|
Title: Candy? Skull? Post by: HarlotBug3 on March 25, 2008, 06:13:17 PM A skull can be a pirate, a poison, or a delicious offering to the dead.
Candy deserves them all, really. Absurd? Yes. Unwatchable? Hardly. It’s rarity did enhance my excitement when, once again, the local video store had another badmovies.org (un)recommendation, but I’m no hipster, and no hippie, so there’s no context where I’d recommend it save to people who like disasters if they’re disastrous enough. This is hardly Pompei, but like any disaster, it all depends on the warning. WARNING: If you cannot laugh at the goofiest clichés in 70s filmmaking bluntly satirizing the goofiest things in 70s culture (on both sides of the aisle), then don’t bother. If you can manage to turn a laugh into both a middle finger and a patronizing hug for nostalgia, then by all means. Title: Re: Candy? Skull? Post by: Rev. Powell on March 25, 2008, 08:07:27 PM I'm sure this is as bad as everyone says it is, but nevertheless I will watch it someday. I actually read the original novel by Terry Southern. And I like film disasters, as long as their not named TITANIC.
Title: Re: Candy? Skull? Post by: Andrew on March 26, 2008, 04:34:14 PM It was painful to me, and sometimes I didn't understand what the film was trying to say, other times it jumped so fast from subject to subject that I couldn't even start to think about what it was trying to say when I could understand the darn thing.
May I attach this thread to the discussion thread about the film? http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,111918.15.html |