Hard Candy

I was lucky enough to be in one of the first test audiences for this film in Los Angeles. Knowing nothing about the film except that it's being described as suspense/horror, and stars Patrick Wilson and a 14 year old girl, I went in expecting another bad to mediocre slash film. I couldn't have been more wrong!

Hard Candy is an intense psychological drama, with incredible performances by both Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson. The two actors are practically the only two people with lines in the film, aside from some brief appearances by Sandra Oh and Jennifer Holmes. Thusfar I have only seen Wilson in The Alamo and Phantom of the Opera, but I was blown away with how he handled this performance. The slow, suspenseful film is set mainly in the Los Angeles home of photographer Jeff, a 32 year old man whom Hayley, a mature 14 year old girl who met him online, suspects to be a pedophile. The pacing was steady, and phenomenal - after a brief exposition we get into the real suspense about 20 minutes into the film, and it doesn't let up from there. The cinematography and camera work went excellently with the film. Rather than being extremely gory, the adult themes of the film lead to a more psychological creepiness. There are also questions that remain unanswered until the end of the film, when everything is wrapped up nicely - leaving you puzzled to the true identities and motives of the characters throughout most of the duration.

Horror films are not my cup of tea, but psychological drama is. An early fall release date has been rumored, and I can only hope this movie doesn't get lost in the shuffle between summer blockbusters and Oscar season. I also hope Lion's Gate markets this film for what it is, and doesn't try to aim for fans of slash, or a teen crowd.

At the centre of HARD CANDY (no pun intended) is the burning question: Whose side are you on? The sick, manipulative, and twisted pedophile, or the sadistic, unnecessarily cruel, and psychotic sociopath? Either way, you, the viewer, lose, so what's the point, right? I mean, any film that almost compels the neutral viewer to support the pedophile is just tasteless and baseless. This film is completely biased, and is essentially a sadistic revenge flick catered only to those who have been affected adversely by pedophiles. I will not try to spoil the ending, because, let's face it, there is nothing to spoil. The movie is predictable and cheesy and the ending is of no consequence.

Then there's this: if viewers are supposed to believe that a petite fourteen year old girl is capable of such things, then at the very least, she should have the power to consent to sexual intercourse, right? I'm not taking sides or suggesting anything of an immoral or grotesque nature, but the movie is quite contradictory in the sense that a mere fourteen year old is capable of devising and implementing such horrific and well-thought plans, which makes her essentially seem as an adult, and which ruins the whole message the movie was supposed to convey.

Perhaps David Slade should stick to five-minute music videos, as a full length feature is well beyond his capacity.

And, for the record, what was the point of Sandra Oh? This has to be one of the more pointless and awkward cameos I have ever seen. And I actually admire Sandra Oh.

There are a few good things though: the story actually plays out properly (in a cinematic/screenplay sense only, though it gets weaker and less watchable as it progresses), the character interaction is absorbing, and the acting is top-notch (Patrick Wilson is awesome in this film; Ellen Page is quite annoying and sickening but does her job well). But really, what was the point? There were so many questions left unanswered that there was no genuine catharsis. The so-called ending is cheap and rather blunt and purposeless.

I think 4/10 is a generous score. This film gets 2 stars (out of 4; also generous). Even if I made a Top 1000, this film would not come close to making the cut. Recommended only for viewers who have been affected by pedophiles. Everyone else will feel robbed of their time. I was expecting much better seeing as a trustworthy source recommended this; I will now take future recommendations from this source with a pinch of salt.

David Slade, you suck. This movie sucked. I had planned to watch your latest feature, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT, but I may just make a pass. Go back to music videos. I actually enjoyed STP's 'Sour Girl' video...

This sure is some thriller.Darn those MTV filmmakers,when they really use their heads they show some of their true visual talents.Like the debut made by Mark Romanek in One Hour Photo, David Slade really excels as a director who keeps things extremely intense and gripping with a touch of shocking elements and pure disturbance due to its story.

A film about a pedophile who invites a 14 year old girl into his house only to lead a disturbing game of cat and mouse with shocking consequences and shocking twists.

Along with the superb debut and impressive writing ,it is actually the young Ellen Page who carries the film.You won't find her not mentioned in any review to this film.Hers is a performance worth mentioning,because she takes a huge shift towards her character. Wilson,on the other hand does an adequate job.

A surprisingly effective thriller and of course disturbing in the most shocking sense of way.This is sure one psychological thriller you ought to check out.

I saw this at a late night screening at the Palm Springs International Film Festival and of the 35 films I saw there I would rank this #4. for about the first 10 minutes I didn't know if I was going to like it or where it was going to go but man once this roller-coaster starts moving it's a psychological thriller. Great stylized look to this film too. The acting and story is intense and you can't avert your eyes from the screen even though there are times where you think you might have to. I like movies that have the feel of a stage play and the emotional volleyball between the two principal actors is amazing. A little far-fetched but so what. This is a good movie. I give it a 8.5 out of a possible 10 and would recommend this film.

I'll admit, I was completely cowardly... I read as many user reviews about this film as possible, before offering a critique. Why? Because when attempting assessment of controversial material, its a good idea to find the "middle ground".

As one would suspect, reviewers either loved or hated this movie. Since we're on a movie review site, I found myself thinking: Is this an eerie, atmospheric shocker like Polanski's work? No... Hard Candy is shocking in places, but lacks atmosphere and an eerie edge due to its setting.

Do we have a tense and driven psychological thriller in the style of Hitchcock? Not really... Although there's moments when Hard Candy is nearly as good, this movie lacks the subtle symbolism and driven power of Hitchcock at his best.

So, what are we left with? Well... A noble but flawed project, I think. Noble because mainstream movies so very rarely attempt to grapple with difficult issues like internet pedophilia and (female) sadism. Flawed because of the writing.

The central ethos of Hard Candy asks us to accept that torture and mental cruelty is an acceptable outcome, when victims "turn" and become the attackers-that-were-attacked. The film-makers are over-manipulative here, because they know many of us wish to see dangerous sexual criminals roasted over a hot fire - but this is a medieval idea - and does not prevent crime...

Faulty logic is at work when victim becomes attacker (albeit in a different way). It's a kind of vigilante-style response, much loved by film-makers (because of it's simple, direct message). Yet, the real issues as to why crime occurs are overlooked. In fact, the real issues are side-stepped completely in Hard Candy.

Why Hayley is so driven, organized and determined to reek vengeance on this hapless photographer isn't clear to me - I think the inference is that she knew (or was) one of Jeff's victims. We have to wait to the end of the movie for this vital information - The wait's a long one and it seemed fudged.

The characters' back stories just aren't well-developed enough for us, the audience, to make clear judgments about whom we should be supporting. Stephen King's characters, for example, are much more rounded and believable.