Hard Candy

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...

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.

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.

This is a very difficult film to like. It deals with tricky issues, features some committed performances, but ends up adding up to less than the sum of its parts. Overall, not worth sitting through.

I just screened this film at LGF last night. I was quite intrigued for the first forty minutes. Then it all kind of fell apart for me. In it's best moments this film explores the complexities of vengeance and psychology. It tries to be clever by pulling a role reversal -- but this eventually wears thin and the dialog becomes didactic and contrived. I still think it is worth seeing for the strength of the leads alone. Patrick Wilson does a fine job as a "suspected" pedophile. He elicits both sympathy and disgust. Ellen Page as the young girl is absolutely fantastic. Her performance is brilliant and even frightening at times. She's good even when the script can't match her talent. I look forward to seeing her in many films to come. Finally a young actress who is more than just a pretty face -- I'm so tired of the Natalie Portmans, the Hillary Duffs, and the Jessica Albas of the world. Good luck with your career Ms. Page.

All in all, Hard Candy is worth seeing. Maybe I'm just a sucker for movies with tiny casts and realtime pacing. But there are some genuinely suspenseful moments in the film, although in the hands of lesser actors these scenes would disintegrate. And though I was annoyed by the contrivances and implausibilities of the script, I found myself the next day thinking about some of the issues raised therein.

At times Hard Candy reminded me of Polanski's Death and the Maiden, though H.C. is nowhere near as good. Ellen Page's Haley character is similar to Sigourney Weaver's character in the Polanski film. Both women are terrifying through the cold precision of their revenge. The problem with the Haley character is that she would have to be supernatural to accomplish the things she does in this film. And of course if she was supernatural, we'd have a completely different film on our hands -- High Plains Drifter.