Though I wouldn't call this movie great, it is incredibly impressive, and high quality, considering an estimated budget of only 500 dollars. The cinematography is excellent, the pacing decent, and it has good editing. Where the film starts to collapse is in the acting department; The only person who was in anyway believable and good in their role was Ralph Sepe Jr. himself, who admittedly did do a surprisingly fantastic job. One thing that should also be pointed out is the humor, which is a pretty important part of the film, which I didn't care for. It was passable, and wasn't distractedly bad, I just didn't laugh, which considering how funny many of his reviews are, I found that it didn't live up to that standard. Over all with passable humor, good acting from the director, if only from him, and fantastic cinematography and lighting, I would easily recommend this film to anyone who was already interested in it from the description. It's able to be views freely on YouTube, so there's really no reason not to give it a go.
45 Reviews
A Good Way to Kill 45 Minutes
ralo22926 March 2017
This actually wasn't bad, especially for a film created by a YouTuber which usually range from serviceable (Kickassia) to cringe-inducing pieces of garbage that should never have been made (Losing Lois Lane.) But this is the rare good YouTube film I've seen. It's not flawless and its biggest weaknesses are on the technical side and that's to be expected considering how this was made by a film student. The director goes a little too crazy with the color grading and there are quite a few instances where you just want to ask him to turn down the damn exposure, but the story and the lead character were both pretty intriguing all things considered and pretty much make up for it. I recently discovered RalphtheMovieMaker and you can tell he is really passionate about what he does and it shows in more ways than one. I can't wait to see what he does in the future. This film is not perfect by any means, but in terms of YouTube films, not perfect=absolutely incredible. I mean, it's gotta be better than watching the Fred trilogy, right?
7/10
7/10
Unique and Very Impressive
AudenChamberlain29 November 2016
It is evident from his brilliant YouTube videos that Ralph Sepe is a very talented and very funny person, and that really comes through on King Candy. The cinematography is beautiful, better than a lot of Hollywood movies with huge budgets; the score is exhilarating; and Ralph's screenplay and central performance are really complex and darkly funny. He also presents himself with a very unique and interesting directional style, which is extremely memorable. As far as complaints, the film can get a little convoluted and hard to follow in the third act; and it's obvious that most of the actors are just Ralph's friends which is noticeable as some of the performances are not as strong as others, namely Ralph's himself. But, considering this movie was made independently, for no money, by a high schooler - this is really impressive, and I can't wait for Lover. Jeremy Jahns is better though.
Impressive work from student filmmaker; I want to see more.
themaryrand12 August 2017
Really impressive work. I really enjoyed the editing style, the red theme in the transitions, and the scoring was really effective in conveying mood.
High school candy selling cartel is a very interesting premise, and the movie does well with it - though it seemed to me to be more executed as 'how can I do my crime drama with only a high school and teenagers available to me' than it was actually existing within this high school.
But that's not a complaint, it's well written and conveys its feelings well. Glenn is a perfect antihero criminal type.
The sound was poor, but sound is hard, and it's passable.
Really, the movie would benefit most from money and real actors. The talent is there.
High school candy selling cartel is a very interesting premise, and the movie does well with it - though it seemed to me to be more executed as 'how can I do my crime drama with only a high school and teenagers available to me' than it was actually existing within this high school.
But that's not a complaint, it's well written and conveys its feelings well. Glenn is a perfect antihero criminal type.
The sound was poor, but sound is hard, and it's passable.
Really, the movie would benefit most from money and real actors. The talent is there.
This was made for only $500??? Impressive
sulinc9 September 2018
Full of heart
kylethesonicexevictim3 November 2016
I really appreciate this film. It represents something that Hollywood lacks: Heart.
Sepe clearly really enjoys what he's doing here and cares about the end result. Despite the low budget, there's more talent and professionalism here than in many high-profile films.
Despite that, this movie does have some flaws due to the small budget. The acting is not excellent, but that's mostly due to the tiny amount of money available. They're most likely close friends of Sepe.
Besides that, everything else is very good. The plot is interesting to watch unfold, the cinematography is well done, and the script is written with meaning.
Sepe clearly really enjoys what he's doing here and cares about the end result. Despite the low budget, there's more talent and professionalism here than in many high-profile films.
Despite that, this movie does have some flaws due to the small budget. The acting is not excellent, but that's mostly due to the tiny amount of money available. They're most likely close friends of Sepe.
