Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 10/15/2025 at 6:00 AM, Don Johnson said:

I haven't seen this yet, but what are we upset about it glossing over?  He was an obese guy, who smoked and had heart disease all throughout his family.  Obviously wasn't healthy.

Not "upset" about anything.  Just thought the documentary would have been better had it discussed Candy's drug usage and delved at least somewhat into why the man was unable to kick some of his demons -- the drinking, the smoking, the coke, the bodyweight.  

Don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed the documentary and would definitely recommend it.  As others have mentioned, the Aykroyd eulogy was moving, as were Catherine O'Hara's words about Candy at his memorial.  The fact that so many giants in the comedy and entertainment fields were willing to talk about and praise Candy on film speaks volumes about the man.  (The fact that it was Colin Hanks, Tom Hanks' son, doing the documentary undoubtedly helped get people to talk, but still . . .)  And I thought the film did a very thorough job of explaining the huge impact that his father's death had on Candy's life.   

Spoiler

The comments about Candy being found in hotel room after he died -- that he had alone, sitting on his bed, and reading the Bible -- struck me as particularly poignant and sad.

But I thought it could/would have been better had it been a little more honest about Candy's drug usage and attempted to parse why Candy could never fully escape his vices, because his inability to do so obviously had a huge impact on his life and undoubtedly contributed to his death.  There was virtually no substantive discussion of Candy's drug usage and its impact on his life.  I'm not interested in that for titillating purposes; rather, I'm more interested in trying to find out what made the man tick and how drug usage factored into the equation.

Edited by Carl Spackler
Posted

It did address it though.  It was brought up by Candy several times himself and his take on it was he wasn't going to cut back even though all the doctors told him so.  Reading between the lines he probably figured he was living on borrowed time since the men in his family had a history of dying of coronary issues early.  And like someone else said it was probably a coping mechanism for dealing with his dad's death and thinking he was predestined anyway.  He was going to live large (no pun intended) during what time he had.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

It did address it though.  It was brought up by Candy several times himself and his take on it was he wasn't going to cut back even though all the doctors told him so.  Reading between the lines he probably figured he was living on borrowed time since the men in his family had a history of dying of coronary issues early.  And like someone else said it was probably a coping mechanism for dealing with his dad's death and thinking he was predestined anyway.  He was going to live large (no pun intended) during what time he had.  

It may have been brought up, but if it was it was in passing and/or I must have missed it.  There certainly was no drilling down about it in any kind of detail like there was with the impact of his father's death, his drinking, or his bodyweight.

Again, this is just an explanation re: why I thought the documentary was good, but not great.  Just my opinion.  I certainly thought (and still think) that watching it was worthwhile.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...