# Talk:Hard Candy (film)

I made some comments here about a week ago, they are now gone.  What's up with that?  Comments are wiped periodically? Raymm 22:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
She says she's 14, but near the end says how Jeff knows nothing about her; she may not even be called Hayley, her Father might not be a professor. Should it be ammended saying she's posing as a 14 year old? And, actually, everything about her. Maybe we should say "about a girl and Jeff", and then have a section on the girl and what she poses as?(Cipher Destiny 22:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

Actually, the commentary of Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson from the DVD release indicates that the filmakers were apparently worried that the studio would require exactly such a change.  They were glad that it did not occur, and they point out that much of the point of the film would be ruined if Hayley was an adult posing as a child. Caelarch 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Although it's not neccessarily about her being an adult... I was talking more about the fact that her name might not be Hayley, and that she may not be 14, etc. The article could be misleading as it states that she IS 14. Many of the other things that might not be true (e.g. her being the daughter of a med school professor) aren't in the article, so the main gripe is the seemingly-final comment that she is 14. (Cipher Destiny 11:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
She says in this interview[1] that she plays a "character who's 14 and intelligent and passionate."  Considering her any other age than 14 for me takes the shock value out of her actions.  I doubt it was the director's intentions to portray her any other age, otherwise they'd have let subtle hints that she may not be the age she seems. (NinjaJew 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC))
Jeff says he'll have to wait four years for her (Hayley).  I think he implies he will have to wait until she is 18 so he can have his way with her.  But this is not conclusive as some jurisdictions (i.e., Canada) allow consent for sex at 14, unless you are in a position of trust regarding the minor. Raymm 22:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The means of travel do imply that she is not yet employed or driving and thus likely less than 18.  But keep in mind Jeff doesn't really KNOW anything about his online prey.  The ultimate irony being that she is in fact EXACTLY like him or worse in some ways -- assuming the hangings are real. Yes if you take the movie at face value both Haley and Jeff are adreneline junkies that get off on sex torture connected death.  Haley differs merely in being younger, female, smarter, and selecting victims based on a twisted sense of vigilant justice.
We can be pretty sure Haley goes into her crime knowing her objective is Jeff's death and that she is already a serial killer. We don't know if Jeff knew his crime would end in death from the start or not. Of course criminologists would say that her victim selective would likely decay as she got older. But then we can fantasize that she is like Hannibal Lector and maintains "standards" through out her criminal career.  69.23.120.164 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The actress who played Hayley, Ellen Page, was actually 18 or 19 years old at the time the movie was shot. Tavilis 13:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The film was first shown in January 2005 (at Sundance), and shot in the summer of 2004.  Ellen Page was born 21 February 1987, making her 17 during filming and the debut showing. —MJBurrage • TALK • 07:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Tell me, prior IP, where, exactly, do we see or find out otherwise that Jeff is "an adrenaline junkie that gets off on sex-torture connected death"? Because in the end he says he was there when one "Aaron" killed somebody else? Well,
a.) How do we even know how he felt about that said "Aaron" tortured or killed her? He himself says that event didn't go the way he'd planned, so it could just as well be he just wanted to do another nude shooting and nothing but and was shocked with what transpired, and afterwards felt guilty enough for having staged what he, in that case, had thought would be another nude session, especially if the girl was underage, so that he kept quiet about what he had to witness. After all, we can see from Hayley's fantasies how thin the line is from accusing somebody of fancying the underage to the accused being a torturer and killer, and any cops Jeff may have involved could have thought just the same as Hayley, as something always sticks if somebody underage is involved, even no matter how much the evidence may speak in favor of the accused.
b.) And it could be just as likely that Jeff is making the whole photo session story with "Aaron" up because he's realized that Hayley is so obsessed with her twisted view of reality that he's caught in a catch-22 wherein if he says he's innocent, she'll either call him lying, "in denial", or say that it doesn't matter, and if he says he did it, she'll kill or torture him or call the police (finding what she thinks would be "evidence", but we know that obviously, "4 doctors out of 5 consider her insane" while she's on a dedicated crusade in her head, and we already know that something always sticks if somebody underage is involved even if there is no evidence at all).
