A poet falls in love with an art student who gravitates to his bohemian lifestyle -- and his love of heroin. Hooked as much on one another as they are on the drug, their relationship alternates between states of oblivion, self-destruction, and despair.
Check out our gallery of the 2021 Golden Globe nominees in the leading and supporting acting categories, as the characters they so brilliantly played and in real life
This story is a narration from an Australian man who falls in love with two kinds of Candy: a woman of the same name and heroin. The narrator changes from a smart-aleck to someone trying to find a vein to inject, while Candy changes from an actress, call girl, streetwalker, and then a madwoman. Starting in Sydney, the two eventually end up in Melbourne to go clean, but they fail. This leads them to turn to finding money and heroin, while other posessions and attachments become unimportant.Written by
Godiva4862
Heath Ledger, the main star, would later tragically die of drug toxicity from an accidental prescription drug overdose for insomnia. See more »
Goofs
When Dan calls Roger to try to get his pin number for his bank account, he asks him his date of birth. Roger says it is 3rd May 1977, but when we later see what Dan has written down it reads 3rd May 1973. See more »
Quotes
Dan:
The future was a thing that gleamed, the present was so very very good...
See more »
'Candy' will probably garner several AFI awards later this year. Ledger is Dan, a troubled and likable juvenile-come-poet who is in love with Cornish's Candy, a sometimes-practicing artist who falls head first in love with Dan and heroin. Ledger's understated performance gives Dan a boyish vulnerability that would otherwise leave him less sympathetic. And his ability to use his face and especially his eyes to communicate Dan's uncanny reluctance is both staggering and understandable. There are many moments where silence is used to express emotions in this film and Armfield deserves to be commended for his restraint and trust in his actors and the narrative. The script by co-writer and author Davies is decidedly different from the novel but nonetheless strong and taut. It's rarely melodramatic and has been manipulated more for it's performers and their execution on screen rather than resigning itself as merely an adaptation of a great novel. The result here provides superb cinematic balance. Cornish too is brilliant, often abrasive as the troubled artist. Rush is also amazing and understated as Casper, Dan's older homosexual friend. Hazelhurst reprises her role in 'Little Fish' but to less effect. She is great, but those who have seen 'Little Fish' will find her casting a little too convenient. Martin too is good with the little he is dealt. The only thing that stops 'Candy' from being superb is the material. It is too familiar and the characters are too stereotypical. Had this film been made before countless others in the 'drug-film' genre this would have been more refreshing (although the denouement is a much welcomed change). But sadly it isn't. This in turn is nobody's fault. It's just been exploited too many times. The only thing that isn't stereotypical is Dan who is the backbone of the narrative. Ledger has made it his own and could have mimicked any drug-stricken angsty protagonist the 'genre' has spat out. Instead he has made him a hero.
35 of 42 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this
'Candy' will probably garner several AFI awards later this year. Ledger is Dan, a troubled and likable juvenile-come-poet who is in love with Cornish's Candy, a sometimes-practicing artist who falls head first in love with Dan and heroin. Ledger's understated performance gives Dan a boyish vulnerability that would otherwise leave him less sympathetic. And his ability to use his face and especially his eyes to communicate Dan's uncanny reluctance is both staggering and understandable. There are many moments where silence is used to express emotions in this film and Armfield deserves to be commended for his restraint and trust in his actors and the narrative. The script by co-writer and author Davies is decidedly different from the novel but nonetheless strong and taut. It's rarely melodramatic and has been manipulated more for it's performers and their execution on screen rather than resigning itself as merely an adaptation of a great novel. The result here provides superb cinematic balance. Cornish too is brilliant, often abrasive as the troubled artist. Rush is also amazing and understated as Casper, Dan's older homosexual friend. Hazelhurst reprises her role in 'Little Fish' but to less effect. She is great, but those who have seen 'Little Fish' will find her casting a little too convenient. Martin too is good with the little he is dealt. The only thing that stops 'Candy' from being superb is the material. It is too familiar and the characters are too stereotypical. Had this film been made before countless others in the 'drug-film' genre this would have been more refreshing (although the denouement is a much welcomed change). But sadly it isn't. This in turn is nobody's fault. It's just been exploited too many times. The only thing that isn't stereotypical is Dan who is the backbone of the narrative. Ledger has made it his own and could have mimicked any drug-stricken angsty protagonist the 'genre' has spat out. Instead he has made him a hero.