Thanks for the memories!

Such a frustrating disappointment

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

This movie is one of the best I've ever seen! It's such a sad,complete full,astonishing film.But I wonder why the hell almost NOBODY was advertising this film?!? I am mad! The whole suicide thing was in the first plan,and the PR of this film WAS Awkward! better said,there were even A PR ! Why?! This movie,is in the same genre where Trainspotting is. But in this one there's more drama and love. Now I am trying to buy the original book,which the movie was made of. Yea...people,don't tell me that you did not knew this? Like always....the book is more detailed and better,so I can't wait to read the book! When I read the book Perfume,and just saw the trailer...ONLY the trailer I was mad because so many things were changed...so that I did not even had the mood to watch a stupid movie,based on a GREAT novel!

Poetic Dan (Heath Ledger) is in love with painter Candy (Abbie Cornish) and candy of the heroin kind. Casper (Geoffrey Rush) is their drug mentor. The couple falls deeper and deeper under the influence of drugs. They borrow money, steal and get married. They get into prostitution. They try and fail to get clean. All the while, their world continues to fall apart.These are two beautiful people in a dreamy drug haze. The whole movie is filled with a haze. The couple is a pair of whiners who won't let the audience root for them. There is a lack of intensity. There isn't much drama since their slide down is pretty standard. Ledger and Cornish show flashes of intensity but are generally a muddle. The style isn't as good as other drug movies. There are moments of good drama but their story rambles on and on rather than reach a climax. I would recommend 'Requiem for a Dream' instead.

This was a real surprise to me as I didn't know much about this film and pretty much hired it knowing Heath was in it. I expected a fairly standard love story and didn't realize that the main focus of this film was actually a love story between two drug addicts! I have seen a lot of drug themed films, and this one in my opinion is one of the best (excluding Trainspotting, Requiem for a Dream & the Panic in Needle Park). The acting by the whole cast was brilliant, I hadn't seen much of Abbie Cornish before but she really impressed me as Candy, Geoffrey Rush was awesome (as always) and having watched Lords of Dogtown recently, it has fuelled my appreciation of Heath (I never thought I could appreciate him much more then I already do!). This really is a great story of how relationships are tested and how strong the effects of drugs can be. I like the fact that this film also explores how Candy's parents struggle to deal with their child's choices in life and their disapproval of Heath's character, blaming him for Candy's poor lifestyle. Great film! My Rating: 7.5/10For more Movie and TV News, Reviews and Rumours go to: www.facebook.com/tvmovienews

Having seen Armfield's work in the theatre, Rush's on both stage and screen, and Cornish's in "Somersault", I came to Candy expecting big things. However, I found that the film took Australian cinema nowhere new. Once again we have the intrusive, over-used score, patronising the audience by telling us what to feel. Once again the long slow moments of blank faces. Our directors are never shy with clichés: we knew it was coming scene after scene. We could predict Cornish's hand to the mirror, the misunderstood angst of youth running from the clutches of a vulgar capitalist middle class. Here we go with the older generation, insensitive to the complexities of the artist and the poet, with outlandish expectations of stability and responsibilities.Cornish is very comfortable in the role of the angst-ridden alienated youth, where the camera loves her, and the long silences and often strident soundtrack make less demands of an actor than a script with depth and power. Ledger was as convincing in the role of the poet (albeit drug addled) as my mailman. Where was the script that enabled either of the two leads to convince us that they were driven by any kind of creative impulses. Artist? Poet? Were they even literate? The text of the voice overs was self conscious in a schoolboy poet way. But did Ledger's character read any books,ever? And as for Cornish as the tortured artist, come on! Her burst of creative literacy with the lipstick was one of the most unconvincing moments of the movie. Could this swearing monosyllabic drug addict really be hit so suddenly with the muse of poesy? Cornish is a talented young actress who demonstrated early, her willingness to work in the Australian film industry. She deserves more complex scripts, less clichéd roles and tighter directing.Did anyone else out there find Heath Ledger's voice-overs embarrassing and quaint? Did the director actually make him do that? I found Ledger's acting to be unsubtle and inconsistent. Someone should have noticed the shifts in accent and pitch, the over working of the facial expressions. Did I imagine it, or did someone choose to use Mozart's music in this film? Oh the mighty melodrama of it all. Isn't it time Australian film got past such self-conscious scripts. Time to move forward as film makers and learn a very powerful technique for making powerful films: subtlety and understatement. The best European directors discovered it decades ago!P.S. Did anyone do any research on sexual dysfunction and heroin addicts?