Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

annabates Following three months of dismal box office shows and Netflix deadwood I popped this into my Blu-Ray. I am so glad I did. Fifty years of artistic nonsense disappeared in a flash. Take a trip back to the days when art flourished in film, before sophistication and technology ruined it. It will leave you feeling fresh and clean.

AlexanderAnubis Candy (1968)When Thurlow o'er this labor bent-- Thurlow to George Gordon, Lord ByronWhen 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 ThurlowThis 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

ismith-18 I work in a video shop & found 'Good Grief Its Candy' was available to order so I ordered it. There were several films I remember seeing when I was a kid growing up that would forever change my view of women, they were 'Barbarella', '1Million Years BC' & 'Good Grief It's Candy'. All I remembered about these movies were that there these women made me feel funny and awkward when I was watching them with my family.Years later when I revisited 'Barbarella' & '1Million Years BC' I watched them with a new viewpoint, I didn't feel awkward & appreciated Jane Fonda & Raquel Welch for who they were,beautiful strong women playing strong female lead characters in ever so slightly titillating movies. So, I unwrapped the DVD, put it in the player, told my girlfriend about it being a bizarre film that I saw when I was a kid & I couldn't really remember that much about the movie but there was a gorgeous girl who starred in it who I fancied when I was younger. Then I pressed 'play'.Everything started off great, brilliant opening, great soundtrack, dead trippy, wow, this is gonna be psychedelic. Wow, Burton, Coburn, Starr, Brando, amazing cast. My kinda film. Then I started to feel awkward again, like I did when I was a kid with my mom & dad sitting on the sofa next to me. But this time my girlfriend is sitting next to me.You all know the plot so I wont go over it again. Actings over the top from everyone except Ewa, who doesn't really act. Ewa Aulin, as I remembered, was still incredibly beautiful, but I forgot the actual subject matter of the movie. I think I was too young to understand it. I remember this movie was quite naughty. I kinda felt a little queasy half way through watching it.Don't get me wrong, it is a film that needs to be experienced purely to say you saw it to your mates. There were some proper funny moments, some wtf! moments & some moments you wouldn't want to watch with your girlfriend sitting next to you. I would recommend this to anyone who liked any kind of 'Grindhouse' purely for some of the strange direction & editing & exploitation (Tarantino must has ripped off some of this). I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who takes anything literally (free your mind,man).As a comedy it was OK, not 'carry on..' or 'confessions of..', darker, much darker, more 'O Lucky Man' meets 'Magical Mystery Tour' with breasts & bums. As satire & a social commentary of the time it pretty much took the rip out of all the establishment, including hippies.I am still thinking about the movie a day on trying to suss out what it was trying to say, whether it was trying to say anything, whether it was one of the best or the worst films I have ever seen. My girlfriend & I had a chat for about an hour afterwards. Initially we both thought it was exploitative but as the conversation grew the question became who was getting exploited? Obviously Ewa Aulin was shown to be a naive irresistible beauty but I believe you needed Ewa as the catalyst to show the weakness of the men involved. Any man would have tried it on with Ewa given the chance, thus showing men really for what they are. Ewa reduced these men to primal beasts. My question was: I know the men in the movie supposedly had the strength, but I believe Ewa had the power. No matter what their position or stature, they crumbled. The situations were extreme in the movie, with the outcome of Ewa getting her kit off & getting manhandled becoming more and more tiresome. Initially I laughed at the incest & other taboo quips, not believing the subject matter the movie was delving into. As the movie went on though, I started to realise it wasn't that funny, actually it was a little sad. It was supposed to be a psychedelic saucy romp & I started to feel nasty fancying Ewa all them years ago. I felt nasty watching the old movie stars groping Ewa. All of a sudden it felt to me like Andy Warhol had directed 'Austin Powers'. I started to feel free love and hippies were all starting to look abit weird, well..more weird. Then I realised this was the tail end of hippydom, perhaps this film was the start of the comedown. Or maybe the film was just pants. I don't know.plus points: Brilliant soundtrack, amazing cast, one off performances, some quirky humour.minus points: Wrong in so many ways. PS: scored it 6-7 purely because I know I will watch it again & again & still be thinking about it. Just get yourself a copy & then you can be as confused as me.Ivan.

ppammykins77 I saw this movie in December of 1968 when it was first released in the US. I was in High School, had just turned 16. This movie was rated "X" (noone admitted under the age of 16). I remember it being somewhat disjointed. When I think about it, I can't help comparing it (loosly) to the "Austin Powers" type of film, except much racier! By todays standards quite tame. It seems so campy now, but what a cast!! I'm glad it's on DVD now; I'll watch it again. I started being a movie buff when I was very young. My uncle owned the "63rd Street Drive-In Theatre" in Kansas City, Mo. from the late 50's to 1998. So I'm quite well-versed in cinema history.