Candy (1968)

Fresh and Exciting

Absolutely the worst movie.

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

I guess I simply missed the humor in this "Supposed" spoof of the 60s and the military. (I have to say Austin Powers (Another spoof) is Jason Bourne compared to this movie). This film stands out as an all-time baddie, without a single redeeming factor about it. The worst part of this is the waste of the cast. I cannot imagine how you can possibly put Marlon Brando, Richard Burton, James Coburn, Walter Matthau, Elsa Martinelli and John Huston in a film and fail? This certainly does and it starts with a script that is so stupid I would sooner watch a marathon of Sponge Bob square pants. The main character Candy (Ewa Aulin) wanders through this film like she is basically stoned, and you could watch a porn film and find a wider degree of expressions on someone's face (Basically she makes Jenna Jameson look like Meryl Streep). Burton as a stupid poet named McPhisto (Which I guess is a takeoff on Dylan Thomas) comes out worst of all, it is by far and away the worst film he ever made, and Matthau as a General is not much better (And as a major comic actor should have known better)). I have seen films its compared to such "The Magic Christian" and "Casino Royale" (Sellers version) and they are better than this turkey. This film is without question the greatest waste of talent in motion picture history (Brando, Coburn, Matthau & Huston FOUR Oscar WINNERS (Burton nominated 7 times)), and thus belongs in my 10 All-Time worst film list (Not quite "Machete" or "Walk On The Wild Side" but pretty damn close). Essentially it warrants zero stars.

This is garbage. It's basically a series of rape fantasies. Any satire is merely incidental. I'm not sure what's even supposed to be being satirized here. People who find rape and incest offensive? Put me on that list. I tried to push through that and was waiting for some greater point to be made, but the girl literally goes from scenario to another where she is raped. And it's not a statement about rape, everyone in the production seems to really be getting off on the message. The sixties seems to have been a time when if you wanted to mock someone or someone else's values you just created a stereotype and threw stones at it. Nonetheless this is a really offensive movie, and not in the sense that someone is trying to bring some issue to the forefront by satirizing it. I get the legitimate sense watching this that someone really got off on issues like rape and incest and wanted to make a movie about it. Not entertaining. Bummer, man, bummer.

Anybody who can actually sit through this piece of trash and write a positive review with a straight face needs to have his or her head examined. I have never, ever seen a worse movie in my entire life, and I have seen many bad films. This film should never have been made, and the only reason anybody should sit through it is to see which "name" actor humiliates himself the most.That award has to go to Richard Burton, who absolutely hit rock-bottom in this film. His performance is totally embarrassing. After watching him trying to get it on with a mannequin, I thought to myself, "He must have loved Elizabeth Taylor so much to have allowed himself to be humiliated like that." This was around the time he bought the famous 69-carat Taylor-Burton diamond for his wife, and he needed the money.The music is terrible, the acting is terrible, there is no plot, and overall it is a tasteless mess.

Not so good. The premise is simple enough, and it came pretty close to working in the novel by Terry Southern and Mason Hoffenberg: take Voltaire's Candide and set it in 60s America, with an innocent girl in place of the innocent young man, and, of course, make sex the central matter. The novel's Candy is led farther and farther into lovemaking because she embodies sympathy. This sympathy involves sensing the need men have for her without ever really understanding it, and so the joke is, apparently, that she has sex with various men because she misunderstands their lust for a deeper spiritual need—and this, the novelists suggest, is itself the essence of male sexuality: the wish for a compliant, innocent beauty. It's complicated satire, because at the same time it promotes and mocks arousal. Does the movie do this? No. The movie offers a series of comic bits, each featuring more or less great actors, encountering Candy: Richard Burton as the poet McPhisto, Ringo Starr as the Mexican gardener Emmanuel, James Coburn as the surgeon Dr. Krankheit, Walter Matthau as General Smight, Charles Aznavour as the hunchback, and Marlon Brando as the guru Grindl. Other parts: Anita Pallenberg, John Huston, John Astin, and Sugar Ray Robinson. The title part is played by Ewa Aulin, a young Swedish actress who's in over her head. She's pretty enough, but hardly subtle—more of a blank slate. The story, with a screenplay by Buck Henry, is mostly a picaresque sort of romp, with skits going on too long, so that the movie, despite its billing, is neither very sexy nor very funny. It's as if it were aiming for a sexier subject matter but a similar satirical approach as Dr. Strangelove, but it misses the mark nearly all the time.