So Jeff coulda thought that the only way out of this catch-22 would be giving her a new prey for a criminally insane Hayley to hunt down, even if he has to make it up, and when she replies that she's already found her other prey that he's made up, he realizes her delusion is so adamant there's nothing in the world that will make her go away and stop smearing him. It's risky enough for him to have brought a minor home with him and he already knows she'll be lying through her teeth to turn all hell lose on him, but the fact that something always sticks even if you're innocent doesn't make him "an adrenaline junkie that gets off on sex-torture connected death". Plus, she's willfully putting extra emotional stress and confusion on him for sending in Janele whose relationship with him obviously ended most painfully, so that the additional stress will keep him from making rational decisions. Hayley uses the fact against him that he didn't run but tried to stab her, but do you know your reaction when facing certain death or mutilation, especially if it involves a most shaming attack on your manhood or womanhood? What about all the revenge-fantasy movies where females go out to kill rapists after they've been raped or got their breasts cut off? Does their desire to seek revenge prove in any way that they "wanted" to be raped? In my opinion, it doesn't, and neither does the fact that Jeff didn't run after Hayley staged his castration prove that he felt "guilty".
Now, you may accuse me of all that being speculation or OR. But so is your version that Jeff would be "an adrenaline junkie that gets off on sex-torture connected death". I'm just trying to point out that we don't know either way. All we know for certain is that Jeff likes to invite minors to make nude photo sessions with them because he's obviously into them. (Sidenote: A similar movie to recommend, also with underage photo sessions, would be Under suspicion (2000), where the dedicated photographer (Gene Hackman) is proven innocent in the end after he's had two obsessed maniacs on his heels trying to prove him guilty, whereas another one as vague as Hard candy would be The Offence (1972), directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Sean Connery, deliberately vague because either film is not about guilt of sexual deviants, but about the evils done by crusaders seeing their own sexual deviance-related obsessions everywhere. In character Baxter's words from The Offence in a role similar to Jeff's here, "Don't beat me for thoughts in your head!" Jeff's story about what his aunt did to him when he was little does not explain why "he is the way he is", it explains why Heyley is the way she is, as both she and Jeff's child-mutilating aunt are driven by the same blood-thirsty to homicidal prejudice.)
Could be Jeff actually has child porn, could be Hayley is just batshit insane in thinking that's what she found, could be that he was at a photo session with "Aaron" that went out of control without Jeff's involvement, could be that he's making said session up to save his ass from a blood-thirsty Hayley. But neither possibility proves that Jeff is "an adrenaline junkie that gets off on sex-torture connected death". --2.241.128.64 (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In the movie, Jeff says to Hayley "When you're 80 I'll be 94." Would this not make Jeff twenty-eight years old?

I cannot remember the exact lines, but I did in fact work it out when I was watching it than he is 32 years old. Schizmatic 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Says it in this review as well. Sierra 1 19:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the film and he says he'd be 98, so yeah, 32 is right. Driller thriller 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The article about the Japanese girls in fact leads to something totally different. --211.29.198.229 12:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What Japanese girls?
