Customer Reviews

NEW Hard Candy - Hard Candy (blu-ray) (Blu-ray)

5 star:		(125)
4 star:		(60)
3 star:		(24)
2 star:		(16)
1 star:		(36)

 

 

The film directed by David Slade and written by Brian Nelson seems disturbing enough for just the subject matter alone, but it's also eerie in how timely it's release has been. With reports of teenage girls becoming victims of internet sexual predators appearing in all types of news media, Hard Candy arrives in the theaters through a limited release to highlight this current trend. Slade and Nelson has created an disturbing and, at times, a very uncomfortable film that shows the many twists and turns that happens when the roles of prey and predator become interchangeable.

There's no denying that Hard Candy aims to put a new twist on the exploitation subgenre of the rape-revenge films that dominated the late 70's and early 80's. Brian Nelson's clearly channeling the influences from such rape-revenge fantasy films like Mastrosimone's Extremities and the very disturbing and exploitive I Spit On Your Grave (Day of the Woman) by Meir Zarchi. From the beginning the audience is shown the set-up of an adult instant messenging another person with the screen name of Thonggrrl14. Thonggrrl14 is in fact a 14 year-old teenage girl named Hayley and the adult on the other end a 32 year-old photographer named Jeff who goes by the screen name Lensman319. Jeff has an unhealthy and disturbing penchant for pubescent girls as the subject of his camera lens.

From their first meeting meeting at a coffee house where Jeff gradually begins a flirtatious conversation with the young Hayley to the point in the first act when he finally convinces her to go back to his house whcih doubles as his studio. There's really no denying the sense of unease that permeates the first act as Hard Candy gradually paints Jeff as the sexual predator that he is. There's no denying the fact that a man of his age should not be flirting and behaving as if the girl across from him is a fully-grown and developed woman of similar age. Hayley also comes across during this first act like a teenage girl dazzled by an older man who treats her older than her real age. It's really a disturbing look at just how easily an adult can seduce a child into doing things they normally shouldn't be doing.

Hayley (played by young Canadian actor Ellen Page) soons shows just how wrong and mistaken Jeff has been in picking her as his new prey. I don't use that word loosely for that is what this film truly is when boiled down to its basic component. A one-on-one three-act play (Brian Nelson's experience as a playwright shows in the stage-like sequences from beginning to end) between a predator and prey. This time around the prey has turned out to be the one who has done the hunting and the consequences on the wanna-be predator that is Jeff leads to a slow and deliberate set-up that looks like something out of Takashi Miike's Audition. Hayley's turning the tables on her stalker shows that girls her age are intelligent enough to know that what Jeff is doing is wrong. Hayley's answer to that is to be the hunter instead and fix Jeff's "problem" through what she calls as "preventive maintenance." What she calls "preventive maintenance" is bound to cause many men in the audience to sit very uncomfortably and wince on more than once occassion.

The acting job done by Ellen Page (balancing her indie work here with a turn as Kitty Pride in the upcoming X3: The Last Stand) is dazzling and really shows her as an up and coming talent that needs to be watched. She was technically 15 year-old when the film was made and already she showed a keen grasp of the script which deals with disturbing topics. There's a scene in Jeff's car as they reach his home where a passing glance of the camera at her face shows not a gullible teenager, but a determined and somewhat oft-kiltered individual who knows what she will be doing in the coming hours will be medieval harsh but in her mind justified. Patrick Wilson (last seen as Raoul in The Phantom of the Opera)as Jeff plays the would-be sexual predator admirably. His range of emotions go from outright denials of Hayley's accusations to impotent rage and desperation as his fate is described to him in Miike-like detail by his teenage captor.

If there's a flaw to mar the intense and suffocating atmosphere this stage-like film creates it would be in the script itself. At times the Hayley character becomes a one-note individual whose beyond her years demeenor seemed to cold and rehearsed. I really can't put the blame for this on Ms. Page, but on the writer himself. It seems like Brian Nelson is trying too hard to add twist and turns on the story being told. He seems to enjoy overmuch his ability to tug back and forth on his audiences' emotional investment in the film and the two characters. He actually pulls off the trick of making the sexual predator earn the audiences' sympathy at what is about to be done to him. But instead of continuing on with that tangent and thus putting Hayley on a darker and more sinister light, Nelson backs off and pulls the audience back to wanting physical and emotional destruction to be visited on Jeff. Nelson used to much zig-zagging in making his script look more complicated than it ought to be. A rape-revenge film works best on its most simplest form.

