Candy (1968) User Reviews (91)

Good grief, why haven't you watched this yet?

[deheor · 6/10 · 28 November 2005]

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.

A movie so terrible, it's great!

[shepardjessica · 4/10 · 13 July 2004]

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.

Candy Lives Up To Her Reputation

[trvolk · 6/10 · 19 July 2003]

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.

This film needs more consideration than it has been accorded.

[magic013 · 8 August 2000]

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.

A movie so terrible, it's Terrible!

[jadedalex · 2/10 · 14 May 2017]

I was always titillated by the sight of young Ewa Aulin, but never witnessed this 'epic', supposedly 'so terrible, it's great'. The only movie I have ever seen that is so terrible that it is accidentally 'great' is 'Plan 9 From Outer Space'. Terrible is usually terrible. 'Candy' is a terrible waste of real talent, much like Preminger's stinker of the same year, 'Skidoo'.

The only thing that got me through the film is the fantastic body of the young Ms. Aulin. She is very easy on the eyes. However, the sight of such talents as Richard Burton, James Coburn, Marlon Brando, Walter Matthau and John Astin making complete fools of themselves with a terribly unfunny script by Buck Henry is not a pleasant thing to behold, and it is hardly 'great'.. Not too surprising that the talented director John Huston found himself a part in this mess, as he managed to do 'Myra Breckinridge' (a REAL loser) around the same period.

Buck Henry is to be credited with writing one of the best screenplays of the year ('The Graduate') and also one of the worst, this stinker called 'Candy'. He has a small bit in the movie, and is slightly humorous as a mental patient! (Typecasting?)

I didn't observe an awful lot of nudity. Ms. Aulin's breasts are briefly seen. Ringo Starr, so promising in 'A Hard Day's Night', can chock another notch on his 'bad movie' belt. As a rule, rock stars just don't translate to matinée idols.

Plus, this treacle, excuse me, I mean 'film' goes on for two hours! At least Otto Preminger kept his stinker 'Skidoo' at a ninety-minute length. I suspect the book 'Candy' is unfunny, too. I have never read 'The Graduate', but it's probably a much better read than 'Candy'.

As we romanticize 'the sixties', it's important to remember...there was a lot of garbage being produced way back when, too! Despite the lovely Ewa, I found this pretty rough to get through and will not do it again. Real garbage.

Waste of A Cast

[davidjanuzbrown · 1/10 · 13 August 2012]

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.

Doesn't just rot your teeth

[kingbad · 1/10 · 5 August 2000]

This is an unbelievably awful movie that doesn't "spoof" anything except, apparently, the intelligence of the witless producers who poured money into it. Completely unintelligible plot centering around a strangely Swedish-accented New Jersey teenager who literally bounces from one sexual compromise to another, somehow managing to elude good acting throughout. Ewa Aulin, making her debut in this steaming pile, manages to convey that her only talent is taking her clothes off at the drop of a hat. And, since this is a '60's movie, there's a lot of hat-dropping going on (if you know what I mean). Embarrassing performances by such "luminaries" as Richard Burton, Walter Matthau, James Coburn, and Marlon Brando were obviously turned in for scale- that is, the scale the director must've used to weigh out the dope that permeates this piece of tripe. Painful cameos by Walter Huston and Sugar Ray Robinson, both of whom look like they wanted to be somewhere else, also burn themselves into my battered brain pan. The only honest performance was turned in by Buck Henry, who plays a raving mental patient- of course, since he also wrote the screenplay for this abomination, it was probably only typecasting. This movie is the poster child for 1960s moviemaking- the absolute nadir of self-involved, drug-addled excess. Not worth the celluloid it slimed onto.

"The centipede has a thousand legs yet cannot dance."

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 30 June 2010]

When I first saw this, on its release, I laughed until I thought I'd pop a gut. I didn't laugh so much this time around but then I don't laugh as much as I used to -- at anything.

But look at that cast: Burton, Huston, Brando, Aznavour, Coburn, Pallenberg, Matthau, among others. And some talent behind the camera as well.