There was a case in Japan wherein some Japanese teenagers tricked a pedophile they met on the internet in to coming to a bus station (i think) and beat his ass Echud123456 08:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

{{spoiler}}
The article says Jeff hangs himself in the end. The way I understand it,
the rope was too long and he simply fell off the roof, forced to face 
Janelle (and later the police, justice, prison etc.) gbrandt 08:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. The viewer is left unsure of whether he died by hanging or just landed with a thud in the backyard. The original script has Janelle discovering his feet hanging mid-air but the movie ending is ambiguous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.93.49 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-05 (UTC)
I just watched the movie. To me, it sounded like the thud was him hitting the side of the house. Chaotic nipple 09:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
On The Director’s Commentary David Slade Points Out That He Had To Have Patrick Wilson's Hand Digitally Painted Out Because He Pulled The Rope To Make Sure It Was Tight When He Jumped, Also, On The Actors Commentary Wilson Confirms This, And Ellen Page’s Character Says That If He Commits Suicide She'll Dispose Of The Evidence Then After He Jumps Leans Over The Edge And Says: 'Or Not' (As I Recall Correct Me If I'm Wrong) Why Would She Even Say That If The Rope Was To Long And He, Therefore Didn't Keep His End Of The Deal? That Would Lead Me To Believe He Dies But It Could Just As Well Be The Other Way Around I Suppose, I Like The Idea That He Gets Caught. X) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echud123456 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-01 (UTC)
God damn that is one annoying way to type. Gtfo, troll. 72.192.62.77 17:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The above comments aside, I think the fact that the rope pulls visibly tight suggests that he completed hanging himself.  Doubly so if the screenplay called for him to be found clearly hanging.  When we see Hayley leaving his house, rolling down the hill etc., there is no police cars heading up to his house.  Although this is by no means conclusive there would have been lots of ways to suggest that Jeff was arrested and not killed that were not taken.  Also, recall what Hayley said on the roof about Aaron, and what he said "before he killed himself".  Clearly this implies that Hayley did the same to Aaron as she did to Jeff. If Aaron had survived he'd have turned Jeff in to win points with the law, and the movie wouldn't have happened.  I think we can conclude that in the absence of any evidence that Jeff was not hanged, that he did in fact die, just like Aaron. Caelarch 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

To me it seemed like the rope didn't really get tight. Robinrobin (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Unless of course her friend was handling Aaron at nearly the same time. That is supported rather strongly by her friend knowing where to meet her and apparently what she was doing.  You'd think that if Aaron died and any evidence showed up then Jeff would have been lying low. And if she had all this evidence  on Aaron - why all the run up with torture? She just needed the gun and taser on a stick to get him to hang himself by that logic.
So the way the dialogue went there is still a tiny bit of "did she break an 'innocent man' to the point he'd confess to anything to escape public accusation and some aspect of private torture? Was her interruption with a unknown name, Aaron, the point he realized there was no point in further confessing to things he didn't do and he might as well just hang himself? Probably what most people would do if in the hands of a crazy, but one who the public might believe". Note some states don't require conviction to be in sex registry.
True the weight of the story goes against that - but then so did the evidence in Salem witch trials. There are certain crimes where public suspicion is worse than private execution. But then should we care? Its not like the world has a shortage of potentially guilty adults. 69.23.120.164 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
A Conclusive Argument Could Be Made For Both Points, By The Rationale That Was Stated By Caelarch, She Wouldn't Need To Kill Jeff Because He Couldn't Incriminate Aaron To Butter Up The Cops, She Stated Earlier On That It Wasn't Her Intention To Kill Him, And The Worse Of The Two Endings For Jeff Could Presumably Be Being Caught, The Ending I Guess Will Forever Be A Mystery, Evidence Suggest He Gets Offed, But Who Knows? Aside From The Writer.... ;) -Echud123456
She doesn't kill Jeff.  He kills himself.  Raymm 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Mkayy.... well i dont get it guys.
did Jeff Die or not???
For f*** sake, does the person above know how to write? Capitalising every word makes it near-impossible to read - please don't do it.
You're retarded if you can't read things cause its capitolized. It's just as much a sentence if someone TyPEs lIKE THis or any other way. Idiot. Tobias1 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.205.218 (talk)  
Only one problem with Hayley not killing him he then has the ability to tell the cops about her. Given the rest of her plan it seems odd she miss that point. Mind you notice at the end when she falls down the hill, maybe she was planning to claim she was a victim and escaped the guy? Tobias1 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The story is somewhat compromised by the successful hanging. The original trend was somewhat of a recruitment drive for young people to take the law into their own hands Batman style -- in that everything she did would be considered a misdemeanor and dismissed if she was ever caught. For a minor the fact he never left his house would be interpreted as not being kidnapping but merely unlawful restraint (the opposite of the legal argument if an adult did it).
Also the fact that she tracked down the other specific person with dead <grin> certainty was also somewhat of a cop out and unsupported. The original direction of the plot was somewhat along the lines of the Spanish Inquistion -- that Jeff's being a perv and thus having the potential for the ultimate crime was sufficient reason.
A more realistic and chilling explanation would be to explain all the inconsistencies as Hayley being a "La Femme Nikita" for Homeland Security acting under the Patriot Act to clean up the domestic  child molesting terrorists (not by jury, not but tribunal, but assisted self-trial). That would probably be legal as long as adults didn't direct or monitor what she did with the info - and as long as they limited her immunity to misdemeanors. I mean not only did she "solve" the missing child case but she had all that info on neighbors and access to castration videos with limited distribution.
