Candy

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.

The film adaptation of Terry Southern's book is a fine mess! There's no real flow or purpose, but the stars have a ball and Ewa Aulin seems exactly right as Candy. Marlon Brando, as always, is interesting and unique and Richard Burton should have made more comedies. John Astin is excellent in a dual role, but James Coburn really steals the show as Dr. Krankeit. I'm not too sure what they could done with this material and some of the scenes are simply unplayable, but you can have fun with this.

I'm sure this was a total bomb in 1968, but I really can't remember how it did box-office wise. Best performance = James Coburn. Elsa Martinelli is also creepy and sexy and John Huston lends gruff support. Very similar to The Magic Christian, but slightly better. I know some critics at the time called it the worst film ever.

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.

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.