AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Uriah43 This movie essentially begins with an attractive high school student named "Candy Christian" (Ewa Aulin) being caught in a compromising position due in large part to her innocent and trusting nature. Additionally, her good looks also had much to do with this as well. Be that as it may, each scenario in this movie has a least one character with just one sole purpose in mind—to get her between the proverbial sheets. And their desire to do so is limited only by the imaginative position that they find themselves faced with. Now as far as this movie is concerned it certainly had its share of major actors to include Marlon Brando (as the Eastern mystic named "Grindl"), Richard Burton ("MacPhisto"), Walter Matthau ("General R. A. Smight") and James Coburn ("Dr. A. B. Krankheit"). So fans of any of these fine actors should be pleased. On the other hand, this film is definitely dated to a certain period in American history that celebrated "psychedelic" movies of this type. Because of that, younger audiences may not be able to appreciate it as much as those who experienced this particular time. That said, while I thought it was somewhat entertaining for the most part, it also seemed more than a little uneven and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

netwallah Not so good. The premise is simple enough, and it came pretty close to working in the novel by Terry Southern and Mason Hoffenberg: take Voltaire's Candide and set it in 60s America, with an innocent girl in place of the innocent young man, and, of course, make sex the central matter. The novel's Candy is led farther and farther into lovemaking because she embodies sympathy. This sympathy involves sensing the need men have for her without ever really understanding it, and so the joke is, apparently, that she has sex with various men because she misunderstands their lust for a deeper spiritual need—and this, the novelists suggest, is itself the essence of male sexuality: the wish for a compliant, innocent beauty. It's complicated satire, because at the same time it promotes and mocks arousal. Does the movie do this? No. The movie offers a series of comic bits, each featuring more or less great actors, encountering Candy: Richard Burton as the poet McPhisto, Ringo Starr as the Mexican gardener Emmanuel, James Coburn as the surgeon Dr. Krankheit, Walter Matthau as General Smight, Charles Aznavour as the hunchback, and Marlon Brando as the guru Grindl. Other parts: Anita Pallenberg, John Huston, John Astin, and Sugar Ray Robinson. The title part is played by Ewa Aulin, a young Swedish actress who's in over her head. She's pretty enough, but hardly subtle—more of a blank slate. The story, with a screenplay by Buck Henry, is mostly a picaresque sort of romp, with skits going on too long, so that the movie, despite its billing, is neither very sexy nor very funny. It's as if it were aiming for a sexier subject matter but a similar satirical approach as Dr. Strangelove, but it misses the mark nearly all the time.

rbixby For some reason I thought Tom Stoppard had a hand in it, but I was thinking of Terry Southern. Isn't that interesting? My memories of the film, which was played over and over again on the closed-circuit television network of the USS Forrestal during my 1974 Mediterranean cruise, were two: Richard Burton hoovering booze from the floor of his limo and Walter Matthau approaching Candy for sex in the cockpit of a military transport (this scene was repeated in Private Benjamin with Goldie Hawn). I vaguely remember Candy having sex with her comatose father, the appearance of Ringo Starr, and not much else. It's the kind of episodic story that functioned as porn in the late 60s--writers of porn didn't know how to built to a payoff, so they wrote a sex scene, moved the character to another situation, had another sex scene, and so forth (get a copy of The Devil in Miss Jones to see how it works, or Story of O, or Deep Throat, or anything of that era). Is there anything deeper to be seen in this movie? I really doubt it--it looks like a potboiler by a guy who has some bills. I don't have a clue how he got the stars to appear in it, but I'm sure Peter Sellers had a lot to do with that. And it's a gorgeous enough movie--the star is heartbreakingly beautiful and nubile; the sets are decorated with care. Terry's rep was looming pretty large with his Strangelove credit, too, so pretty much anything he ground out was bound to be printed and filmed. Whenever anyone wants to break out of short stories into novels, I advise them to follow this formula--write a series of related sex scenes. Write one a week for a year. Anyone can crank that much out. After a year, shuffle them and send them to an agent. Wait for the checks to come rolling in. What I don't get is why anyone would write about anything other than sex. It's all we care about as a species--having it, resisting it, trying not to think about it, trying to get it up, trying to keep it down, trying to get other people into bed, trying to get other people out of bed. Everything else is just window dressing. Candy is an important movie because it doesn't pretend anything else is important besides falling between the knees of a beautiful, nubile, not particularly bright young woman.

johno-21 I first this during it's theatrical release days. I was 14 at the time and had read the book by Terry southern and Mason Heffenberg from which this movie was adapted by Buck Henry. I saw this when it was making the Drive-In circuit and since there is nudity in this movie it must have been rated R but 14 year-old's had no problem getting into Drive-In features. I had mostly forgotten much about this and then a few years ago when DVD's started replacing videos I found a video of this in a nice hard shell case on wide screen format at less than half price so I bought it, watched half of it and forgot about it again. A few days ago I decided to watch it in it's entirety for the first time in 38 years. One of the most amazing films ever made in the fact that so many talented people could get together and turn out such waste of money, film, time and talent. Marlon Brando, Richard Burton, Charles Aznavour, James Coburn, Walter Matthau, John Huston, Ringo Starr, john Austin, Elsa Martinelli, Anita Pallenberg and Sugar Ray Robinson are among the cast with Ewa Aluin in her first film role as Candy. Haley Mills was offered but turned down the role as Candy. Actor Christian Marquand somehow got the nod to direct this mess. He had acted in European films and had been in several English language films like The Flight of the Pheonix, The Longest Day and Lord Jim but only directed this and another forgettable film in his brief directorial career before he returned to acting. Respected Cinematographer Giuseppe Rotunno brought a lot of credentials to this film. He had done cinematography for several Fellini films as well as for directors Stanlry Kramer, John Huston, Arthur Hiller and Edward Dmytryk. He must have had a mental lapse of the skills he had acquired while filming this or he just sold the filmmakers his name to put on the credits but one of the two must have happened. I can't believe he would want to sully his resume with this product. Douglas Trumball, who as a Special Effects artist would do 2001 A Space Odysessy, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Silent Running, Star Trek the Motion Picture and Bladerunner produces what can be passed off as special effects here. It is interesting seeing Burton and Brando in comedic roles. Burton in the films beginning as the poet has some good lines and it's funny hearing him talk about a "fearsome poetry loving tribe" in Africa. Brando as the guru who travels the country in a specially equipped semi trailer gives a pretty good performance with what he's got to work with. Coburn is in his In Like Flint character. Starr is over the top in his Mexican gardener role with the pigeon English speak and English accent and his natural comedic talent is misused. Walter Huston make a cameo. Anita Pallenberg is good. Sugar Ray Robinson is way out of place here but actually isn't too bad at his role. John Austin is typical John Austin in his dual role as "Daady" and "Uncle." Elsa Martinelli is forgettable. Charles Aznavour is in a Fellini-type character and is unfunny. Matthau looks lost and out of place and is unfunny. Buck Henry has a pathetically unfunny cameo role. Aulin is awful. The Dave Crusin scored soundtrack is horrible. The two Steppenwolf songs could have been utilized better or left out altogether. The original Byrds-Crusin closing song is forgettable. This movie is like a film school project gone wrong. If you saw this film while you were high it still wouldn't be funny and would probably scare you instead. The overall ineptitude of this film and the monumental waste of talent does warrant some kind of perverse redeeming value to it however.