I think either the original direction of the plot or La Femme Nikita direction would be supported by most religious child advocates - but they would find the teen psychic detective hard to swallow. They will point out that even if not physically killed (actually pretty rare), such children are believed to become spiritually dead to family -- often as prostitutes, molesters or otherwise disturbed people unlikely to reunite with family. 69.23.120.164 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"Batman style"? "'La Femme Nikita' for Homeland Security"??? I'm sorry, but was this post intended to be taken seriously? Somnabot 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I resorted to "emotionally laden cultural references" in lieu of a tedious explanation. In total the girl really knew too much and had too much access to materials to be acting alone -- even as an adult. Keep in mind there are tens of thousand of chat rooms and millions of chatters and even thousands of predators. How did she know specific people? Neighbors schedules? Thus we have entered the realm of comic book logic and/or conspiracy with an unseen resource organization that can do all that CSI stuff with computers etc. The only way to avoid that would have been to make her a witness/participant to the original crime, which the film did not. The materials are a bit easier but still not trivial...the castration surgical VHS tape being pretty hard for a kid. And in most places  tasers are more rare and more quickly missed than a gun (cause its in a pocketbook). 69.23.120.164 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Watching the movie I got the clear idea that Hayley tricked Jeff into believing she had castrated him.  To my mind he wouldn't have been able to jump around so much if she had really done so.  However the current version of the plot summary seems to treat the castration scene as factual.  I haven't seen the shooting script or anything from the director or writer on this scene.  Is it made clear either way?  Are there any strong opinions on whether he is or is not castrated? --Tony Sidaway 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't castrated. Jeff says "I'm all here" when he breaks free of the ropes. In the commentary, the director also says straight up that he was not casterated, apoligizing to people confused on this point when watching the film. I'm currently working on rewriting the plot section btw, which I so hate doing. Writing a summary that covers all major points and isn't too detailed/long sucks and is hard to do.--SeizureDog 15:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I know it's hard work.  I much appreciate your making the effort. --Tony Sidaway 16:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's been a while since I've tried to get an article to GA status so this is my current pet project. I just really hate working on plot and reception sections. Ugh.--SeizureDog 16:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well when I saw it I assumed it had happened, and preferred it that way. To be fair, I never heard him say "I'm all here," and in that case it would be faily obvious that it did happen, but she must have gone out of her way to bloody the rag and icepack, as you/he could only see it after he had lifted it after the "operation."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WingedDrant (talk • contribs) 07:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC) 
Do you guys watch movies at all? He retrieves a tape from the vcr, labeled castration procedures, realizing that the screen image was not a live feed. So even if you are death and did not hear his line you would get the point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.32.48 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 

The spoiler notice was removed, so I have returned it to the article and adding my rationale here. Per Wikipedia:Spoiler:

The plot twists are not widely known. Hell, I never had even heard of the film until I rented it.
Spoilers are present in other sections aside from the "Plot" section, and the guideline states that it's ok to warn people if spoilers are present in "an unexpected place".
"In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending...a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section. " The creators were especially careful to not give away even the basic premise of the film, as the trailer leads the viewer into thinking the film has a different plot entirely.
--SeizureDog 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually  I watched this movie on its British release in 2006, precisely because of what I had heard about the treatment of the themes of crime, transgression, victimization and punishment.  On this occasion my memory is clear: I read nor heard very little about the film except this review by Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian and this review by Mark Kermode in its Sunday sister paper, The Observer.
Perhaps The Guardian and the Observer are unusually graphic in their reviews, but I certainly knew to expect an intellectually challenging and interesting film, and in the circumstances the precise details of the plot, with its twists, were secondary to the act of storytelling, which is about communication of ideas.  The important thing about a film (and I'm sure I'm not hanging out on some wild limb in saying this) is not what happens to the protagonist, the antagonist, etc, but what happens to the audience.  This notwithstanding, the reviews gave the reader a good feel for what would happen and there were no plot surprises in the film as far as I was concerned.
