CANNERY ROW (1982)

Written & Directed By: David S. Ward
Based on the novels “Cannery Row” and “Sweet Thursday” By: John Steinbeck
Cinematography: Sven Nykvist
Editor: David Bretherton 

Cast: Nick Nolte, Debra Winger, M. Emmet Walsh, Audra Lindley, Frank McRae, James Keane, Kathleen Doyle, Art LaFleur, John Huston 

A depressed section of Monterey, California, known as Cannery Row from its string of now-empty canning plants is the backdrop for an offbeat romantic comedy about a pair of mismatched lovers. Doc is a lonely marine biologist (and former baseball star) who supplies specimens for science labs and classrooms. Suzy is a scrappy drifter who can’t even succeed as a prostitute because of her abrasive manner. When the two get together, it’s fireworks, though not the romantic kind. Not to worry, everything is in the hands of Cannery Row’s resident guardian angels, Mack and the boys, a band of drunken derelicts whose hearts are in the right place, even though their brains are not.


The film is atmospheric and feels enriched in culture but like John Steinbeck’s writing, it is based. It feels dull yet full of depth. It is a particular slice of life. 

The film has certain scenes that are full of charm and feel inventive. As well as a romance that feels like it takes place in real-time.

The character feels full and lived in and not necessarily caricatures. Where you could actually set stories around them individually. Which the film tries to do by giving them each time to shine. 

Debra winger comes off as charming. Especially as we learn more about her as the film goes along.

The film offers itself up more as a slice of life that feels like not too much happens. Thought the film will have A scene that will wake you up and then go back to being mundane. As the film in exchange for feeling lived in, never decides what or where it wants to go or to be.

Frank McRae plays another stereotypical mentally simple role but is meant to be more the lovable giant. This might be one of the first times he played the type. Before moving on to angry police captains in other films. 

The film feels like POPEYE the movie spin-off with a whole new set of characters but leftover similar sets.

As the film feels episodic. The film feels like a set of short stories coming Together to tie together the ensemble and focus on friendships and relationships.

Each character is lived in and feels like they have more to offer. As the film has scenes of absolute slapstick ingenuity and a hard-won romance.

One can see why the film might not have been a success, but also easily can be seen as a product of a bygone era. Even as the time period shows this more as a character-heavy periodic, episodic, and ensemble finding the story, character and themes 

This film works like that invention from the beginning of PEE WEE’S BIG ADVENTURE. Where we see the invention and its mechanics, the nuts and bolts of it all, and are amazed at its assembly d how it works as it seems to put in a lot of synchronization for it all to work at certain intervals. 

Even entertaining to watch themselves until finally at the end. All of that for something so simple. Where the mechanics are more interesting or captivating than the act. A lot of work for something basic, that is how this film feels. 

GRADE: C+

CANDY (1968)

Directed by: Christian Marquand 
Written by: Buck Henry 
Based on the Novel Written by: Terry Southern & Mason Offenberg 
Cinematography: Giuseppe Rotunno 
Editor: Giancarlo Cappelli 

Cast: Ewa Aulin, John Astin, James Coburn, Marlon Brando, Richard Burton, John Huston, Walter Matthau, Sugar Ray Robinson, Charles Aznavour, Ringo Starr, Anita Pallenberg, Elsa Martinelli, Lea Pedoucni, Judith Malina 

Governed by a mysterious and utterly delicious fate, the innocent high-school student, Candy, summons up the courage to embark on a life-changing journey of enlightenment, eager to discover the elusive meaning of life in the four corners of the world. Little by little, the open-minded girl unlocks the secrets of the world, as a seemingly endless parade of unusual characters–including an eccentric drunkard poet; a Mexican gardener; a chaste U.S. Army general; an overzealous surgeon from hell; a filmmaker, and a smug, all-knowing wandering guru–are more than willing to lend a hand. Will Candy’s scandalous journey of sexual awakening bear fruit? Is there a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?


This film has gained cult status over the years as an adaptation of a controversial Terry Southern novel. That has buck Henry as the screenwriter but even he was challenged by this film.  The film went into production before he could finish the script. Had to keep adapting to avoid problems. 

Will admit never read the books. One can understand the allure of the film. It’s all-star cast making a comedy as most were more dramatic actors. Not to mention making a sex comedy of the new generation in 1968. But as usual when studios get ahold of something challenging and youthful. It seems they take all the cool factor out of it in trying to market it and figure it out and by the time they do make it. It all feels too late and like they are just off 

As exploration satire with little to no sex or nudity. Just implications of it and once there is sloppily edited so that you can barely tell what if anything happened.

The film is an all’s tar extravaganza which is truly it’s Calling card and the only reason why anyone would be interested In watching it. Even though Marlon Brando’s involvement in it as a favor to the director is what got the funding and other stars interested in the first place. Even as most would fully admit it was the worst film they made or appeared in.

The film is stylish and creatively filmed. It’s nice to look at.

The lead played by Ewa Aulin is given nothing to do but look attractive but it comes off as not understandable why she is so desired by all. As she seems to have the intelligence of a 10-year old in which the film seems to want to show innocence. So that throughout the film Offers so any other characters to be more interested in which might be by design. It might also offer how many evils there are in the world out to victimize those trusting innocents and how easy youth was at the time to influences without much research. How they discover just how corrupt and empty those influences are in the end and those who seem to be heroic icons are easily susceptible.

It also works against what the story might be trying to say by making the men who are powerful and yet misogynistic. It shows them as driven only by list as she offers nothing else but beauty to really keep them interested and short changes her as that seems to be the only quality she has even though she is kind of our hero.  

James Coburn gives one of the better performances. As well as John Astin In a dual role it’s obvious he is having fun and relishing the role. Richard Burton has the most entertaining scenes as his character has a constant air about him. As wind seems to always be blowing his hair and clothes like he has a personal wind machine.

The film ends up being Boring and dull as we watch respected actors embarrass themselves 

Personally felt more interested in some of the side characters who were more entertaining played by Anita Pallenberg and Elsa Martinelli. 

The whole motivation of the film was to show how powerful influential men. Who act above it all and are enlightened,  who have the same misogynistic attitude behind closed doors. Only one thing in mind that leads them to ruin or that she is that desirable that she makes men weak and lose it. As they know this certain woman has that power over them so they must conquer.

The material might have been shocking at the time. It’s rather tame now. Though definitely, a time capsule of it’s time. When Hollywood allowed psychedelic free-thinking movies made of climate and culture which was more freewheeling but shows Hollywood in trying to exploit didn’t quite get it and this film feels over the top and indulgent in it’s thinking. Like a bunch of older people trying to look hip. As the film tries to be profound but feels embarrassing and funny in an unintentional way. 

Remember when the film was released on DVD. As it seemed to be a film That was lost, again more a film that seems better remembered for some than experienced it better In Theory and legend rather than once you see it.

It seeks to be artistic and smart it what passed for it at the time. Though comes off as juvenile. 

What is more disturbing is that some of the actors are doing brown face and being culturally inappropriate that certainly is distasteful and raises eyebrows under a current lens. Where Ringo Starr plays a Mexican character and Marlon Brando plays middle eastern not in any way tasteful.

This feels like a case of catching a bunch of well-known actors with their pants down. Choosing to be I in this film for whatever reason, be it a paycheck, a chance to act amongst other big names, trying to appeal to youth, attracted to the star of the film, Whatever. Only here it’s not as funny or entertaining as you hoped, instead it’s just embarrassing.

The film ends like a Fellini film. As all characters come back for a surreal scene and a kid. If reveal that this is all a production 

GRADE: D