It's easy to dismiss this as just one more disorganized non sequitur from the 1960s, chaos trying to pass for art, but it's really more serious than that. I suppose "serious", in that context, should be in quotation marks. Yes, it's a kaleidoscopic jumble but there's an uncanny continuity underneath the overt narrative. The novel, after all, was written by Terry Southern, who gave us "Doctor Strangelove" among other satirical works of the 1960s. Some of his send ups are more whimsical than others but they're hardly pointless.

Among the targets skewered here: the reverence in which high-echelon surgeons are held (and in which they hold themselves); the American propensity to protect itself and the rest of the world by military intervention; the charisma of alcoholic poets (I think Southern missed the boat on that one, at least as far as American students are concerned); the crypto-mysticism of Eastern philosophy so fashionable in the 60s; the nouvelle vague films that flooded the art houses; gay bars in Greenwich Village; the longing that some Irish cops have to bust heads over what they perceive as "infractions"; the Circum-Mediterranean virginity mystique; and the patronizing and politically correct attitude towards the disabled and deformed.

Southern's novel (I don't know who Mason Hoffenberg is, but I can't find any trace of him in the book) is funnier than the movie, and sexier too. For whatever reasons, it's difficult to transpose Southern's written work to the screen. "The Magic Christian," a story with enormous wit, flopped as a movie. But when it's Southern who's writing the adaptation, the movies generally turn out pretty well -- "The Loved One," for instance, which did a good job of capturing some of Evelyn Waugh's humor while adding some absurdities of Southern's own. That movie introduced us to the word "PRE-vert."

Here, the narrative explores and explodes some of the most primitive verities of the Western world in the 1960s, not all with equal success. And sometimes director Marquand goes over the top with the special effects. John Astin doesn't really belong in the movie. The other principal actors seem to know the meaning of debauchery but Astin works too hard at hipness, only to achieve hepness. Ringo Starr isn't an actor. Too bad all the performances weren't up to the level of the short guy who played the blue-eyed eager Irish cop (Joey Forman?).

It's not a masterpiece and some episodes are more amusing than others but, then, what is perfection? A petty illusion of the material world, unworthy of definition, as Marlon Brando's phony guru might put it, a complete ascetic when he's not secretly gobbling down salami and beer. It's colorful. It's funny. It features the calf-like eyes and robust figure of Miss Teenage Sweden. What more can you ask for -- a return to the innocence of the early 1960s?

Weird and Wacky

[Johnny_West · 1/10 · 26 February 2021]

I cannot stand John Astin, so I just fast-forwarded whenever I heard his annoying voice. Ewa Aulin who was a young actress with very little experience, plays the lead character, Candy. Her job is to be innocent and act bewildered and amazed by the world around her.

The rest of the movie, is extremely off the rails bizarre, funny, sarcastic, and odd. The weirdest part is with Richard Burton. He brutally parodies himself as a drunken pervert ego-maniacal celebrity. I was shocked at the harsh honesty of his role, and that he was willing to do it.

The rest of the cast is fun. Can you imagine Marlon Brando, Walter Mathou, Richard Burton, Ringo Starr, James Coburn, John Huston, Charles Aznavour, Anita Pallenberg all in the same movie? Unfortunately, none of the great stars act together in the same scenes. That is very sad.

The military bit with Walter Matthou was not very funny. He just shouted slogans at John Astin and the other characters. Candy (Ewa Aulin) reacted to the ridiculousness of his acting. That was probably the least entertaining segment.

This movie is a collection of skits / commentaries on 1960s society. Each bit features some really good actor with some good supporting characters, but none of it is really connected. It is almost like a psychedelic version of Kentucky Fried Movie (1977), but with a much better cast than Kentucky Fried Movie had.

check your prurience at the door

[danielj_old999 · 7/10 · 2 November 2005]

this is a great hippie movie whose reputation is tarnished by the fact that everyone who hasn't seen it, and most dummies who have, think it's a dirty movie about prurient sex....great misconception. It's more simple belly laughs and uninhibited joie de vivre. Granted, there are some very weak sections, e.g. the Matthau, but I laughed even as this absurd chapter came to a close...it's a product of an era when not only sex, but laughter and freedom, were celebrated and must be seen in that mindset...this is a movie that people who write certain modern movie guidebooks will never, ever, ever understand...for the simple reason that, in this era, as prurience increases, thus does narrowmindedness, so that we come to forget completely the now remote atmosphere in which such a film could be made.