I've no idea what the film's creators intended, but what actually happened, at least in Britain, seems to have been an audience well aware that the film owed rather more to Audition than to Lolita.
So I can sort-of see that you probably had a very different expectation of the film.  The trouble is that I don't know, having seen the reviews and then the film itself, what your expectation was, and on what grounds it was based. --Tony Sidaway 04:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps British marketing was treated differently. Information I saw on the film (I'm American) focused on making the film look to be a modern-day Lolita, so the complete shift to Audition-style fifteen minutes into the film took me by surprise. For instance, the only clue on Netflix (from where I rented the film) to Hayley being the instigator was a cryptic "Of course, Hayley may have underlying motives of her own..." Granted, I'm sure that a lot of people will have heard what it's actually about beforehand, there are still a good number of people that have no clue.--SeizureDog 04:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the film really is relentlessly and singlemindedly about Hayley's mission, and it has won plaudits (in the real world!) for that fact, I suggest that the problem here is that we simply don't come out and state that fact in the lead section where it belongs.  Once we've done so there will be no need for spoiler tags because, as an encyclopedia, we will have done our duty: to dispel misconceptions and spread knowledge. --Tony Sidaway 04:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it was marketed much differently in the U.S. Here's the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYBnm1xhM7I . Before I saw it, I knew the basic gist of the film just from the promotion and was not at all surprised that Hayley is seeking vengeance. --YellowTapedR 22:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the trailer linked above, the line "The film is about the confrontation of a sexual predator by a fourteen-year-old girl whom he attempts to ensnare." seems quite reasonable in the lede. It's clear from the trailer that there is some sort of confrontation ("Now it's time to wake up" for example).
The spoiler tag itself isn't needed. The only plot details that aren't clearly marked by section titles are the ones in the "production"section, which should be split out to an "inspiration" section instead, since the inspiration of a film isn't really it's production. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, I tried that. Let me know what you think. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture is clearly an allusion to Little Red Riding Hood, and the trap is obviously intended to catch a man (there are no bears in the film).  I've changed the caption accordingly. --Tony Sidaway 04:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording "as" to "resembling". As mentioned in the "thematic elements" section, the relation to Little Red Riding Hood was not intentional. I'm uncertain as to if the connection was caught early enough for US marketing purposes, so it is debatable as to if the poster was made that way on purpose. --SeizureDog 05:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
you people are missing everything. I just saw it AGAiN last night, and I saw a bear. Right where it always is. I mean, DUH.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.186.14 (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
"Hayley wears a red hoody that often seen as an allusion to "Little Red Riding Hood". " by whom?, this is WP:NOR. The whole thing is very ambiguously told, after they shot the film they thought about the whole red hood/wolf concept? that sounds unlikely, do they really say that in the DVD?. By the way, notice the typo in that sentence (hoody THAT'S often seen), i have to say there are quite a few in the article, i corrected a couple but please pay more attention before you renominate.
The article is mostly written in short phrases, it should be more fluent. Take the second paragraph in the production section, the whole soundstage thing could be changed for one well-written sentence. Same thing with "reception" and "release history" sections, they look like lists when they should be paragraphs. The last paragraph in thematic elements can easily be one sentence, anyway this problem is in practically every section.
The lead could also be one paragraph, it should be added something about what kind of reception the film had. The phrase mentioning the directors past as a music video director should be removed, or mentioned in the article. Leads shouldn't mention anything that's not in the main article. Also, there's no ref in the lead.
The sources are not good enough, i don't have the DVD and my Japanease is terrible, how am i supposed to check all this? If the film/actors won al those awards there should be some references on the internet, some interviews maybe.
Critics?, you mention USA today, no one else had anything to say about a film like this one?. This doesn't seem neutral and if there really was NO negative reviews or comments about this film, well then it should be mentioned (with references) that it was globally acclaimed.
The caption of the poster doesn't need to describe what's on it.
The creative team actively tried to eschew the Hollywood traditions of performance, avoiding cliché beats when they could. I have no idea what this means, please expand.
Extra comment: about that spoiler tag, i saw the rational, but there's really no need, film articles are expected to have the whole plot summarised. I checked out FA and GA about films and couldn't find one with that tag.
