MovieChat Forums > Hard Candy (2006) Discussion > This movie was good until about 3/4 thro...

This movie was good until about 3/4 through it.

posted 9 years ago by codeinemassacre
9 replies | jump to latest

Speaking about after Jeff got loose from the table, the logical thing would have been to call the police or run next door. It was pretty clear Hayley was a clever, manipulative sadist.

Everything after that seemed messy and half-assed. A whole multitude of problems. Several scenes later, Jeff goes looking to kill her again, but he should have ran next door to the suspicious neighbor. He was extremely lucky to still have his balls at this point. He should've used his brain too.

Apparently "the overall budget was less than one million dollars, and it was shot in 18 days, leaving very little margin for errors or re-shoots."

I wish we found out more about the actual events that happened with the other girl's death.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

"Speaking about after Jeff got loose from the table, the logical thing would have been to call the police or run next door."

doesn't fit his portrayal. at that point it was already personal for him to get back at her.

"Apparently "the overall budget was less than one million dollars, and it was shot in 18 days, leaving very little margin for errors or re-shoots." "

wrong. the film turned out exactly as the author wanted it to be.

"I wish we found out more about the actual events that happened with the other girl's death."

we found out everything that is relevant to the story.

maybe this simply is not your kind of film.

[–] codeinemassacre 9 years ago

I suppose bland, messy, and unrealistic doesn't fit my type of movie.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

ironically that describes your posts perfectly.

[–] iamvox 9 years ago

the logical thing would have been to call the police

Only if he was innocent. He knew that if the police got involved, they'd find evidence that he was involved in rape and murder, and going to prison wasn't an option he'd entertain.

He was extremely lucky to still have his balls at this point.

I don't think she ever intended to mutilate him. Goodness knows she could have if she'd wanted to.

[–] mcmingus 8 years ago

It's the sudden shoehorning in of a nosy neighbor character at that 3/4 point that blows the believability of everything that happens prior to it.

Why they thought writing in that part in the middle of production would work is impossible to know, but it was monumentally stupid.

Up until then, this was a perfectly good movie.

*Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrance*

[–] [email protected] (1288) 7 years ago

I agree..totally annoying part in the film

[–] Calledforblackup (88) 2 months ago

And why the hell was she on the roof anyway? She did not need to be up there. That part only exists for the neighbor to discover her. By the way - the neighbor is outside at the precise moment of Page being on the roof. The definition of "contrivance"

[–] nmitrione (293) 6 years ago

He did dial 911 and hung up before the call went through. Ellen Pages' character even remarks that anyone innocent would have called 911. This just confirmed that he had something to hide.

[–] kumarihpx (59) 5 years ago

Perhaps the mess and strange, surrealistic action shots are supposed to mirror the craziness that would actually happen in this scenario.

1) Jeff is a criminal, and exists only bc of secrecy, which makes his call to report a crime against him impossible (bc his own crime would be revealed)

2) He's angry and humiliated to be found out, pleading his innocence until the VERY end & is driven to kill her b/c she's supposed to be victimized, not him -- to end this and keep his multitude of crimes secret