raan@hp-pcd.UUCP (05/11/84)
Does the movie have anything to do with the book "Candy" (also from the late 60's, written by Terry Southern and Mason Hoffenberg)? Raan Young
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (05/16/84)
No, this message has nothing to do with "Willy Wonka"! In addition to the other tapes I'm planning to bring to Utah, I'm considering bringing along another "lost classic." Called "Candy," this amazing 1967 film stars Richard Burton, John Aston, Marlon Brando, James Coburn, John Huston, Walter Matthau, Ringo Starr, and many others. The screenplay is by Buck Henry. I hesitate to try describe this masterpiece. For those of you who attended my D.C. screening of "The Wicker Man" (which I also refused to describe in detail beforehand) you know you weren't disappointed -- so trust me again on this one. Now, let's just hope that we actually get a Beta VCR at the show and some decent monitors (or maybe a good projection TV?) --Lauren--
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (05/25/84)
The movie follows the plot of the book in a vague sort of way, with many (often very major) alterations. While the book could be classified as genuine pornography, the movie would probably class today as low-level R. Maybe even PG given the sort of movies that get away with that rating today. --Lauren--
fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (05/25/84)
>Does the movie have anything to do with the book "Candy" (also from the late >60's, written by Terry Southern and Mason Hoffenberg)? > >Raan Young Well, it was purported to. Unfortunately, the book was funny, wheras the movie was a piece of trash. As long as we're on the subject of funny books that made terrible movies, how about "Portnoy's Complaint?" -- Bob Fishell ihnp4!ihu1g!fish
bbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee) (05/26/84)
>> Does the movie have anything to do with the book "Candy" (also from the late >> 60's, written by Terry Southern and Mason Hoffenberg)? >> >> Raan Young No, it is the movie version of the Book "Candy" by Voltaire ( from sometime in the 1600's) :-) [Sorry, I couldn't resist that one] Regards, -- Binayak Banerjee {allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje P.S. Send Flames, I love mail.
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (05/26/84)
Isn't opinion wonderful? I personally consider "Candy" to have been a superb film, but the book was almost useless pornography. Anyway, those of you who come to my "film" festival next month will be able to judge for yourselves. Remember, I didn't steer you wrong with "The Wicker Man".... --Lauren--
rob@ctvax.UUCP (06/11/84)
#R:vortex:-31800:ctvax:38900013:000:393
ctvax!rob May 28 23:38:00 1984
Well, maybe I just like trash, because I thought "Candy"
was hilarious. If you get a chance to see it, watch how Burton's
chiffon scarf always flows out behind him, even when he turns
around! And notice Coburn's bloody footprints at the end of the operation.
"It's the little things, that mean a lot."
Rob Spray
uucp: ... {decvax!cornell!|ucbvax!nbires!|{allegra|ihnp4}!convex!}ctvax!rob