The worst piece of garbage I ever saw.

[snunes-4 · 1/10 · 14 December 2007]

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.

Wildly enjoyable satire featuring an all-star cast

[toad-16 · 10/10 · 16 February 1999]

They don't make 'em like this anymore. Based on Terry Southern's classic novel, CANDY is remarkable film featuring a swinging soundtrack, actors like Richard Burton and Marlon Brando spoofing themselves, and a fast-moving picaresque story that satirizes late 60s America (military, academia, Eastern religion, etc). Criticized upon release for lack of any coherent story, is one of the best films from that era. Advocating sexual freedom and experimentation, Candy is one fun movie with a funny script by Buck Henry and wild visuals, like a glass-bottom limousine and Brando's gurumobile. A must-see!****

I saw it

[rbixby · 7/10 · 29 November 2006]

For some reason I thought Tom Stoppard had a hand in it, but I was thinking of Terry Southern. Isn't that interesting? My memories of the film, which was played over and over again on the closed-circuit television network of the USS Forrestal during my 1974 Mediterranean cruise, were two: Richard Burton hoovering booze from the floor of his limo and Walter Matthau approaching Candy for sex in the cockpit of a military transport (this scene was repeated in Private Benjamin with Goldie Hawn). I vaguely remember Candy having sex with her comatose father, the appearance of Ringo Starr, and not much else. It's the kind of episodic story that functioned as porn in the late 60s--writers of porn didn't know how to built to a payoff, so they wrote a sex scene, moved the character to another situation, had another sex scene, and so forth (get a copy of The Devil in Miss Jones to see how it works, or Story of O, or Deep Throat, or anything of that era). Is there anything deeper to be seen in this movie? I really doubt it--it looks like a potboiler by a guy who has some bills. I don't have a clue how he got the stars to appear in it, but I'm sure Peter Sellers had a lot to do with that. And it's a gorgeous enough movie--the star is heartbreakingly beautiful and nubile; the sets are decorated with care. Terry's rep was looming pretty large with his Strangelove credit, too, so pretty much anything he ground out was bound to be printed and filmed. Whenever anyone wants to break out of short stories into novels, I advise them to follow this formula--write a series of related sex scenes. Write one a week for a year. Anyone can crank that much out. After a year, shuffle them and send them to an agent. Wait for the checks to come rolling in. What I don't get is why anyone would write about anything other than sex. It's all we care about as a species--having it, resisting it, trying not to think about it, trying to get it up, trying to keep it down, trying to get other people into bed, trying to get other people out of bed. Everything else is just window dressing. Candy is an important movie because it doesn't pretend anything else is important besides falling between the knees of a beautiful, nubile, not particularly bright young woman.

Absolutely unwatchable

[moonspinner55 · 1/10 · 28 July 2001]

Christian Marquand's film-version of the Mason Hoffenberg-Terry Southern novel (adapted by the usually acerbic and talented Buck Henry) becomes a star-studded, but frantic and unfunny sex spoof ('alleged comedy' would seem more appropriate). Ewa Aulin plays a nubile innocent named Candy whose shallow charms attract eccentric men who are in and out of her life. The choice of Aulin, a Twiggy lookalike who can't act, was the filmmakers' first misstep--Henry's flimsily constructed script is the second. John Astin is amusing as Candy's father, but everyone else in the cast (Richard Burton, Marlon Brando, James Coburn and Walter Matthau among them) is simply dreadful. NO STARS from ****

everybody loves candy

[yougotthesilver · 8 December 2004]

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.

