The late 1960s and into the 70s saw some incredibly strange, disjointed and over-indulgent films. Think about it...."Casino Royale", "Myra Breckinridge", "The Magic Christian", "Listzomania" and scores of LSD films like "The Trip" all were from this era. And today, you wonder 'what were they thinking?!?!' when they made such ridiculous, disjoint and downright nutty and incoherent films.
So why did I watch "Candy"? After all, it's not exactly subtle nor well made. In fact, it's downright terrible. But it is worth seeing if you like bad films, as it's one of those enjoyably bad films that are fun to watch with like-minded friends.
I could try to describe the plot to this film but there really isn't much of a coherent plot. Weirdos abound in the film and come and go rather randomly. What also is pretty random is what everyone says and does...as if the film was written by randomly pulling plot elements out of a sack and then stringing them all together. The only coherent theme is young Candy (Ewa Aulin) and folks' lust for this seemingly dim and empty-headed nymph.
You really have to see the film to understand why Marlon Brando considered this his very worst film...even worse than "The Island of Dr. Moreau"! Here are a few choice performances that illustrate Brando's assessment of the film:
Richard Burton plays a crazed, brain-addled pervert of a poet. He spouts nonsense poetry, wets himself, makes love to a mannequin and overacts considerably. It was funny that wherever he went, his long hair blew in the wind...whether in doors or outside!
Ringo Starr plays a simple-minded Mexican-American, Emmanuel. He seems about as Mexican-American as Charlie Chan and he spends most of the movie doing an embarrassing accent and assaulting Candy.
John Astin plays Candy's father. He is a man who is obviously VERY obsessed with his sexy daughter. He also, inexplicably, plays two people one scene...though I have no idea why.
Walter Matthau plays a VERY stereotypical ultra-soldier who is all military....and horniness. He is a bit fun to watch...though his character makes no sense at all. Of course, none of them really make any sense.
James Coburn plays a crazed brain surgeon with delusions of godhood. As he's operating, he is being observed by a crowd....and he regales them with his brilliance. Later, he, like the rest, wants to make it with Candy.
Director John Huston plays a hospital administrator. But, since he starred in "Myra Breckinridge" and "Casino Royale", he apparently ALWAYS played in godawful films and played godawful characters.
Marlon Brando plays an Indian guru. He's bug-eyed and looks amazingly like Alice Cooper. He also says he can 'converse with vegetables'! And, like the rest, he's REALLY interested in Candy. But his character is also possibly the strangest in the film....and you just have to see him to believe what you're seeing!
Overall, the film seems like a combination of "Lolita" and "Alice in Wonderland"....on Acid. In addition to bizarre and nonsensical writing, the film suffers from deliberately bad editing. Many at the time might have considered this hip...though today it just seems self-indulgent and bad. The only reason I gave it a 2 is that I have seen worse films....though not all that many. Plus, while horribly written some of the actors do fine with what they are given...especially Walter Matthau and Burton's hair.
By the way, when the film debuted it was seen by many as a 'dirty' movie. Well, if that's why you watch it, you'll be disappointed. While the film clearly is about men and their obsessions with an underage girl, you really don't see very much....it's mostly talk and most of the nude bits conceal most of Aulin's body.
So why did I watch "Candy"? After all, it's not exactly subtle nor well made. In fact, it's downright terrible. But it is worth seeing if you like bad films, as it's one of those enjoyably bad films that are fun to watch with like-minded friends.
I could try to describe the plot to this film but there really isn't much of a coherent plot. Weirdos abound in the film and come and go rather randomly. What also is pretty random is what everyone says and does...as if the film was written by randomly pulling plot elements out of a sack and then stringing them all together. The only coherent theme is young Candy (Ewa Aulin) and folks' lust for this seemingly dim and empty-headed nymph.
You really have to see the film to understand why Marlon Brando considered this his very worst film...even worse than "The Island of Dr. Moreau"! Here are a few choice performances that illustrate Brando's assessment of the film:
Richard Burton plays a crazed, brain-addled pervert of a poet. He spouts nonsense poetry, wets himself, makes love to a mannequin and overacts considerably. It was funny that wherever he went, his long hair blew in the wind...whether in doors or outside!
Ringo Starr plays a simple-minded Mexican-American, Emmanuel. He seems about as Mexican-American as Charlie Chan and he spends most of the movie doing an embarrassing accent and assaulting Candy.
John Astin plays Candy's father. He is a man who is obviously VERY obsessed with his sexy daughter. He also, inexplicably, plays two people one scene...though I have no idea why.
Walter Matthau plays a VERY stereotypical ultra-soldier who is all military....and horniness. He is a bit fun to watch...though his character makes no sense at all. Of course, none of them really make any sense.
James Coburn plays a crazed brain surgeon with delusions of godhood. As he's operating, he is being observed by a crowd....and he regales them with his brilliance. Later, he, like the rest, wants to make it with Candy.
Director John Huston plays a hospital administrator. But, since he starred in "Myra Breckinridge" and "Casino Royale", he apparently ALWAYS played in godawful films and played godawful characters.
Marlon Brando plays an Indian guru. He's bug-eyed and looks amazingly like Alice Cooper. He also says he can 'converse with vegetables'! And, like the rest, he's REALLY interested in Candy. But his character is also possibly the strangest in the film....and you just have to see him to believe what you're seeing!
Overall, the film seems like a combination of "Lolita" and "Alice in Wonderland"....on Acid. In addition to bizarre and nonsensical writing, the film suffers from deliberately bad editing. Many at the time might have considered this hip...though today it just seems self-indulgent and bad. The only reason I gave it a 2 is that I have seen worse films....though not all that many. Plus, while horribly written some of the actors do fine with what they are given...especially Walter Matthau and Burton's hair.
By the way, when the film debuted it was seen by many as a 'dirty' movie. Well, if that's why you watch it, you'll be disappointed. While the film clearly is about men and their obsessions with an underage girl, you really don't see very much....it's mostly talk and most of the nude bits conceal most of Aulin's body.