don't get it...
I'm from germany and I saw the movie a few days ago on free TV. Even if I think it's crap I wonder why there are just about 800 votes for a movie with these great actors!? Is it so unknown in the U.S.?
shareNo Message
share
MovieChat Forums > Candy (1968) Discussion > don't get it...
its very very highly unheard of in the u.s.a. and most people that have heard of it think that it is terrible, i read a review from badmovies.org.. where they were completely repulsed by this movie.
i personally like it.
if most people think something is terrible then its a fair bet that it actually is. that's how consensus is created.
shareAmericans tend to forget their culture. Of course, considering its unpalatable and very politically incorrect content, this film would never have been shown on mainstream American TV, consequently it was forgotten. I watched this several times on TV in the 1970s here in Canada, uncut. When I saw it for sale in 2003 I grabbed it. It's not a great film, but definitely a good one. It's a revealing commentary on the 'mindset' of the late 1960s, especially the 'happening' concept. It's too bad the pace of the film was so uneven, many of the performances were brilliant, especially Richard Burton doing his Dylan Thomas impression.
shareIt is without a doubt the worst piece of garbage I have ever seen in my life. It is unwatchable and embarrassing any name actors were associated with it. Ewa Aulin looked stoned throughout; if she wasn't she should have been.
You have got to be kidding about Richard Burton. Never has any actor sunk so low as Burton in that film; John Barrymore drunk out of his mind would never have sunk that low.
I remember reading this book in study hall in high school. I never knew was a climax was or oral sex. Then two wonen talking about a clothspin and climaxing whenever they want.
This book was out in the middle sixties but made into a movie in the early seventies.
This book was out in the middle sixties but made into a movie in the early seventies.
No, it was 1968 (scroll up!). Even if it weren't shown, I'd know it wasn't the 70's because I wasn't in high school when it was released (I started in the fall of 1969). share
I think this is a fantastic movie. The cast is terrific and there is some strong dialogue by Buck Henry (and admittedly some groaners as well). This film is not for all tastes but it can be highly enjoyable if you approach it in the right frame of mind.
"flying blind on a rocket cycle"
[deleted]
Let's put it this way -- the book is better. In fact, it's hysterically funny, and you don't have to have read "Candide", by Voltaire, the book that author Southern was satirizing. I always thought that it would translate fairly well to film, but apparently not. I think this probably has more to do with the fact that a lot of the witty stuff was very subtle and most U.S. filmmakers don't think audiences can handle subtle wit.
I've noticed that people usually like either "Candy" or "Barbarella", but not both, although they're really quite similar in many ways.
Almost all of the movies Terry Southern was involved with share inherent similarities - even if he didn't pull solo script duties his sensibilities permeate the product. Strangelove, The Loved One, Candy, The Magic Christian, Easy Rider, Barbarella - even Casino Royale - all bear his stamp in a big way and are all more enjoyablef for it.
One of the biggest missed opportunities in cinema history is that nobody ever shoved a million bucks and a camera into Southern's hands and turned him loose to make a movie.
I'm from germany and I saw the movie a few days ago on free TV. Even if I think it's crap I wonder why there are just about 800 votes for a movie with these great actors!? Is it so unknown in the U.S.?
I remember quite a bit of pre-release hype, including a paperback reissue of the novel. It sank like a stone shortly after its premier and died what was presumably a merciful death. My guess is that the "names" involved weren't unhappy with the outcome.
What's "free TV?" share
I saw this movie first run in our local theatre, so presumably 1969...I would have been 14 or so.
There's a lot of criteria, I guess, by which one could measure how 'good' a movie is, amongst them, I would suggest, however minor, is "memorable". I have seen an awful lot of movies since 1969 (and more than a few before!), and while I'd never think of 'Candy' as a great, or even very good, movie, I do recall it better than many other movies I've seen. So it must have had a certain "je ne sais quois" going for it.
I need (OK, 'need' is much to strong a word) to find a way to see this one more time, preferably cheaply.
..."cheaply" being the operative word here.
share'cheaply' is indeed the operative word, and 'with ff button under finger--just in case' is implied, just in case. Many of my memories from the days of 35 cent movies are larger in memory than they are in re-experience.
I've got Candy on my "unlimited movies for a monthly fee" program, but apparently, it's not currently one of the 72,000 movies that claim to be in their library.
LOL, believe me, I hear ya. I, too, remember the happy days before the dollar was floated. I can't imagine, though, why a blockbuster such as this wouldn't number among the 72,000. Must be an oversight.
I agree that the FF button is a very good thing indeed.