C and Y

[thomsons · 1/10 · 3 February 2003]

Marlon Brando explains as an Indian guru the title of this highly weird and boring movie, the girl who is named candy stands for C and Y, you get it!? The problem is that Brando not really explains what the c and the y stands for. The girl who seems to come out of space makes a journey through the United States from her high-school in New Jersey to New York and all the way to California from where she takes into space again. What i really tried to figure out when i was watching this movie is why do all these stars show up in this movie, the only explanations i can think of is that they lost a bet or the cast was blowing their heads off during filming. Fact that it was made during the sixties makes you suspect the last option!

Eye Candy & Empty Calories

[AlexanderAnubis · 4/10 · 3 May 2016]

Candy (1968)

When Thurlow o'er this labor bent

-- Thurlow to George Gordon, Lord Byron

When Thurlow this damn'd nonsense sent/(I hope I am not violent),/Nor men nor gods knew what he meant.

-- George Gordon, Lord Byron to Thurlow

This half-pretentious, half-moronic adaptation of the novel by Mason Hoffenberg and Terry Southern is fundamentally a slice of late 1960s comic soft core that is able to get away with masquerading as Art thanks to its stellar cast. The story, (supposedly), is that Marlon Brando was unhappy with the script but agreed to do the film because of his friendship with director Christian Marquand; once Brando's name was associated with the project other "A" listees signed on quickly and easily...and if none of them ever cursed him for it later, I would be very surprised.

The script is by Buck Henry, and one might expect a satirical narrative of some wit from the screenwriter of The Graduate, particularly as the novel is nominally an update of Voltaire's Candide. But he seems to have been out of his depth with this material. Be prepared for large, tedious chunks which fall flat and/or drag badly, a couple of bits trying hard for European erotic surrealism, (or a parody perhaps), but come across as simply creepy. (Richard Burton paying amorous attentions to a mannequin while Ringo - well, you'll see if you watch it - Roger Vadim this is not.) And parts that are just plain stupid - without question this is Brando's most idiotic performance which alone puts it on the 'must-see' list. There is also a small collection of humorous ethnic stereotypes that elicit winces instead of laughs - even for 1968 they are an embarrassment.

On the other hand some small pieces work very well: Burton's Byronic Bombast with a Constant Breeze; the segment before the finale of Candy walking through the desert to fields populated by the archetypes she encountered in her journey, as well as the rest of the cast, the director, the crew, the extras, and probably one or two people who were just driving by at the time and recruited on the spot. (Perhaps this was intended as an existential statement that the movie knows it's a movie - or something. At any rate, it doesn't really help, but you do get to see those responsible all together.)

Also John Astin is a surprising standout in the dual roles of Candy's father and uncle, and the luscious, but almost-never-heard-from-again Ewa Aulin as Candy is very appealing and far less vacuous than the script makes her character appear. Notable among the small handful of her other credits is Season 1, Episode 8 of Monty Python's Flying Circus, (7 December 1969). She left the acting profession in her early twenties and went into the teaching one.

Overall, it's like the filmmakers had about 11 minutes of movie that they put in a 124 minute box and filled the empty space with 113 minutes of Styrofoam peanuts – or celluloid peanuts. A cheese product of its time that didn't curdle nicely to begin with and hasn't aged too well since, but at least it's 100% Mike Myers and Sonny & Cher free.

This film's best quality: it's groovy. This film's worst quality: it's groovy. Oh, and any similarity this symmetry implies to any Tao-like or Cartesian dualisms is unintentional, specious and purely coincidental. No philosophies were harmed in the making of this description.

XYZ

Garbage rape fantasy

[vaultonburg · 2/10 · 31 July 2010]

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.

psychedelia...

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 19 June 2005]

"Candy" is, above all, a movie whose point you should not try to figure out. It's the psychedelic story of Candy Christian (Ewa Aulin), a teenage girl who constantly gets raped. That's a loose description, but probably not sufficient. The mammoth cast includes John Astin as Candy's father, Richard Burton as a Dylan Thomas-like poet, Ringo Starr as a gardener, Walter Matthau as a general, James Coburn as a surgeon, Charles Aznavour as a hunchbacked thief and Marlon Brando as a guru.

