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.

OK, so you probably heard a lot of bad stuff about this movie before even watching it. So have I, and after watching it, I realized that people just didn't get it. This movie is a "British parody" and the humor in it is top-notch. The script is simple, but funny. No wonder so many famous people wanted to do this movie: Brando, Richard Burton, Ringo Starr, Coburn... Why? It allows these actors to revel in the absurd while pocking fun at a bunch of taboo topics. This movie in 1968 was way ahead of its time and I would compare it to the fun I had watching the Austin Powers one (w/the 60's plot). Basically this movie is for those who enjoy absurd jokes and funny situational humor. It is very worthwhile in that respect. If you are looking for plot or deep acting look elsewhere. Although it is not a 100-jokes-a-minute kind of movie, it has many enjoyable moments. As far as comedy genre goes I give it a 7/10 with 8.5 for originality and 6.0 for execution.

First saw Candy on release at the local cinema, was blown away by most of the music on the soundtrack,went and got the L.P as soon as it was available! The opening music really set the standard, found the film OK. The L.P got lost in 1975 when I got married and moved but I have just bought the new D.V.D which is really great to see again, after all the years. I think the movie is better for seeing again some truly fantastic "one liner jokes" and way out sets! I am now searching for the L.P again to go with the D.V.D. I am not holding much hope of the music being issued on a D.V.D as I understand the master recordings have not been kept.Still at least the D.V.D is a good standby until I can find an old copy of the L.P.

Could have been made by Kubrick, and if it had been, everyone would be saying what an insightful view of humanity it is.Like so many of Kubrick's films, Candy shows how no matter WHAT high-sounding excuses men give for their actions, they are really just animals seeking power, status, and mainly, sex. As someone else here said, Candy shows how men are devious and conniving creatures who will try every dirty trick in the book to get into the pants of an attractive young girl.I only wish I could know what Kubrick thought of this film. I bet he liked it. I know I did.