Besides that, everything else is very good. The plot is interesting to watch unfold, the cinematography is well done, and the script is written with meaning.
Well done for such a small budget
h-893814 December 2017
Ralph Sepe is a very very talented director. This movie is very well done. The style in which this is shot is very cool. A complaint I have is that the movie's lighting never gets much darker or gloomier in sadder scenes. The acting is incredible and very powerful. I noticed that they used some same actors for different scenes which could have been hided a little bit better. There was no cringe-worthy scenes in this movie except for the part where Glen falls over in the chair. I enjoyed this movie and can't wait for Lover.
very evocative, interesting short.
thomasfagan27 December 2016
Great film, 9/10 for sure. Love the story, I was intrigued from the start, it's a very interesting plot. We see glen move from a nice, charity giving person to a dark, manipulating person. I really liked the music in this short, Ralph did a great job of incorporating appropriate music where necessary. Of course this film wasn't perfect, few films are perfect, there was a few scenes where I thought the scene wasn't necessary or it didn't fit right. But for a short film it is a very well made film. The ending especially was very good, for some beginner film makers they don't know how to end a film properly but I think Ralph did a fine job on finishing the movie and it gave a nice crisp conclusion to the story. Well done on this to Ralph and I wish him luck on his future endeavors.
Good for what it is
kbregan-2261011 June 2018
I'll start with the bad stuff, sometimes the shots are overexposed, there's mediocre acting, and weak characters. But the film itself remains to be highly entertaining. For a low budget film made by an amateur with almost no access to actual actors, on YouTube, doing this because he loves film, it is great. While this film is not perfect, it is absolutely worth watching
A bad movie with a interesting story.
ultimatehamburglar2 September 2017
What did I think of this movie? It isn't great. The story was interesting and so was the humour. Humour is something the Ralph Sepe Jr knows how to do really well. That timing of the jokes are pretty good in the movie.
The acting in this film wasn't very good at all. The only good acting was by Ralph, and he was only good about half of the time, mainly when he was giving monologues though. When two characters are talking to each other, it seems like they are trying to remember of a script. In future, Ralph should try to make conversations look more natural.
The music had some interesting moments. Nothing memorable, but it was okay. Some happy music in the film is used in darker moments when it really doesn't fit.
The film doesn't have to good lighting, but I assume that is because of the budget.
Overall, I would recommend seeing it just for the story though, which is really interesting.
The acting in this film wasn't very good at all. The only good acting was by Ralph, and he was only good about half of the time, mainly when he was giving monologues though. When two characters are talking to each other, it seems like they are trying to remember of a script. In future, Ralph should try to make conversations look more natural.
The music had some interesting moments. Nothing memorable, but it was okay. Some happy music in the film is used in darker moments when it really doesn't fit.
The film doesn't have to good lighting, but I assume that is because of the budget.
Overall, I would recommend seeing it just for the story though, which is really interesting.
Fantastic writing and directing from Ralph Sepe
wichtermanrj28 December 2016
This film is written very well and not very predictable, which I can appreciate. I guessed a few plot points but ultimately had my jaw drop from unexpected twists. This movie is probably the definition of a low budget production, which is good and bad at the same time. I liked the cinematography a lot but some moments didn't look that great framing wise. At some points in the film I could not even hear the dialogue of the characters. What saved the bad sound was the music, which I thought had a charm in it. Examples were using "In the hall of the Mountain king" by Edvard Grieg and "Flight of the Valkyrie" by Wilhelm Richard. The music created specifically for this film was also very good. Overall I enjoyed this movie a lot but it has its faults considering the low budget. I look forward to seeing more films by Ralph Sepe Jr.
Good Movie, But A Few Flaws
ebenator22 November 2017
Now this movie has fantastic cinematography and lighting and some pretty good direction but you shouldn't go out of your way to see it. The dialogue is pretty stiff and the pacing is just a little too fast. The acting is mostly good except for Goodman, who played Nick, who was just super stiff and pretty meh. All in all, if you're a fan of Ralph's videos, watch it but if not, its easy to just skip it.
Experience For The Director - Not Much To Offer Viewer
clavainov17 January 2017
"King Candy" is student film thematically similar to "Breaking Bad", only with selling sweets for "charity" (i.e. the protagonist's pocket) instead of crystal meth for cancer costs. It has flashes of competence, flashes of incompetence, and an overall impression of mediocrity.
