Originally Posted By: Capo de La Cosa Nostra (12/11/06)
Hard Candy David Slade 2005 US1st time; DVD A 14-year-old girl meets up with a thirtysomething guy she met in an Internet chatroom, and, suspecting he is a paedophile, turns the tables on him. Daring, challenging, certainly interesting film which must be admired - perhaps seen - for deciding to tackle such a difficult subject by grabbing it by the balls. That is not to say, however, that it does it particularly well, and it is interesting to see the limitations of representing paedophilia in Film; it is drastically miscast, for starters, and the script early on is interesting but possibly in the wrong way: we're cheering for the bad guy, because not only is the kid extremely annoying, but her acting and the lines she has to play with are flat. The camera is often static and the framing symmetrical, with its middle-class suburban house allowing characters to be shot against block solid colours - red, grey, white, pink, and so on. Besides visual sumptuousness, it's nothing less than ludicrous when you're watching; but upon reflection, it is probably worth revisiting again.
I'm glad I did a search before posting here saying how much I liked this film (7.1/10 IMDb; 3.3/5 Netflix). I'm surprised that I pretty much disagree with most everything you've said! "Drastically miscast"?? (18-year-old) Ellen Page was brilliant I thought! "Cheering for the bad guy", at least back-and-forth, according to the Extras that you apparently skipped, was intentional and the whole idea of the movie. Her acting, for the character, was great -- the writing was terrific (except here and there), IMHO, and being an Indy film with a $1 million budget filmed in limited locations, and in only 3 weeks, they did a fine job with what they had. Sure, I noticed a few symmetrical shots, but there were many more that were brilliantly composed. So I must think it was intended. And the solid color backdrops hit me halfway thru, as possibly emulating the same backdrops a photographer would (and does) use during a shoot.
This director's first-ever feature-length film was impressive, as well as the work of all the cast and crew, given the resources available to them. The "Digital Colorist" did a fantastic job overall; except at the 30 minute point were the color palette changed so obviously that I thought it was a mistake. I rewound it twice! But they said in the extras it was intentional. Whatever... lol.
I think it is worth revisiting again.
Too bad that same director sucked it hard with 30 Days of Night.
"Drastically miscast"?? (18-year-old) Ellen Page was brilliant I thought! "Cheering for the bad guy", at least back-and-forth, according to the Extras that you apparently skipped, was intentional and the whole idea of the movie. Her acting, for the character, was great -- the writing was terrific (except here and there), IMHO, and being an Indy film with a $1 million budget filmed in limited locations, and in only 3 weeks, they did a fine job with what they had. Sure, I noticed a few symmetrical shots, but there were many more that were brilliantly composed. So I must think it was intended. And the solid color backdrops hit me halfway thru, as possibly emulating the same backdrops a photographer would (and does) use during a shoot. 
