I Want Candy (DVD)

...his film was dreadful, but I have an unwilling urge to support the British film industry, no matter how poor the product. I only have myself to blame that I spent my money on such a shoddy film. But I can easily pass the buck to Stephen Surjik for making it. He’s what you might term a workmanlike director and by that I mean that he has no sense of personal style. Considering his background in Canadian TV includes some instances of comedy, you’d think ...
...on detail and laughs. But I suppose it keeps the film at a disposable eighty-five minutes long.

I can’t believe it took four people to cobble together the screenplay. It’s another failure of writing by committee – there’s no strong focus, the characterisation is weak, there isn’t much in the way of a story and I’m at a loss to understand why it’s been mooted as a comedy. The film doesn’t parody the porn industry or provide enough titillation ... more

University film students Joe and Baggy are preparing to make their masterpiece; a feature-length movie called “The Love Storm”. Then their tutor announces that their final project will be a two-minute short; undeterred the two lads head to London hoping to find a producer to back their project. But the only person willing to do such a thing is shady porn impresario Doug and only if they make it a blue movie with porn star Candy Fiveways in the lead. Against all odds they secure her services, but then the trouble really begins. How do you make a porn film in your parents’ house with a completely inexperienced cast and crew?

I’d heard that his film was dreadful, but I have an unwilling urge to support the British film industry, no matter how poor the product. I only have myself to blame that I spent my money on such a shoddy film. But I can easily pass the buck to Stephen Surjik for making it. He’s what you might term a workmanlike director and by that I mean that he has no sense of personal style. Considering his background in Canadian TV includes some instances of comedy, you’d think he’d at least have decent timing, but he allows jokes to drag on far too long, making a bunch of already desperately predictable and unfunny scenarios and lines even worse. Smut and innuendo are some of the lowest forms of comedy; done right can provide belly laughs but Surjik can’t even get base humour right. Simply throwing in a few freeze frames of people being punched, a guy typing on fast-forward and positioning small dolls in a variety of sexual positions doesn’t make for general hilarity. Neither does a montage of various pretentious actor types and assorted freaks auditioning for a porn film or a man being sprayed with semen. Everything that happens is too predictable and ends up feeling like an off-cut from a lost “Carry On” or “The Benny Hill Show”. There’s too much jerky hand-held camerawork and the film stock is muddy so you only get crisp images when shooting outside in bright sunlight. Surjik doesn’t appear to be aware that when working with a majority of young and relatively inexperienced actors, you actually need to give them direction so they don’t wander around trying to hit their marks and looking uncomfortable with every line they utter. You don’t even get a potted lesson in filmmaking because Surjik glosses over the process in an excess of montages that are low on detail and laughs. But I suppose it keeps the film at a disposable eighty-five minutes long.

I can’t believe it took four people to cobble together the screenplay. It’s another failure of writing by committee – there’s no strong focus, the characterisation is weak, there isn’t much in the way of a story and I’m at a loss to understand why it’s been mooted as a comedy. The film doesn’t parody the porn industry or provide enough titillation for the average fifteen year-old Carmen Electra fan. So it fails as a sex comedy. All the so-called humour relies on innuendo that’s older than both George Burns and Bob Monkhouse’s careers put together. It’s unclear where the laughs are supposed to come from considering you can see the “jokes” coming a mile off. They can’t even wring any mileage out of the cringing embarrassment of hearing your parents having sex.

There isn’t a shred of originality to be had – the central premise has been done in “The Girl Next Door”. The character of Joe is like every other young wheeler-dealer ever written with Baggy as his sad-sack sidekick. Lila is a third wheel whose only purpose is to act as a love interest, but is so badly written that when she and Joe get together, their relationship springs from nothing. Candy Fiveways is of course far more than a porn star because she is also a closet cineaste. As for film tutor Dulberg, the clue is in the name and the crew of the film are the usual half-witted eastern European stereotypes, while producer Doug is a hard-man walking cliché. The dialogue is innuendo laden and terribly mundane, with the normal run of misunderstandings, nudge-nudge-wink-wink mutterings and attempts at catchphrases.

Tom Riley seems miscast as wannabe film producer and all-round chancer Joe. He looks too nice and appears uncomfortable with every cheesy line he delivers. You never believe he’s desperate to get it on with Candy or anyone else, so his relationship with Lila rings false. And there’s no visible rapport between him and Tom Burke, so they don’t feel like best friends.

As Baggy, Tom Burke has a reasonable amount of charm when the character isn’t being sullen or panicking. But that isn’t much of the time, so he is more of a stolid, lugubrious presence. And when the charisma does come to light, it feels at odds with the role he’s already established. He doesn’t feel as though he’s passionate about anything, film or otherwise and you never believe he understands what all the equipment’s for.

Former “Eastender” Michelle Ryan plays fresh-faced girl next door Lila with crisp pronunciation but little in the way of characterisation. The part’s too badly underwritten for her to make an impact, so other than hitting her marks and saying her lines, there’s nothing she can do. Eddie Marsan throws himself into the part of Doug with gusto. He’s nasty, venal, weaselly and shouty. You could easily imagine him breaking someone’s legs if they owed him money. It’s a shame that Marsan is wasting his talents on playing such a clichéd thug. Carmen Electra is all big Farrah Fawcett hair and lashings of make-up as Candy Fiveways, but you get the impression that the lights are on and no-one’s home. As Dulberg, Mackenzie proves that he’s only funny when he has a decent script in front of him, proving too dour to pull off the man trying to be funny and failing act.

The soundtrack feels as though it’s been drawn from Ealing Studios’ stock music library from the 60s. The jangling pop strains are dominated by parping brass and woodwinds and is heavy on the jolly Hammond organ and reverbing electric guitar. Of course there is plenty of dirty sax for the porn film elements and cheap synths and cymbals. There are dashes of funk that lacks lyrics, while the less said about former Spice Girl Melanie C’s rendition of “I Want Candy”, the better. Needless to say, the whole lot is a predictable addition to a dreadfully run-of-the-mill film.

“I Want Candy” shows why the British film industry is perceived as being in such dire trouble. There are dozens of talented filmmakers in this country, yet studios prefer to back projects that attempt to pander to the lowest common denominator without understanding their audience or even casting the production properly. You know you’re in trouble when a Jimmy Carr cameo is the funniest thing you have to offer. The direction is mundane, the writing poor and the performances under-powered. If you want laughs, you could find more inside a Christmas cracker or on a smutty end-of-the-pier postcard. 

...less