It's held together by strong voice-over narration and a competent script; then the voice-over narration stops, making things fall apart. Films are difficult to make so it's easy to appreciate the work that went into this on a (presumed) zero budget, and you can tell that the filmmaker will learn a lot from making this, but it does not have much to offer any viewer.
Quickly paced with a good script and some impressive moments (liking the fly-on-the-wall style, editing and concept), but with rather obvious errors in places, including noise levels and some really, really poor colour grading. Most of the colour grading is fine, but some of it is literally bright yellow (more yellow than Jeunet) and it's very distracting, especially when the rapid jump cuts take us from yellow shot to shot without any colour grading straight afterwards. The electric score just bursts into classical music at seemingly random points which is bizarre and jarring. At one point "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy" comes on while the protagonist is in serious trouble, at one of the darkest moments, and it's tonally inappropriate.
The lighting compensates for the lack of /literally any/ sets quite well, but it's still quite obvious that it has been filmed primarily in the filmmaker's home and school/college. In terms of visuals it feels almost like it would work better as a podcast - it's clear that Sepe has a story to tell here (an interesting one about fake charities), and an interesting one, but the visuals really don't add anything to a movie reliant on constant voice-over dialogue to communicate every event happening. When direct speech does take place it's brief and mostly unintelligible over ambient noise (one does wonder if the reason he chose this format was unusable audio). And when the narration stops... oh dear.
My friends thought the main problem with this movie was the "auteur" Ralph Sepe Jr's acting. Directing yourself is hard when you've made more than one movie - he needed someone to give him feedback on his performance, or -controversial- to actually hire an actor. Since he's in practically every shot it's a pretty all-consuming error, the kind that costs the whole movie. Without that flaw this would have probably been a 6. Luckily I'm autistic so I can't read expressions so it didn't really ruin it for me, unlike my friends who were very vocal in their disapproval. All the acting was pretty flat, apparently. I thought the characterization was good - script not performance.
The script trails off towards the end, the criticism of mob mentality comes off as incredibly arrogant. "Look, I made a movie - I'm better than you" comes across overwhelmingly, and it's very unclear what he's criticising us for. Imitating movies? Don't know anyone who does that. "Just sitting there and watching" movies? Okay, Ralph, you got me - I won't watch another one of your movies if it offends you so deeply.
Also, one last point: no way did anyone say this was "too dark" for their film festival (mentioned on Sepe's IMDb page). Seriously. It's not particularly dark. A child gets threatened? Someone eats marijuana in a brownie? "Based on a true story" (ugh - if he actually did this he's an asshole and if he didn't then why would you put that? It adds nothing). Occasional meta moments at the end? Not dark.
It's held together by strong voice-over narration and a competent script; then the voice-over narration stops, making things fall apart. Films are difficult to make so it's easy to appreciate the work that went into this on a (presumed) zero budget, and you can tell that the filmmaker will learn a lot from making this, but it does not have much to offer any viewer.
Quickly paced with a good script and some impressive moments (liking the fly-on-the-wall style, editing and concept), but with rather obvious errors in places, including noise levels and some really, really poor colour grading. Most of the colour grading is fine, but some of it is literally bright yellow (more yellow than Jeunet) and it's very distracting, especially when the rapid jump cuts take us from yellow shot to shot without any colour grading straight afterwards. The electric score just bursts into classical music at seemingly random points which is bizarre and jarring. At one point "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy" comes on while the protagonist is in serious trouble, at one of the darkest moments, and it's tonally inappropriate.
The lighting compensates for the lack of /literally any/ sets quite well, but it's still quite obvious that it has been filmed primarily in the filmmaker's home and school/college. In terms of visuals it feels almost like it would work better as a podcast - it's clear that Sepe has a story to tell here (an interesting one about fake charities), and an interesting one, but the visuals really don't add anything to a movie reliant on constant voice-over dialogue to communicate every event happening. When direct speech does take place it's brief and mostly unintelligible over ambient noise (one does wonder if the reason he chose this format was unusable audio). And when the narration stops... oh dear.