Okay, so I didn't actually experience the 60s, so "Candy" doesn't have the same significance to me as it did to my parents' generation. But regardless of that, it's still a really fascinating movie. Weird, but the good kind of weird.

The worst

[lvblvb · 1/10 · 15 June 2022]

This movie just plain sucks. Don't waste your time. Lots of well known actors, horrible script, no real nudity of the star despite the poster photographs promising as such. Pointless drivel. Marlon Brando called it the worst movie he ever made. I call it the worst movie I ever sat through.

Created During a Unique Period in American History

[Uriah43 · 6/10 · 26 February 2016]

This movie essentially begins with an attractive high school student named "Candy Christian" (Ewa Aulin) being caught in a compromising position due in large part to her innocent and trusting nature. Additionally, her good looks also had much to do with this as well. Be that as it may, each scenario in this movie has a least one character with just one sole purpose in mind-to get her between the proverbial sheets. And their desire to do so is limited only by the imaginative position that they find themselves faced with. Now as far as this movie is concerned it certainly had its share of major actors to include Marlon Brando (as the Eastern mystic named "Grindl"), Richard Burton ("MacPhisto"), Walter Matthau ("General R. A. Smight") and James Coburn ("Dr. A. B. Krankheit"). So fans of any of these fine actors should be pleased. On the other hand, this film is definitely dated to a certain period in American history that celebrated "psychedelic" movies of this type. Because of that, younger audiences may not be able to appreciate it as much as those who experienced this particular time. That said, while I thought it was somewhat entertaining for the most part, it also seemed more than a little uneven and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

So bad that it's probably a must-see for bad movie buffs.

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 4 February 2021]

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.

I have been waiting to see this movie again since I first saw it in 1968.

[lsomers · 10/10 · 5 April 2001]

An unbelievable cast! I have been wanting to see this movie again ever since I first saw it in college, 30 years ago. The video clip reminded me that the movie is just as good as I remember!

McPhisto, played by Richard Burton, reminds me of my old Psych Professor, Don Whaley, who taught a WMU and North Texas State. In many ways Whaley was McPhisto!

So if anyone out there reading this ever knew Whaley, email me.

I believe I read it's a limited release so it's sure to be a classic collectors item.

CANDY (Christian Marquand, 1968) **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 22 December 2007]

One of the most maligned of the all-star "anything goes" extravaganzas typical of the late 1960s – this time with pretensions towards satire given its origins as a Terry Southern novel (here adapted for the screen by Buck Henry, who also appears briefly as a lunatic) – is not too bad, actually (somewhat in the same vein as THE MAGIC Christian [1969] but slightly more entertaining), though it does run badly out of steam two-thirds of the way in.

18-year old Swedish "newcomer" Ewa Aulin plays the naïve but well-meaning heroine who's taken advantage of by practically everyone she meets; actually, she had already appeared in two notable Italian movies both starring French actor Jean-Louis Trintignant – Tinto Brass' DEADLY SWEET (1967; which I caught at the 2004 Venice Film Festival with its infamous director in attendance!) and Giulio Questi's DEATH LAID AN EGG (1968) – and she would go on to star in two more worthwhile European movies which, incidentally, both feature Italian actress Lucia Bose' – Romolo Guerrieri's THE DOUBLE (1971) and Jorge Grau's BLOOD CASTLE (1973; with which I'm unfamiliar myself) – before bailing out of the film industry altogether to become a teacher!

The impressive supporting cast includes (in order of appearance): John Astin who has the triple roles of Aulin's father, a hellish vision of same and her uncle; a somewhat embarrassing Richard Burton is MacPhisto, a poet-teacher (with wind forever blowing in his face) who is worshipped like a rock star by his students and whom the script requires to lick champagne off the glass-plated floor of his limousine and make love to an inflatable doll!; Ringo Starr's role isn't clearly defined but he seems to be the Christians' Mexican gardener (could he have been the inspiration for FAWLTY TOWERS' Manuel?); Elsa Martinelli is Aulin's promiscuous aunt; Walter Matthau the general commandeering a paratrooping outfit; James Coburn a celebrated surgeon; Anita Pallenberg his jealous nurse/lover; John Huston a colleague/rival of Coburn's; Charles Aznavour a hunchback criminal with a penchant for magic tricks (climbing and moving along walls or literally diving into a mirror just like in a Jean Cocteau film); Marlon Brando as an Indian guru who practices his meditation aboard a truck rambling throughout America; also in the cast as a couple of Starr's whip-wielding sisters were Euro-Cult favorites Florinda Bolkan and Marilu' Tolo.

