travis-j-rodgers

I read the comments on the DVD case for "Hard Candy", and, as a result, expected to see a very compelling, gritty film that would push my buttons. The film was none of these things, but let me talk about the good before I get ahead of myself.

The opening scene was very well done. We were quickly thrust into the film as an audience, seeing private things, which is a clear theme of the film: what happens when people get to see your private "stuff"? can people ever see your private stuff? The subsequent scene, in the cafe, was similarly well executed. Hayley was an intriguing character, while Jeff was every bit as creepy as he ought to be. Jeff was believable as a suffering character, psychologically tormented. The camera work was interesting, the scenery, though limited, was interesting as well. Technically, the film was good.

From the time the two of them went back to Jeff's house, things went downhill quickly. There is no reasonable reason to believe the things coming out of Hayley's mouth. There is no reason to feel any sympathy for either character. There is simply no reason to watch this film but to say that you managed to watch it through to the end. There are no disturbing spectacles, there is no witty dialogue, there is only one uncomfortable scene. As a result, I felt cheated on two levels: my buttons were not pushed, as the DVD seemingly promised, and the film was unimpressive in almost all aspects, which is a disappointment for most films.

I rate the film a 6/10, as it is like so many other films out there: aspiring to the stars, not managing to make it more than a few feet off of the ground. Technical quality was surprisingly good for what seems to have been a low budget film.

This film has a nice look to it, especially for an indie and seemingly low budget film. The sound is good as well. I was quite impressed by both. Too often, indies/low budgets (not that they're necessarily the same) have problems technically that obscure the gems of the film. In Snapped's case, much the opposite is true.

While the acting isn't overall terrible (notably the two female leads...who seemed capable of acting on some level), no one is more than competent. The dialogue was terrible, unrealistic. Several times, I wondered why the director hadn't ordered more takes. Some things just came off as too amateurish.

Finally, a problem that plagues many low budget films was present. Without getting into the specifics, there are at least two physical altercations that are basically implausible to the point of stupidity. There are other scenes where the shift in tone between interacting characters is so sudden and unmotivated as to be wholly unbelievable.

Not the worst film out there by any stretch of the imagination and I'd love to see what the technical people from this film could do with a real script and actors, but hardly worth a look.

A friend recommended the film based on recommendations to him. I had never heard of it so I had no preconceptions about the film. From the opening scene, I was totally impressed.

Make no mistake about it, this is a tragedy along the lines of Oedipus, but with better fight cinematography than I've ever seen from a remake of the famous tragedies.

Often hilarious, poignant, and breathtakingly beautiful in its economy, the film rolls along for the first 85% or so...and then something strange happens. I'm still thinking about the ending. It's a very good movie, but I'm just not sure that the conclusion is up to snuff with the rest of it.

I strongly recommend the film and rate it 8/10.