The direction by David Slade (well-known as a music video director) is actually very subdued and deliberate in its pacing. Slade doesn't fall back onto his music video experience with unnecessary quick-cut editing that's plagued his music video director brethren. Slade manages to pull off a very Hitchcockian-style of directing by letting the stage and the actors speak for the scene without much bells and whistles to clutter things. There's a few sequences where he lets the camera film things through one long, continuous take thus adding a sense of realism to the situation developing inside Jeff's home. I was really impressed with Slade's work and looking forward to see what he intends to do to follow-up Hard Candy.

The use of too much twists and turns in the script notwithstanding, Hard Candy is a tour de force piece of suspenseful filmmaking that borders on the great psychological horror films of the 70's. In fact, the subject matter on the screen lends a sense of real horror to the film with its timely release and story. Any parent or adult who knows teenagers who use MySpace.com would think hard about wanting to know more of what their kids are doing on the net. Hard Candy can be brutal at times and almost suffocating at others with little or no levity to break the tension. It's a difficult film to sit through and probably won't be the type of films for some, but just watching the performance by Ellen Page is worthy of the price of a ticket. The subject matter is very adult and straddles the line of what constitute a rated R film and one strictly for adults only. Hard Candy definitely falls on the latter. 8.5/10.

It's safe to say that before the release of the film I was basically foaming at the mouth in anticipation. I don't know what it was that drew me so strongly to it, but there was something about it that just wet my appetite for great cinema.

So, the week came when it was to be released, and Friday rolled around. I went to see it - and left utterly disappointed. I don't know what I expected from the film, from all the press I read I expected simple torture then an end to the film, but what I got, I later realized, was so much more.

The story, although topical to some degree, is at first glance a story of one person wanting to teach another a lesson about the "naughty" things they do, ALA Seven and Saw. But as the film unfolds the true faces are shown, and they're ugly. Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson turn in flawless performances, as they're the only main actors in the film, Sandra Oh plays a small, yet somewhat vital role, and then there's that one guy at the cafe.

The reason I detested this movie was for one simple reason - manipulation. NEVER in my life have I seen a film where my beliefs and feelings concerning the characters has shifted so furiously between one and the other. You sincerely believe that Jeff is an innocent man and that Haley is simply a sociopath. As the story unfolds, if you see the film in the same light as I did, by the end you'll be completely worn out, and left with a feeling of bleakness.

With most recent horror films focusing mainly on the gore aspect, and very little story, albeit one as complex as this, it was incredibly refreshing to see a horror/suspense film that was something that could just possibly top Hitchcock in his finest hour.

A true masterpiece.

I tried ages ago to post a lengthy and mostly critical review of this but for whatever reason it never made it up (hmmmmm). So this review is going to be far less detailed because I just don't want to type up all those thoughts over again.

Hard Candy is a really frustrating film because it could have been a great one. The premise is a grabber and the actors are very talented and game, but the problem is that the script just collapses as the movie goes on. The fatal flaw is that the writers suddenly decide about halfway through that Hayley is going to be a genius mastermind figure, instead of the precocious, ambitious, more or less realistic girl she starts out as.

Mastermind figures in suspense movies are useful to writers because they always are one step ahead of everybody else. So they can set up diabolical schemes and traps simply to torment their victims and generate lots of suspense for the audience. Since they know what people will do ahead of time, they know how to stage these traps to maximize drama, to make their victims think they have the upper hand, but they are always in control and pull the rug out from under at the last minute. Why do they do all this? Well, because they are supergenius masterminds and they like to mess with people, to put them through the ringer. Now, an omniscient supergenius in a movie like in Saw, for example, is fine given the limited ambitions of Saw (and don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Saw). But here, in a movie that should have had ambitions to be more than a generic thrill machine, it is just the wrong thing to do and particularly when you are talking about a 14 year old protagonist. And so, the last half of the movie is filled with completely implausible and virtually impossible plot developments all meant just to milk a few more manipulative thrills from the basic set up. Think hard about virtually any of the situations in the second half and ask yourself *why* Jeff or Hayley do certain things and how or why Hayley would bother to orchestrate these narrative events to occur if she knew from the start all the things she is revealed to know at the end. Once you start to question, you realize how completely overengineered the plot twists are.