My friends thought the main problem with this movie was the "auteur" Ralph Sepe Jr's acting. Directing yourself is hard when you've made more than one movie - he needed someone to give him feedback on his performance, or -controversial- to actually hire an actor. Since he's in practically every shot it's a pretty all-consuming error, the kind that costs the whole movie. Without that flaw this would have probably been a 6. Luckily I'm autistic so I can't read expressions so it didn't really ruin it for me, unlike my friends who were very vocal in their disapproval. All the acting was pretty flat, apparently. I thought the characterization was good - script not performance.
The script trails off towards the end, the criticism of mob mentality comes off as incredibly arrogant. "Look, I made a movie - I'm better than you" comes across overwhelmingly, and it's very unclear what he's criticising us for. Imitating movies? Don't know anyone who does that. "Just sitting there and watching" movies? Okay, Ralph, you got me - I won't watch another one of your movies if it offends you so deeply.
Also, one last point: no way did anyone say this was "too dark" for their film festival (mentioned on Sepe's IMDb page). Seriously. It's not particularly dark. A child gets threatened? Someone eats marijuana in a brownie? "Based on a true story" (ugh - if he actually did this he's an asshole and if he didn't then why would you put that? It adds nothing). Occasional meta moments at the end? Not dark.
King Candy is thoroughly enjoyable, but is not without flaw.
WinterWoodwere124 January 2020
There are a few ways to look at this movie. The first is how most will probably analyze it which is a movie made by high school kids. The other is as a normal movie. Truthfully, how I look at it is difficult to explain. This movie has plenty of flaws, but considering the essentially nonexistent budget, its surprising that its quality is as good as it is. In short, this is only an issue because its made with talent and style, but lacks the resources of most good low budget movies.
There are several instances where the editing style is brilliant, and others where it disrupts the flow. Overall its very inconsistent, and feels like it was an experiment to determine what worked and what didn't.
The story is actually quite compelling, and believable, astonishingly this film has a unique morality to it. The character motivations feel genuine, particular for the age, which would make sense because the filmmakers are that age. That being said, young kids usually are not seen as great writers, but king candy has genuinely good writing.
King Candy offers an interesting take on crime as it doesn't preach against or praise the actions of any of the characters. This being said the film is able to avoid the usual failures of such films in that the crimes portrayed are over a pretty mundane issue yet they escalate to a level that feels extreme yet believable. All of this is conveyed in an enjoyable, often humorous way.
Given the circumstances this movie is amazing, but beyond that it's still fairly good, but quite flawed.
Final Score: 68/100
There are several instances where the editing style is brilliant, and others where it disrupts the flow. Overall its very inconsistent, and feels like it was an experiment to determine what worked and what didn't.
The story is actually quite compelling, and believable, astonishingly this film has a unique morality to it. The character motivations feel genuine, particular for the age, which would make sense because the filmmakers are that age. That being said, young kids usually are not seen as great writers, but king candy has genuinely good writing.
King Candy offers an interesting take on crime as it doesn't preach against or praise the actions of any of the characters. This being said the film is able to avoid the usual failures of such films in that the crimes portrayed are over a pretty mundane issue yet they escalate to a level that feels extreme yet believable. All of this is conveyed in an enjoyable, often humorous way.
Given the circumstances this movie is amazing, but beyond that it's still fairly good, but quite flawed.
Final Score: 68/100
For a film made by a beginner featuring a budget of 500$, it shows a lot of promise.
RockoDaFoxxo1 February 2017
I just discovered a YouTube channel called "ralphthemoviemaker" a few weeks ago. The channel is basically about Ralph reviewing movies (good and bad) while at the same time making some jokes/sly commentary. Sounds like any other YouTuber, except Ralph (even while cursing up a storm) is more collective and is easier to follow when he shares his opinions. Even his style of humor is oddly appealing to me! I quickly grew attached to his reviews.
After some surfing on his channel, I found a 45-minute video called "King Candy". I've heard Ralph has made some short(ish) films before, and after scrolling through positive comments from fans I was excited to see what Ralph has crafted.
For a student film, it ain't too bad!
Yes, it's obvious there was some technical flaws for such a small film. The lighting is sometimes too bright, the sound mixing is muddled, and some of the actors weren't too hot either. But all in all, it was very intriguing! The film starts off with a main character that looks like a decent, caring man until we later learn about his behaviors and motives, and does so without throwing subtlety out the window. The story can be convoluted in areas, and some characters were hard to grasp, but for the most part the script is decently written with many interesting scenarios and a clear structure. The cinematography is also surprisingly effective, as is the use of editing and classical music. Ralph stars as the main character in this, and his acting was much better than I expected! Overall, I was impressed with how much talent/hard- work was put in this movie! It isn't great though...
