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.

davidjanuzbrown 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.

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.

MARIO GAUCI 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!