The bottom line is that the writing is fundamentally lazy and the narrative events stunningly arbitrary, which is a serious disappointment given the potential this idea had.

I will admit something up front. I am a sucker for a tight, clever script where there is plenty of verbal sparring. Intelligent (might I even say--"thought provoking") drama gets me off. Two of my favorite classics are "The Lion in Winter" and "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff?"--two powerful, but wickedly funny, verbal bloodbaths based on plays. Now I'm not saying "Hard Candy" falls into that league, but it is certainly refreshing to watch an adult film with an actual point-of-view that doesn't dumb itself down for mass consumption.

Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson are both suberb, and there are enough twists and action to keep the viewer guessing through their game of cat-and-mouse. This is a sweet antidote to the usual summer blockbuster--one that will make you think and one that you will remember.

Not to provide a spoiler, but the film does wrap itself up rather tidily--which keeps it from being truly brilliant (I'd actually give it 4 1/2 stars). But I was riveted throughout.

A word of warning, however, I imagine a lot of people might not like this film. But if you are a fan of well-scripted, well- acted drama and open to the subject matter (might be too controversial or even too graphic for some), I'd definitely give this a try. KGHarris, 9/06.

There are movies that haunt you and others that keep you guessing; there are horror flicks and daring mind-benders; there are suspense ridden narratives and atypical treaures: Hard candy is all of the above. The terrible intolerable need to continue watching absorbs and terrifies while you seem disturbed by a need to find a side to root for. The pedophile photographer who may have committed a homicide or the teenager who seems bent on revenge with such hatred you feel for her psychological statae of mind and her emotional integrity while admiring the psychological battle of wits that throws every trick in the book and seemingly confiscates the essence of every psychotic malady the rational rituals of desire have equipped human nature with. Ellen Page is too good to be true and so belligerent in her sympathetic role that you can't stand her. She does what no one at her age has ever been able to do, namely reconcile the taboo of social mores with a nefarious bristling candor that thwarts the desire to continue to watch. She is placed aface Patrick Wilson who performs the role of a pedophile with impenetrable guile and belated predatory pride. He runs the gamut of psycho games and betrays psychobabble while his counterpart frustrates his strategic acumen by outsmarting him to such an extent you wonder as he does: Who is this girl? It gets terrifyiing and tense in a swell of emotional callousness that dumbs the pity elusively ambling in a dialogue that is always disquieted by minds that forage a loot in every chance digression. It is shot with bestirring incision and lavish in its climactic rush. I do not think a movie could be shot with more intensity. Here we see the madness of psychology at its tenderest and it sickens but always concentrates on a suspenseful emotional heap that litters the intelligence of the two parties. Poker face after poker face we experience the insistence of insanity at its most gripping hold, but not the newspaper brand, here we have a mixture of hatred and desire controlled and fashioned by a shooting that ends with the incredible after the impossibly disgusting has been shaved a few times. This movie is an absolutely astonding psychological maze and a social commentary that undoes the sutures of a world where reason is used to abuse and torture, and where justice is a questionable prospect of soulless proportions. Wow.

In one of the most beautifully acted films of the year, director David Slade's provocative Hard Candy asks a number of provocative questions: When does the predator become the victim? To what extent is vigilantism justified? And what justifies one person going after such cold-blooded revenge? The film starts out with two anonymous people chatting on the Internet. The repartee is seductive and tantalizing.

Fourteen-year-old doll-like Hayley (Ellen Page) offers to meet the older man Jeff (Patrick Wilson) at a coffee shop, where he wipes chocolate from her lip with his finger and continues the predator's dance. Jeff isn't your stereotypical pedophile; he's young, handsome and sexy, and an upwardly mobile fashion photographer. Jeff buys Hayley a coffee and a shirt and they talk about literature and film whilst she tries the shirt on.

