

As putrid as reputed, a singularity of excess. I loved it!

I do not know the details of Candy's production, but I suspect that the bulk of the scenes were shot with only one take. That is the only explanation I can conjure.

I only knew of this film by way of seeing the trailer at a drive-in in the 60s. The images sparked my 10-year-old imagination, particularly James Coburn flipping off the operating room gallery and the loud rock music. I had to see it! I finally found a limited edition DVD copy on eBay and snapped it up.

I saw this film over the weekend on Showtime for the first time since I saw it in 1969. My memories of the film were sketchy and after it was over, I logged on here to find serious discussion of it so I could interpret some of the symbolism in the movie. What I found instead was inadequate discussion of what was good about the movie. Admittedly, it was over the top in a way that was typical of "alternative" movies in the late 60s, but there were some very interesting points that most people seem to overlook. Also open for dismissal seems to be the final sequence in the film where Candy walks through a field and passes each person she encountered during the movie. At the beginning of this sequence, she is wearing a pristine white sheet as a toga, but by the end of the stroll her sheet is covered in an ornate flower design. Almost throwaway bits during the stroll include Walter Matthau's army general as Don Quixote, the "Fountain of Youth" injections being given by James Coburn and John Astin's two characters being revealed as two aspects of the same. This movie seems quite capable of generating some serious discussion other than the obvious attack on its excesses and the vapid acting of the lead actress.

How can you not like this movie?? those who criticize it seem to claim it is a superficial sex-romp through the 60's counter culture.Well duh! that's what makes it great.

Seriously, its like if in 40 years, film critics try to asses the cultural validity of 'Dude where's my Car'. Candy wasn't meant to be a masterpiece- just a funny movie with some T and A.

Though if you're gonna be a snob about it, the last 10 minutes of the movie is actually close to brilliant. See it and you'll know what i mean. Visually and content-wise, this movie pushed boundaries. Plus, i bet it would be a lot better while high.