Candy (1968) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski) and Tuna

Tuna's comments in white:

Candy (1968) is a sex farce. As you would expect, it stars an attractive but unknown actress with no experience, no acting ability, and an annoying  Swedish accent. The plot loosely chronicles her journey of sexual discovery, which includes being attacked or produced by an increasingly odd assortment of older men. My personal favorite was the dwarf hunchback burglary boss. Candy is played by Ewa Eulin, who won Miss Sweden, and went into modeling.

What makes this film unusual, you ask?

The men who attacked/seduced Candy were played by Richard Burton, Walter Matthau, Marlon Brando, Ringo Star, John Astin, Charles Aznavour, and James Coburn. Each of them got their very own 10 minutes to overact. 


Ewa Aulin showed her breasts and buns clearly at verious times, but there is actually not much nudity in the film!
Candy is adapted from a book by Terry Southern, which was a satirical send-up of Voltaire's Candide. The book was something of a cult classic and very 60's. Why mainstream Hollywood decided to make a porno is a mystery, The biggest problem is the running time. It weighs in at 115 minutes, definitely a heavyweight time. Unfortunately, it has a middleweight amount of plot to stretch.

For those interested in the history of sex in cinema, this is a  must own. For those looking for an entertaining film, this is probably not  your first choice. 

Scoop's comments in yellow:

I was kinda surprised when Tuna didn't like this, because I remembered it as an amusing piece of camp from my college days. I guess you had to be there, because he was right, it just ain't much good.

It's a shame, too, because they had a raunchy tongue-in-cheek book to work from, and each individual scene had some promise which was ultimately unfulfilled, because they let the scenes drag on long after the jokes were over.

Richard Burton is a lecherous drunken Welshman (boy, there was a stretch for Dick, eh?), a poet whose work has been condemned in 27 civilized countries as well as 14 emerging nations. Despite this set of circumstances, he's been chosen to speak at a high school. That's one courageous administration. The funniest gag is that his hair and scarf are always blowing in the wind, inside or out. Sounds pretty funny, doesn't it? The premise is great, but the execution is awful. A scene that should have lasted two minutes is stretched out for god knows how long, including a scene where Burton slurps up some spilled alcohol from the floor of his limo, shot from under the car, using a glass floor.

Pretty much every scene goes on like that, with some ludicrous overblown generally offensive racial or professional stereotype being deliberately overacted by a popular actor at the time. Tuna recited the list above. In each case, there was a pretty solid premise which took a hard shot at a societal sacred cow (military, medicine, education, religion), and demonstrated that no matter how educated a man is, no matter what profession he is in, everything he does or says is just a scam to get laid.

Which, of course, is pretty much true.

But it doesn't need to be repeated again and again.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen anamorphic, 1.85:1

  • no features except a trailer

Ewa Aulin was atrocious in this role, as Tuna mentioned, but she was a virtual Helen Hayes compared to Ringo Starr. Ringo's performance in this film, as a Mexican gardener, is certainly a valid nominee for the worst performance ever recorded in a motion picture since Edison started to develop the format. It is acting as bad as Bill Shatner's singing.  There is simply no way to describe it. It would be racially offensive to Mexicans, except that there is no way to identify it as a Mexican except that the script says it is. Ringo apparently was told that he was supposed to play an alien, and he thought they meant the outer space kind.

As for Ewa, she had a strange career that saw her co-starring with Burton and Brando in this film at age 18, on top of the world, yet completely out of show business (as she deserved to be) by the time she was 23. She is still a fairly young woman (only 51), and I suppose she is now working in a Shell select store in Skċne, waiting for her big comeback to commence. 

The Critics Vote

  • Maltin 2/4

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 4.8 
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C-.

Return to the Movie House home page