Hayley proves that she's perky and sweet and way bright beyond her years and soon they are heading back to Jeff's secluded, modernist house deep in the Hollywood Hills. He makes her a vodka and orange and offers up an impromptu photo shoot. Pretty soon we realize that there's something not quite right about this scenario.

It turns out that little Hayley isn't as innocent as we thought she was. Without giving too much the plot away, Hayley launches into an unrelenting and sometimes stomach-turning inquest into the older man's secret life as a pervert and a possible murderer. Jeff adamantly denies killing a girl who has recently gone missing, but the innocent Hayley will not be swayed.

What makes this film so spectacular is that when the tables are turned, we as the viewer are forced to rethink our sympathies for the predator and the prey and as the boundaries between the good and the bad guy become blurred, we are left with just these two damaged characters in a claustrophobic house where their dangerous cat and mouse dance is gradually played out.

Although there is a small - and welcome - appearance from the lovely Sandra Ho as a concerned neighbor, much of the movie is just Page and Wilson, each fighting for the upper hand, which gives the film the look of a tense one-act play. Obviously the actors have to be strong in this type of film and really know their characters, luckily both Page and Wilson indeed rise the occasion.

The boyish Page is remarkably confident, as the pixie-faced, scalpel-wielding vigilante and she's really able to imbue the right balance of anger and sympathy. Though Jeff is clearly a sneak and a sleaze from the beginning - he makes no apologies for the fact that he likes little girls and is meeting them on the Web - to his credit Wilson adeptly shades Jeff - giving him a sympathetic and shameful back-story. It's open to question how sleazy he actually is.

Hard Candy is Slick and stylish in its writing, direction and design, and as the psychological thriller it works beautifully, mostly on the strength of powerful performances by Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson. Although many have called this film exploitative, because of its provocative subject - pedophilia, the film is powerful and subversive and raises some serious issues about the psyche of men such as this. This is confrontational filmmaking at its best with a dark, daring and bold heart. Mike Leonard September 06.

This movie started off well enough.

A 14 year old meets a 32 year old man from the Internet and they arrange for her to go to his house. But when they get there, her sinister motives are revealed.

This storyline had potential at the start, however as the movie progressed I found it to be quite trite. (Spoiler information may be revealed below).

Hayley apparently acts on a belief, which seems a little bit ridiculous. She did not start out with any real proof to begin with and had to rip through the house to get it. What would have happened if Jeff had turned out to be a good guy? What would she have done?

The movie got boring for me after about 30 minutes because Hayley and Jeff prattled on the same topics endlessly. I understand that he's a pervert and she's a sicko, and both of them believe they are in the right. Get to the point, already. We really don't need hundreds of statements about how clever she is and how stupid he is.

Hayley claimed to have done something quite disgusting to Jeff, and later on, he found out that she'd faked it. What was the point of all that, then?

Jeff managed to escape from Hayley at least three or four times, yet every single time he escaped, then he walked back into her trap. How many times did he get knocked out again?

Hayley's plan was ridiculous. After all the fighting where Jeff was tied up and they beat each other up...

She would never be able to get rid of the evidence after that.

An autospy would have identified that there were previously drugs in Jeff's body. Hayley's fingerprints would be all over him. There would be rope burns on various marks of the body, showing that he had been tied up for some time. Not to mention hair, blood and all the other gunk Hayley left lying around. I mean, she was showering there. Come on.

Let's not forget that the neighbour had seen Hayley who told her she'd be there for a couple of days. She'd tell the police about that and provide an accurate profile.

Plus the people at the shopping center who saw them together.

At the end Hayley was on the roof and Joelle was in the house. As far as I can see Hayley had no time to remove the evidence because Jeff was chasing her all over the house. How did she expect to clear up with Joelle right there. Come to think of it, how was she going to get off the roof without anyone seeing her.

E-mails and calls can easily be traced, showing that the 'police calls' were fake.

So, Hayley would never have gotten away. In fact, Jeff didn't even have to kill himself. If he'd finished her off, he could easily remove his side of the evidence and show the police the marks on her body and such. For an "honor student," she was really stupid.

Both characters seemed to be overwhelemingly stupid in the sense that neither one of them knew what they were doing.