Some of the symbolism works, and some don't. The story does have a few glaring holes, and the pacing is a little off. But as a student film, and the way Ralph uses his storytelling techniques and directorial style, I think it's safe to give this one a 7. It's flawed for sure, but "King Candy" can't help but point at promising directions for Ralph's future movie career, and I applaud him for that.
After some surfing on his channel, I found a 45-minute video called "King Candy". I've heard Ralph has made some short(ish) films before, and after scrolling through positive comments from fans I was excited to see what Ralph has crafted.
For a student film, it ain't too bad!
Yes, it's obvious there was some technical flaws for such a small film. The lighting is sometimes too bright, the sound mixing is muddled, and some of the actors weren't too hot either. But all in all, it was very intriguing! The film starts off with a main character that looks like a decent, caring man until we later learn about his behaviors and motives, and does so without throwing subtlety out the window. The story can be convoluted in areas, and some characters were hard to grasp, but for the most part the script is decently written with many interesting scenarios and a clear structure. The cinematography is also surprisingly effective, as is the use of editing and classical music. Ralph stars as the main character in this, and his acting was much better than I expected! Overall, I was impressed with how much talent/hard- work was put in this movie! It isn't great though...
Some of the symbolism works, and some don't. The story does have a few glaring holes, and the pacing is a little off. But as a student film, and the way Ralph uses his storytelling techniques and directorial style, I think it's safe to give this one a 7. It's flawed for sure, but "King Candy" can't help but point at promising directions for Ralph's future movie career, and I applaud him for that.
Good but can be better
juanflores-8952622 March 2020
A great movie gotta admit i was a little sceptical at ralphs ability to create a movie. This was the first one of his films i watched and it was actually entertaining throughout its entirety. Some actors dont really fit thiers roles and thiers many thing they could do better but for a amateur looking movie it exceeded all my expectations. I feel that if he had a bigger budget and some more experienced actors he can make an amazing film and although his acting wasnt bad he did have some hiccups here and thier but overall you can see how much effort he put into his role and the direction. So good job.
So. Damn. Impressive.
teicgre24 January 2017
I still cannot believe that I put off watching this movie for a year and a half. This film, considering the budget of only 500 USD, was insanely amazing. The score was the best that I have ever heard in a film, and it definitely helped set the tone that Ralph was trying to portray. I have seen people saying that they didn't enjoy the humor, but some of the jokes I remember laughing at. The title of the film makes so much sense once you finish it, and goes with the twist extremely well.
I do have a few complaints, however, such as the fact that Ralph Sepe did an amazing job in the role of Glenn, but I feel as this made the actors who played Heather and Nick look especially awful. There was maybe three total scenes that I didn't like, and the costumes. Even though the audio was sub-par, it was still clearly dictated.
Considering these points, I would rate King Candy an 8/10
I do have a few complaints, however, such as the fact that Ralph Sepe did an amazing job in the role of Glenn, but I feel as this made the actors who played Heather and Nick look especially awful. There was maybe three total scenes that I didn't like, and the costumes. Even though the audio was sub-par, it was still clearly dictated.
Considering these points, I would rate King Candy an 8/10
Drug one again
alfiepinahoblyn29 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This film was actually a lot of fun to watch, and the slow burn pacing, complimented by Ralph's cinematography and shot composition was actually pretty neat. But the cons with this movie are somewhat huge, every scene that contained Ralph taking drugs became pointless after the first one because well we already know he takes drugs and it just seems like he's trying to show off that he can make a good scene with drugs although he's using those weird hippie patterns in the background that it actually looks a bit tacky and very amateur (grantee is to be expected from a very low budget film) but I still enjoyed it despite the fact that Ralph loves drugs way too much. Also the acting was ok although poor at times and sometimes even laughable and the audio editing was also weird at times. Basically this film was held back by the lack of budget
I love this!
brighamcbentley21 July 2016
Wow. I have been a fan of Ralph's reviews for a long time and I love this movie. It is great! I am surprised for how small the budget was, which makes me REALLY excited for Lover. This movie was very interesting to see how Ralph's character works his way to the top of the food chain. You get the sense that Glenn is not a very good person. I loved and hated him just for how despicable he became. He was a great villain/protagonist. I won't give any spoilers for this movie but I will say to the people who haven't seen this movie: PLEASE watch it. It is on YouTube on Ralph Sepe's channel Ralphthemoviemaker. You will love it. Keep up the good work Ralph.
