The details of "The Candy Snatchers" sound promising, especially for a nasty exploitation/drive-in type flick, but they just never really come together.
The movie is about a trio of psychopaths - two men and one woman - who kidnap a teenage girl because she is the daughter of a wealthy jewellery store owner. They want to ransom the girl for diamonds, but discover that the girl's father is in fact only her stepfather, and he doesn't care at all what happens to her.
This is actually a very interesting set-up for a noir-type story. The Coen brothers could do something good with it.
Failing that, exploitation filmmakers should be able to make something fairly memorable. Everybody in the movie is coldblooded and nasty, and not even the kidnapped girl appears as a sympathetic character. One of the crims looks set-up to be more sympathetic, bonding with the girl, but then he rapes his female partner-in-crime.
Central to the movie is a mute young boy. He's really the only interesting thing about it. What the movie does with the boy right at the end has to be seen to be believed. The ending was already a bloodbath, but the way they involve the kid (no spoilers) is ridiculous.
I have a theory that the real difference between exploitation and more mainstream films is that in exploitation movies typically you feel nothing for the characters and just watch them do sexy, or nasty, or bloody, things. You watched detached like a witness to an accident involving people you don't know. The days of sex/violent content being a sign that a movie is exploitation are long gone thanks to directors like Scorsese and Tarantino who invested their mainstream flicks with exploitation's unflinching violence.
Although it's not all that violent, doesn't have any sex I remember and only a brief scene of topless nudity, "The Candy Snatchers" fits this definition of exploitation film to a T. It's impossible to feel anything for the horrible characters. I just wish the movie had made me feel something other than boredom and bemusement.
The movie is about a trio of psychopaths - two men and one woman - who kidnap a teenage girl because she is the daughter of a wealthy jewellery store owner. They want to ransom the girl for diamonds, but discover that the girl's father is in fact only her stepfather, and he doesn't care at all what happens to her.
This is actually a very interesting set-up for a noir-type story. The Coen brothers could do something good with it.
Failing that, exploitation filmmakers should be able to make something fairly memorable. Everybody in the movie is coldblooded and nasty, and not even the kidnapped girl appears as a sympathetic character. One of the crims looks set-up to be more sympathetic, bonding with the girl, but then he rapes his female partner-in-crime.
Central to the movie is a mute young boy. He's really the only interesting thing about it. What the movie does with the boy right at the end has to be seen to be believed. The ending was already a bloodbath, but the way they involve the kid (no spoilers) is ridiculous.
I have a theory that the real difference between exploitation and more mainstream films is that in exploitation movies typically you feel nothing for the characters and just watch them do sexy, or nasty, or bloody, things. You watched detached like a witness to an accident involving people you don't know. The days of sex/violent content being a sign that a movie is exploitation are long gone thanks to directors like Scorsese and Tarantino who invested their mainstream flicks with exploitation's unflinching violence.
Although it's not all that violent, doesn't have any sex I remember and only a brief scene of topless nudity, "The Candy Snatchers" fits this definition of exploitation film to a T. It's impossible to feel anything for the horrible characters. I just wish the movie had made me feel something other than boredom and bemusement.