A much better ending would be if Jeff had revealed to Hayley that he wasn't alone and have the other guy turn up and finish her off as part of the set up. And it would have been better if he reveals he knew who she was all along.

I got so bored with the long, long conversations that had no point to them, I skipped over a few scenes.

A disappointment all around.

Hard Candy is a film that outside of a few unscenic outdoor shots, was filmed entirely within the safe confines of a studio set. The reason for this was a financial one, producer David W. Higgens, actually sculpted Hard Candy in such a way as to have as few locations and actors as humanly possible, the only thing he needed was a worthy idea that could work around his budgetary plan, luckily he use to work for a primetime entertainment TV news show which afforded him access to many interesting true stories from around the globe. The report that spawned Hard Candy was out of Japan, apparently, ruffians would pose as underaged kids on the internet to lure pedophile businessmen to private locations with the promise of a one on one sexual encounter only to show up as a group of thugs and mug the would be molester, this is how Hard Candy became the story of a 14 year old girl who captures and torments a 32 year old internet preditor within a single isolated location.
Often times the marraige of an air tight budget with that of a thriller produces a horrifying work of gritty realism that is next to unattainable within the Hollywood system. For such a marraige to work, it is absolutely crucial that the believability of the movie is not compromised by the script, film job, or acting, one only needs to think about Toby Hooper's Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or John McNaughton's Henry Portrait of a serial killer to see how a small budget can actually be of benefit to the outcome of the picture. Hard Candy has a great concept, and outstanding acting by its principle leads, Patrick Wilson, and Ellen Page, all Hard Candy needed to reach the status of cult classic was a script and film job that does not hurt the believability of the story.

The big quesiton of believability.

Lets say for the sake of arguement, that you were drugged by a potential sex partner inside your own home, then over the course or the most tromatic day you could of ever imagined, you manage to escape five times, get knocked out four times, get tied up in various compromising possitions three times, including being precariously bound up on your tip toes, ballanced on a stool with your neck in a noose, you get asphyxiated by a plastic bag, sprayed in your mouth with cleansers, zapped around 50 times with a tazer gun, the whole time your house and most intimate possessions are being ransacked, your credibility destroyed, and unimaginable indignities are being perpetrated against you by a mastermind sadist, such as the numbing your spread eagle exposed private parts with a bag of ice to prep you for a make shift castration operation which this sadist fools you into believing actually took place. ( this sequence makes the whole film worth while, and is smartly milked to an agonizing half hour in lenth.) Now lets say that on your final escape that you manage to corner this monster on your roof only to have them pull a gun on you when you are only an arms away, they then offer you a crazy proposition. They tell you that if you willingly hang yourself from the noose they have provided and hung from your chimney that they will destroy all the incriminating evidence that could tarnish your reputation after your death.
Would you...............
A)attack this sadist with a berserkers rage that would rival Al Pacino at the end of Scarface dispite the chances of getting shot?
or would you say to them.............
B)" You are so right about me, thank you so much for opening my eyes to what I truly am, and you're right again, I must die by my own volition....um excuse me while I get this noose over my head...ahhh, here we are... Well, thank you so much for showing me the truth, and also for saving my post mortem reputation, afterall, I know I can trust you after what you did to me today. Well hey, love to stay and chat, but um its time I say bye bye and jump off this roof and hang myself...Uhh thanks again." TWANG!!! "UGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!"
and there is allways..............
C) Instead of chasing them, gather up your porn and other shameful items flea your home in your car and dial 911.
Needless to say, the writer that was hired, Brian Nelson, chose B.

Truth is daring, because having guts is to avoid justification for psychotic actions.