The film is most notorious perhaps for being one of Brando's weirdest acting choices during his lean years; then again, it seems that his presence was pivotal in securing the film its backing (he was friends with director/former actor Marquand who, unsurprisingly, never again stepped behind the camera); still, the best and lengthiest 'episode' is the one featuring Coburn, Pallenberg and Huston (in which Astin and Martinelli also turn up) – while Enrico Maria Salerno was hilarious as an obsessive cine-verite' film-maker who, when asked a question by a police officer, replies: "Who directed it?" and later even films himself as he is passing out! Frankly, one of the minor pleasures I derived from the film was the surprising appearance of the smaller scale actors – Bolkan, Tolo, Pallenberg and Salerno – among such Hollywood and European luminaries.

Offering psychedelic visuals and a terrific rock score by Dave Grusin (abetted by songs by such modish rock bands as Steppenwolf and The Byrds – who provide the very likable "Child Of The Universe"), CANDY moves at a fairly brisk pace but, at 124 minutes and with no plot to speak of, it eventually grows tiresome. The visually striking two-minute opening sequence (created by Douglas Trumbull!) alludes to the fact that Candy is less a real character than a concept – an alien embodiment of the carnal desires in man – and the Fellini-esquire ending, grouping all the characters in a circus-like setting, only serves to bring the whole thing full circle. Ultimately, film critic John Simon's memorable dismissal of CANDY is perhaps unjustified but worth mentioning here nevertheless: "As an emetic, liquor is dandy, but CANDY is quicker"! Curiousy enough, CANDY and Otto Preminger's even more misguided SKIDOO (1968; which preceded this viewing) opened within days of one another; I wonder just what current audiences made of either of them...

Unfortunately, my experience with the film was further marred by the fact that the audio on the copy I watched went badly out-of-synch around the 90-minute mark (thus including Brando's entire segment)...and no matter what I tried – usually, playing the same scene over again would fix the problem – I couldn't get it to work properly!

Notoriously lousy

[HotToastyRag · 2/10 · 17 January 2022]

Candy, a psychedelic 1960s sex comedy, is famous for being terrible. Everyone who was in it admitted it was terrible, and the leading lady retired shortly afterwards. Marlon Brando said it was the worst movie he ever made - quite a criticism. Although, his vignette contained the funniest joke: while trying to uncross his legs from Lotus position, he falls off his chair and topples to the ground.

Ewa Aulin, the beautiful, spacy title character, plays the object of everyone's desire. Literally, every single man in the movie tries (and most succeed) to sleep with her, even her own father. As she innocently agrees to everyone's requests to take over her clothes, bend over, and get into bed. From Walter Matthau's "if you love your country, take off your clothes" speech, to Richard Burton declaring his "enormous need" while in the backseat of his car, this is one ridiculous vignette after another. Ringo Starr pretends to be a Mexican gardener, Marlon Brando is an Indian guru taking her through the different levels of enlightenment, James Coburn is a master surgeon who teaches her to play doctor, and John Astin is her incestuous father. Richard Burton spoofs his pal Dylan Thomas, lecturing poetry and bringing along his own wind machine so his hair always flutters around his face.

Unless you like watching notoriously terrible movies, don't watch this one. It's basically two hours devoted to showing off Ewa Aulin's face and body. She is a very beautiful young lady, but that's hardly a good reason to watch what could be described as a two-hour drug hallucination.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. There are some psychedelic camera movies and weird tilt/zooms throughout the movie, and it will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to sexual content and incest, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.