Dur à croquer

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.

Well. That was disturbing. Though it is not one to recommend for "Family Night," Hard Candy offers an intriguing one-time viewing thanks to the effectiveness of its two-man show approach. Let's make that a one-man, one-girl show. I don't need a rash of emails reminding me of my chauvinism.

What the filmmakers have done is said, "Hey, Patrick Wilson! Ellen Page! We're placing the two of you in a restricted space and putting the entire movie on your shoulders. Best of luck!" Granted, I'm paraphrasing, but this is no exaggeration. There are a total of five people in the movie, and only Wilson and Page are given more than five minutes of screen time. Given this challenge, the two thespians more than hold their own.

I don't know if Wilson should take this as a compliment, but he's very convincing as a dangerously innocent-seeming pedophile. What makes him so creepy is his charm. He's a smooth, suave sexual predator. Most young girls are smart enough to do wind sprints the moment they see a dirty, unkempt man who looks to be carrying more diseases than Paris Hilton.

But Wilson is a good-looking, successful photographer. He can't be bad, right? "You look older than you are, and you certainly act older than you are," he tells Hayley, perfectly manipulating her young, fragile emotions. And hey, he can't be dangerous. After all, he obviously has the most innocent of intentions! Why else would he reassure her that he's aware of the legal boundaries? She's puddy in his hands.

This all starts quietly enough, but once they get to his house gears are shifted and everything goes haywire. That's all I'm revealing regarding the story, but I do have to give kudos to Ms. Page who turns in an impressive performance. I did feel she was a bit too precocious and world-wise at times, but she still does a great job showcasing a wide range of emotions of this potential young victim.

Despite the interesting concept of the two-person show, it clearly has its limitations. At 103 minutes this is just way too long. After a while it becomes too obvious that certain scenes and lines of dialogue are, like most songs on recent Rolling Stones albums, inserted for no other reason than to serve as filler. The worst example being a scene involving Sandra Oh's neighbor character. The only purpose it serves is to deliver a little faux drama. That subplot is dropped faster than Britney Spears' baby, never to be heard from again.

Hard Candy refuses to send you prancing home with a smile on your face or a song in your heart, but if nothing else it serves as a strong warning that you should probably pay close attention to who your kids are communicating with online. At least warn them that sometimes the person they least suspect could be the one to be most wary of.

A quick word of warning to all you guys: there is one particular scene where what we perceive is happening will absolutely make you squirm in your seat. You'll most likely watch it through squinted eyes. I haven't felt that uncomfortable at the theater since the My Own Private Idaho fiasco. I suggest you be prepared.

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'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.

Opinions on this film do vary considerably which, given the subject matter, is probably inevitable. The subject matter itself is the main point which carries the film, and it really could have been a much better film if the length had been shortened, and the direction made much tighter. Plot descriptions have been explained in so much detail that there's nothing really to add, but on viewing the film it does become undeniably tedious and, in parts, frankly irritating. The denouement is weak and unsatisfactory, and the whole effort somewhat disappointing. It is undoubtedly a film with a reputation higher than its actual substance.