Da 5 Bloods
On the Record
I May Destroy You
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
Love it or hate it (there isn't much in between), at least you know what you're in for with a 70s exploitation flick. It's not particularly original except in the use of an autistic child as part of the plot development. Beyond that, it's as standard as 70s exploitation films get. Trio of hoods looking for money so they don't have to get a job working for ‘the man,' dimestore weapons, breast shots here and there, damsel in distress with unconcerened parents, creepy van, etc.
Still better than a lot of movies made these days because there was at least a little charm to it all. The characters have some quality to them and the pace in these movies is always consistent. Not much down time and not much effort wasted on details.
All in all, if this is your thing, it will fall right in the center of the spectrum for what it is. If you're not a fan of the genre, don't bother.
The chid steals the movie even if he kind of lets everyone down in the end.
this is a great find for collectors of nasty trash movies
Interesting exploitation film whose graphic subject matter blends moments of dark humor and gritty realism with a made-for-television production style.
A trio of vaguely counter-culture ne'er do wells kidnap a young schoolgirl Candy and hold her for ransom. Her father manages a diamond store, and they want all of the diamonds he has in exchange for his daughter. The problem is that her father doesn't seem to care about getting her back. He doesn't tell her alcoholic mother that she's even missing and goes and sleeps with his mistress. Meanwhile, a young autistic boy witnesses the crime and could save her, but his abusive parents pay no attention to him. Everybody in this film apart from the young autistic boy and Candy herself is some variation of a scumbag, and there's a lot of joy in watching them all collide into each other and do each other in. It's a cheap, exploitative film for sure, but it has a wicked sense of humor.
Three morons kidnap a young girl named Candy in hopes that her dad, who manages a diamond store, will give them lots of money in diamonds in exchange for her life. The only witness to the crime is an autistic kid who can't speak and is constantly belittled by his asshole mother. The kidnappers plan falls apart when it turns out the diamond store manager is actually a stepdad, who stands to gain a ton of money in the event if Candy's death, so he is in no hurry to pay up. The film is weird, it has bad acting and characters that are all over the place. It can be fun though, if you are looking for a bad 70s grindhouse movie.
Finally gave this sleazy little gem a look after tracking down the OOP DVD for a somewhat reasonable price. Loved it from start to finish, everything you'd want from the Exploitation and Sexpolitation of the '70s, though I was saddened to hear that the lovely Tiffany Bolling has a low opinion of her work from this period and has gone all Right-Wing type in her later years.
Well worth a look, track that mother down!
Rather off putting "roughie" about a trio of kidnappers who snatch a rich man's daughter (Candy) and then hold her for ransom. As in most kidnapping movies, the kidnapping does not go according to plan, including an autistic boy witnessing where the kidnappers are holding Candy. Overall, it's a pretty repellent film and not in a good way. I do enjoy good exploitation, but these types of roughie pictures never really appealed to me. However, I will say that I did enjoy the film's climax which was not what I expected. One nice thing about these sorts of films that don't follow conventional rules of moral right and wrong is that it gives the film real suspense. If Mel Gibson's child is kidnapped, you can be pretty sure he'll get them safely back. You may not know how, but those mainstream sorts of films rarely end unhappily. For films that don't follow rules, anything can and often does happen, which was true for this film.
Monday, April 28, 2014
(1974) The Candy Snatchers
Low budget exploitation flick which is the kind of movie that can possibly be championed by the Quentin Tarantino's movie vault, centering on 3 ambitious kidnappers kidnapping the daughter named Candy (hence the title) of the owner of a jewelry store. I have to say that the way Candy was kidnapped was so blatantly absurd, it's not even funny, for all she does is after coming out of school, she then tries to hitch rides with total strangers so that she can sneak to go to a friend's place. I mean, if she's supposed to be so rich why does she even have to resort into hitching rides with total strangers. Doesn't she have any friends or perhaps have enough money to pay for a taxi. After the kidnappers kidnapped her, they then stick her into this pre-dug hole shaped like a cemetery drop with a steel hollow pipe so that she can have some air while being tied and blindfolded. They then send a letter to the father informing him that if they want to see his daughter again, that he would have to take some of the store's jewels before dropping them into an unknown trunk of a car. This ransom plot sounds simple, right. Wrong.
As it turns out, while viewers are baffled about why the father insists on Candy being dead, we soon find out that the so-called father is not really her father after all, but really a step father. And that the father only married her mother so that he can be associated to the family fortune, with Candy's getting to inherit all of the jewels once turning the age of 21. What's absurd is that this environment the producers call a mansion is really a nice house with no maid or butlers, and that the husband provides all the needs to his wife, even though he often cheats on her. All that means, is that the entire environment has been compromised to adapt to this nonsensical level. In this movie, Candy has no friends, and that the mother only believes whatever her husband tells her. And although, she goes to school, the school or her school friends don't even try to contact them as well. It's like the father has everything conveniently happening well for him.
I was cheering for the boy to be the hero, but the ending says otherwise, as he is as disturbed and troubled as his parents are. There would've been at least one character to root for, but the movie says no, for they prefer a cliffhanging ending to get people to think. And although they're correct on that spectrum, I'm still capable to argue why this movie is inconsistent and not worth watching at all. While there's plenty of suspense, there's not so much consistency in terms of plot.
2 out of 4 stars
70's drive in movie fare about a botched kidnapping
Boring.. fell asleep.. TWICE!