There is more then one single level to pedophilia, some people who are turned on by kids are still able to restrain themselves and not take liberties on innocent children. The character of Jeff does not have any self control over these dark desires, if anything, he embraces his perversion by using his finances, time, and energy, to premeditate, pursue, lure, and molest young budding girls, in fact, his entire life is dedicated to this sick quest. 14 year old Haley is possibly more dangerous then Jeff, she is a highly intelligent sociopathic sadist, with a bent sence of vigilante justice. Like Jeff, she also premeditates, pursues, and lures her victoms, but she does not stop there, for she also drugs, captures, torments, tortures, and even kills would be child molesters with a highly dememted idealism to right the ills of contemporary society. Had the film makers had any real guts they would of left well enough alone, instead they tried to create a reason to justify Haley's grotesque enjoyment of inflicting cruelty on her victoms by turning Jeff into a person who once killed a young girl who resisted his molestations, as if being a serial molester is not enough. The point is, that any viewer of this material with a shread of sophistication will realize right of the bat that there is no way on God's green Earth to sanctify what Haley is doing, so this manipulation of the plot only hurt the believability of the picture.

Like a good neighbor..............NOT!

Haley is spotted by neighbor lady "Susan Oh" walking on Jeff's roof. When Susan Oh knocks on the door this person she has never seen befor answeres and says she is Jeff's niece. Jeff is heard in the background making muffled moans, Haley says he has food poisoning and is very sick. Haley also has a sizable fresh red bloody gash on her forhead. With all these red flag warning signs going off like so many flash bulbs in Susan Oh's face, what does she ask Haley?

"Do you baby sit."

Last part: Film job. ( I did the math so you don't have to.)

This film is an editing nightmare, not only because of the MTV flash cutting, but also because of the continual manipulation of color and tone, for instance, if Haley gets mad, the tone becomes blue and cold, if a character goes outside, the light is overexposed. In an attept to end this review, I am going to write about a scene in this film in which Haley ransack Jeff's place in search of his incriminating evidence. What makes this worthy of discussion is that from the moment she begins searching to the point that she unearths his safe which is hidden in an indoor rock garden, there are a total of 65 edits, 24 of which are jump cuts. A jump cut is when the editor takes out a segment of frames from a sustained shot so that the person in the frame, (in this case Ellen Page), skips into the futre a 10th of a second at a time. Now all of these jump cuts have the same elements in common, first they are all of Ellen Page, second they are all action shots of her searching for his compromising material, third they are all shot by a camera that was being deliborately manipulated to swim around side to side, and up and down to create unease and tention. Of the 65 total edits, 40 of them were segments where the camera was swimming around the subject. What makes this scene such a chore to watch is that this moment only lasts 86 seconds, so why does it need 65 edits? Well welcome to the world of low attention span theatre, apparently director David Slade must think that his viewers are hummingbirds.

My advice to the film makers is to treat the viewer as if they are capable of figuring things out for themselves and drawing there own conclusion, please don't insult the viewers intelligence. My advice to the viewer, go ahead and watch Hard Candy, but also watch the Takashi Miike film Audition which has a similar theme but is actually worthy of being called a cult classic...Then decide for yourself.

I can see how feminists would be all over this. 14 year old nymph gets back at an older masochist. Or is it the other way around ? I really wanted to like this film, but it was too slow and too drawn out. At some point you just feel like sceaming: OK, I GET IT ALREADY. That, and shortly after you want to slap the guy for acting/being stupid. You know she is still in the house, you have a chance to get out, but what do you do ? You go look for her. Dumbass. You deserve everything you get, all the way to the unlikely ending.

And then it's over, and you still have questions. Granted, that was the intent, but it makes you feel empty, which was supposed to make you converse with other people about this film I guess. For me however, once was enough. I never need to see it again or talk about it, ever.

So many films follow stock plots, have uninspired dialogue, and let you know what the ending is either in the first five minutes, or even earlier, in the trailer. Hard Candy, on the other hand, has a wonderful plot, absolutely brilliant dialogue, and keeps you guessing until the very last moment of the movie. It does so, rather surprisingly, *without* resorting to cheap gimmicks.

Not a word in this film is unnecessary. In a heartbeat, you could side completely with one character, and in the very next, be questioning those very sentiments. Each character is playing each other, and in turn, the audience.

The film's realism makes the horror-like scenes truly disturbing to watch. One of my friends simply walked out, not able to take any more, even though almost nothing was really shown. The implied horror plays terrible games with your own fears, and you find your self cringing at the tiniest, yet unmistakeable sounds.

Hard Candy is not for everyone; but everyone should see it. Even if you don't enjoy it, the film is never uninteresting. It's an experience you won't soon forget.