Extra comment2: One more screenshot would be nice, it looks like this film has some powerfull scenes, an image would help ilustrate that.
I am failing this article, i don't think it can be fixed in a week, there's just too many things missing and too much copy-editing needed.  Yamanbaiia 18:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Re#1: In the DVD they talk about how people see the red hoody as an allusion to Little Red Riding Hood but say that this happened by accident. Ellen Page liked the color red and hoodies, so that outfit was choosen. I don't see how it's WP:NOR when two lines sentences later an exmaple of given of the allusion in foreign marketing.
Re#3: There's nothing that needs referencing in the lead.
Re#4: Wait, you want me to cite less reliable sources and more convenient ones? I don't understand this logic and there's nothing in Wiki policy that says I need to cite the Internet for ease of use. I cite what my actual references were, nothing more.
Re#7: It reads as it was phrased. Basically, they were trying to be original.
Re#8: It doesn't hurt. --SeizureDog 14:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
1: Who is they? it's too ambiguos, you could say "writer Bla Blabla has said ..." .It looks like OR because you are not saying who claims that the whole concept was mere chance.
3: Oh yes there is. The lead needs to make a comment to what kind of reception the film had, and that comment needs to have a reference. There's not even a lead section now.
4: I never said LESS i said MORE. And i'm going to quote you WP:PROVEIT: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." You can also referr to magazines and books if you don't want to use the internet as a source.
7: Actually no, it means that they went and use a special technique when developing the interactions the two characters would have in the film. The whole directorial beat thing could be very interesting if developed.
8: You are a stubbern fella i give you that. Fine, whatever, i'm sure someone will find a rule for this soon enough.
You seem to disagree with my review, if after this explanation you are still not happy feel free to seek a reassessment. Yamanbaiia 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way, Yamanbaiia, but your comments are full of run-on sentences. Are those the kind of sentences you want when you say the sentences in the article should be longer? --YellowTapedR 16:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the film a 2005 film? It even says so on David Slades Wiki page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.1.101 (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 

"The soundstage was based on Higgins' home, in case their budget did not allow them to use a soundstage." Who is Higgins? This question was posed in-article by a vandal. Could someone check the edit log and see when this appears? J1.grammar natz (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On the officiell site of the film they say that Janelle Roberts was played by Jennifer Holmes. Does anybody know why? because after I googled pictures of both actresses it seems to be clear that the film does not star Jennifer Holmes but Odessa Rae. Has anyone an explanation for this?90.128.73.29 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Odessa Rae is Jennifer Holmes (Canadian) not to be confused with another Jennifer Holmes (actress) (American). QuentinUK (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The plot summary is badly incomplete, but I don't remember the movie well enough to finish it. The plot summary is also badly in need of some copy editing. Raywin42 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hard Candy (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 04:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I made several minor fixes myself. Unfortunately this article currently falls fairly short of GA status; i'm putting this on hold for 7 days so the nominator has a chance to address the issues. I've reviewed everything except checking for copyright violations/close paraphrasing, which I currently cannot do as duplicates detector appears to be down and I don't have the time to do it manually. I'll get to that at some later stage as there are plenty of other things that need improving at this article. Freikorp (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As most of the issues were addressed by the nominator, I took it upon myself to fix the few remaining ones, and expanded the accolades and home media sections for good measure. I'm passing this now. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Lead: The lead is undersized. As per WP:LEAD, the lead must summarise the article, yet there is no mention of production, release or reception.
Plot: Plot section is grossly oversized - currently at over 1100 words. As per WP:FILMPLOT, this must be shortened to between 400 and 700 words, ideally between 500 and 600, before this can be passed. I've added the 'long plot' tag to the article accordingly.
Production: Good, i'm satisfied this section meets GA criteria. 
Release: " The New York Times Magazine later said of Page's performance, "a star was born"." - this belongs in the reception section.
Information about the DVD belongs in a separate "Home media" section - see WP:MOSFILM. 
Reception: The length of this section is good, however, Steve Schneider and Roger Ebert are both given too much weight, Schneider in particular. Shorten both to at least the length that Steve Persall is given, or less than that. All three reviews should probably be combined into one paragraph.
Accolades: The only source for this sub-section is dead. You need a new reference for this section.