A well-written but technically flawed gem.
Dalek191137 November 2019
This movie is awesome. It truly is more than the sum of its parts, a film that feels like a 90-minute crime drama taller than its runtime of 46 minutes.
The character of Glenn is what really holds this movie together. His narration provides a sarcastic, in-your-face tone reminiscent of Goodfellas and The Wolf of Wall Street, and Ralph Sepe Jr. plays him so well. Beyond just knowing him for his ralphthemoviemaker videos, I completely bought him as this character. Everything he did was worth watching. Every scene with him was great.
I also really liked Michael Sepe's performance as Tim. He's a very understated character, but he provided a lot of subtlety and humanity to the role. I also liked a few of the side characters, like Alexondra O'Connell as Heather and Ian Goodman as Nick, even if their performances weren't always great.
The cinematography and editing in the movie are, for the most part, very good. It's cool to see what a filmmaker can accomplish with no budget, and knowing what kind of production this is, it's impressive. The presentation is often outside the box in a way that's fun to watch. I liked the weird, saturated color grading of the film, too. Also, the score is phenomenal.
The film is not perfect. The sound design wasn't just choppy, it was distractingly bad. I wondered at times what he used to record the sound, because whatever he used, it sucked. Not only that, but there were times where the left and right channels were imbalanced, which is really irritating and took me completely out of the film.
Not all the performances were as good as the aforementioned actors, and ranged from passable to just not good. It makes sense why, they were in high school. I don't expect Daniel Day-Lewis from a seventeen-year-old. It just felt undercooked.
There were some shots that should have been reshot or even just looked at again before the record button was pressed. There was also a really noticeable grain to maybe half of the movie, which made it feel unpolished.
That is the keyword: unpolished. It's a movie that I really really like, but it's very unpolished, and not always in a charming way. That's the other keyword: charming. There's a lot to admire here.
I know I sound like a psychopath by dissecting a Youtube movie for nine paragraphs, but it's because I enjoyed it so much. It's the kind of movie I want to make. I'll probably watch this movie again! 7/10
The character of Glenn is what really holds this movie together. His narration provides a sarcastic, in-your-face tone reminiscent of Goodfellas and The Wolf of Wall Street, and Ralph Sepe Jr. plays him so well. Beyond just knowing him for his ralphthemoviemaker videos, I completely bought him as this character. Everything he did was worth watching. Every scene with him was great.
I also really liked Michael Sepe's performance as Tim. He's a very understated character, but he provided a lot of subtlety and humanity to the role. I also liked a few of the side characters, like Alexondra O'Connell as Heather and Ian Goodman as Nick, even if their performances weren't always great.
The cinematography and editing in the movie are, for the most part, very good. It's cool to see what a filmmaker can accomplish with no budget, and knowing what kind of production this is, it's impressive. The presentation is often outside the box in a way that's fun to watch. I liked the weird, saturated color grading of the film, too. Also, the score is phenomenal.
The film is not perfect. The sound design wasn't just choppy, it was distractingly bad. I wondered at times what he used to record the sound, because whatever he used, it sucked. Not only that, but there were times where the left and right channels were imbalanced, which is really irritating and took me completely out of the film.
Not all the performances were as good as the aforementioned actors, and ranged from passable to just not good. It makes sense why, they were in high school. I don't expect Daniel Day-Lewis from a seventeen-year-old. It just felt undercooked.
There were some shots that should have been reshot or even just looked at again before the record button was pressed. There was also a really noticeable grain to maybe half of the movie, which made it feel unpolished.
That is the keyword: unpolished. It's a movie that I really really like, but it's very unpolished, and not always in a charming way. That's the other keyword: charming. There's a lot to admire here.
I know I sound like a psychopath by dissecting a Youtube movie for nine paragraphs, but it's because I enjoyed it so much. It's the kind of movie I want to make. I'll probably watch this movie again! 7/10
So Bad Its Good... Sometimes
rr-7779 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I like Ralph Sepe, I like movies. But when those two worlds come together, its hilarious.
