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.

This piece is obviously a rape fantasy attacking women. Rape violent is through-out this film. Exploitation and sex trafficking of under girls is the core of the plot. Drug use, religious hatred , racial hatred with the use of rape of a minor are all common threads in this film. Pornography is the most common element of this filth. How can this exploitation of women and statutory rape be legal?

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.

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!

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.

I thought I'd seen all the wacky 60's post-code anti-establishment satires, but strangely never heard of this film until recently. It starts off great, with Richard Burton (McPhisto) with wind constantly blowing thru his hair no matter where he happens to be, squaring off with John Astin as Candy's square father Mr. Christian. Expect tons of name puns like that, and way loads of social satire against all the 6 food groups of establishment authority figures (Military, Doctors, Beaurocrats, Teachers, Cops and Spiritual Healers) and see what they all have in common, namely hypocrisy and Candy. This seems to be a sequel of sorts to The Magic Christian in not only author, but style and attitude as well. (Ringo Starr is coincidentally or purposely in both films). Its also reminiscent of Harold and Maude, O Lucky Man, Brewster Mcloud, Holy Mountain (okay, a tiny bit) and half a dozen other late 60's satirical and somewhat surreal comedies. Who needs a linear plot when you have great social satire performed by top actors (Marlon Brando, James Coburn, Walter Matthau)? And Candy is as cute as the proverbial button to boot! Great psychedelic soundtrack by The Byrds and others as well. I'll buy the DVD (if its out yet) and file it next to my copies of "Beyond The Valley of the Dolls" and the Monkees' "Head"

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 ****

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.

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.

If you understand this movie,it is very funny.It is really an exaggeration of the way life is.It shows the plight of naive young girl,who encounters men,who want nothing more,than to get into her pants. It makes you have compassion for this girl,and women in general.The situations in this movie happen all the time to women.I call it a sexual Alice in wonderland. So if you have ever sexually violated a minor,you might find this movie offensive.Very cleverly done!This movie can only be understood by intelligent viewers and offers comedy in tradition of the cohen brothers Fargo. The psychedelic music score is way cool.To bad it was in mono.