Bad Things:
The "true story" aspect comes into question when you consider that some random high school kid convinced a gang to join him. It wasn't a real gang, but still. I don't know what is real and what isn't real, which I think is probably the point?
The so bad its good aspect comes from the acting or the dialougue, you have the failed monolougue I mentioned earlier, but you also have Ralphs little brother, who when asked why he wants help people he doesn't know, he says, "God.". We find out later that he's actually donating to his church, but I don't think anyone. even a christian, would say "God." as his answer to why he wants to help people.
Other moments include every single time Ralph tries to be intiminating, his freakout with his girlfriend, the bad acting and/or dialougue. I don't recomend this movie, even to people who enjoy bad movies because its not stupid enough to be considered so bad it's good, it's mostly just boring.
Good Things
It has a good script and the dialogue is not terrible, although it has its moments. Ralph is good, but he doesn't work at ALL as the character he's potraying. He looks more like a little kid than his little kid brother, who's also in this film. The best and worst scene comes when Ralph gives his attempt at a Quentin Tarentino type monolougue. One, he doesn't look intiminating at all, an two, he says it in a really monotone way. The real best actor in the film is the guy who plays the Hall Monitor, because he actually comes off like his character. But sadly, he's in like, three scenes.
The cinematigraphy is good, but for every beutiful shot, there's an equally bad one. The color grading also looks hideous and there are many examples of bad lighting. I think ralph started the film when he didn't know much about cineatography and slowly learned more as time went on. The editing is always good and gets the mood across effectivly.
Overall, bad film, 4/10
Bad Things:
The "true story" aspect comes into question when you consider that some random high school kid convinced a gang to join him. It wasn't a real gang, but still. I don't know what is real and what isn't real, which I think is probably the point?
The so bad its good aspect comes from the acting or the dialougue, you have the failed monolougue I mentioned earlier, but you also have Ralphs little brother, who when asked why he wants help people he doesn't know, he says, "God.". We find out later that he's actually donating to his church, but I don't think anyone. even a christian, would say "God." as his answer to why he wants to help people.
Other moments include every single time Ralph tries to be intiminating, his freakout with his girlfriend, the bad acting and/or dialougue. I don't recomend this movie, even to people who enjoy bad movies because its not stupid enough to be considered so bad it's good, it's mostly just boring.
Good Things
It has a good script and the dialogue is not terrible, although it has its moments. Ralph is good, but he doesn't work at ALL as the character he's potraying. He looks more like a little kid than his little kid brother, who's also in this film. The best and worst scene comes when Ralph gives his attempt at a Quentin Tarentino type monolougue. One, he doesn't look intiminating at all, an two, he says it in a really monotone way. The real best actor in the film is the guy who plays the Hall Monitor, because he actually comes off like his character. But sadly, he's in like, three scenes.
The cinematigraphy is good, but for every beutiful shot, there's an equally bad one. The color grading also looks hideous and there are many examples of bad lighting. I think ralph started the film when he didn't know much about cineatography and slowly learned more as time went on. The editing is always good and gets the mood across effectivly.
Overall, bad film, 4/10
Top Notch Amateur Filmmaking
nickrobertparadies7 August 2018
Consider the fact that the film was made on no budget and without professional actors. Given those circumstances, King Candy is fantastic. It's easily one of the best no budget films I've ever seen in my life. The story is a very interesting twist on the crime film genre, involving a high school kid running a faux charity to get rich. Ralph Sepe gives a solid performance as the main character Glenn, with emotional range and great comic timing. The other actors are good for being amateurs. The editing of the film is fantastic, and the score is very good as well. There are a number of lighting issues and ADR issues, but again given the movie was made super cheap I'm able to forgive them. It's free on YouTube and is definitely worth a watch.
Sweet.
Joshua_Armell3 September 2020
Everything is great!
mynicknameswill23 March 2017
King Candy is great!
The story is very complex (Which I like, personally), the acting is good, the cinematography and writing are incredible.
Everything is great! Sometimes the acting is meh, occasionally the writing isn't very good, but overall, it's great!
The story is very complex (Which I like, personally), the acting is good, the cinematography and writing are incredible.
Everything is great! Sometimes the acting is meh, occasionally the writing isn't very good, but overall, it's great!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