In popular culture: This section is unreferenced. I've added a no references tag accordingly. If you can't find a reliable sources for this, this entire section should be deleted.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
External links checks finds an additional reference is dead and one redirects; both of these need to be fixed. 
You need to standardise your references. You have different access date formats, e.g. 'Retrieved 2007-10-20' and 'Retrieved June 30, 2014'.  Furthermore some references don't have access dates at all; you need to pick one consistent style, preferably either 'June 30, 2014' or 30 June 2014'. You also have three different formatting styles for site names, e.g. name not in italics (Box Office Mojo); name in italics (The New York Times Magazine); URL in italics (sandraohnews.com). You need to pick one and stick with it. That being said, sandraohnews.com is a fan site, and is therefore unreliable and should be deleted. The reference 'Lionsgate Drops a Massive Load of Horror Blu-rays in October - Blair Witch and More!' isn't formatted at all! There is a review in the external links sections; this either need to be integrated into the article as a reference or deleted. The 'audio commentary' and 'DVD featurette' references need more details - consider formatting them using Template:Cite AV media.All these issues need to be fixed before this can be passed. 
C. No original research:
Aside from what I have already mentioned regarding the pop culture section being unreferenced, this is all good. 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Both the 'Release' and 'accolades' sections, as well as the 'home media' section that needs to be created could use some expanding, though there may be limited information out there to do this. So it's not a GA issue. 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
No signs of obvious bias, though it wouldn't hurt to add a negative review of the film to the reception section, considering 32% of the 138 reviews were negative. 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:  
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Poster image has sufficient fair-use rationale. 
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hard Candy (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104003758/http://www.vulcanproductions.com/projects/detail/hard-candy.html to http://www.vulcanproductions.com/projects/detail/hard-candy.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hard Candy (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130416011119/http://goldentrailer.com/awards.gta7.php to http://goldentrailer.com/awards.gta7.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the crime genre in the lead. The Ebert source mentions several genres, so we shouldn't cherry pick them. And who would say this is a romance? Gluh. It doesen't even say "crime thriller" in the Ebert lead. According to AllMovie, "A type of crime film that offers a suspenseful account of a successful or failed crime or crimes. Unlike police procedurals, crime thrillers focus on a criminal/criminals rather than a policeman. Crime thrillers usually emphasize action over psychological aspects - murders, robberies, chases, shootouts and double-crosses are central ingredients. Reservoir Dogs, The Asphalt Jungle, The Getaway and The Killing are prime examples.
source" This doesn't apply. I've changed the source accordingly. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thriller seems fine.  Very easy to source, too.  Almost all of the Google search results call it a thriller, though some are a little more specific. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
But both main characters in Hard Candy are criminals, Hayley is a vigilante and Jeff a pedophile rapist. Deloop82 (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
They're both breaking the law, yes, but that does not automatically make it a 'crime' film per se. I prefer the current choice of 'thriller' as well as per Andrzejbanas' reasoning. Freikorp (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
They are both breaking the law, but the crime film isn't as simple as that. If it were the case, every slasher film would be a crime film as these guys are running our killing people. I'll admit the crime genre is relatively loosely defined, but this film seems to be focused on a different situation than the life of a criminal as it is putting people in exciting circumstances they didn't expect. I know that original research and I'm not trying to apply it here, but if you are trying to use the Ebert source, you should not just pick and choose the genres you want from that article. He also calls it a romance(!?), by this logic, you should be adding it as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The proposed origin is highly dubious, as "hard candy" is an extremely common term referring to paedophilic acts.  Given the plot, it clearly fits quite well.  Perhaps it would be sound to mention this far more likely origin in the article?  The proposed one is clearly something made up by whoever said it, akin to John Lennon's claims about Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.  15:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to the final paragraph of the production section? It's sourced, so your opinion that it is "highly dubious" is, quite frankly, rather strange. The producers comments seem extremely straight forward to me. I've never heard of 'hard candy' being used to refer to pedophilia; upon googling I've discovered some references to it being used as such, but I find your claim that it is "an extremely common term" for this to be highly dubious. Your definition of 'extremely common' appears to be quite liberal. In any case, you'd need a reliable source to support your assertion that this is actually where the title came from, especially as it's in direct contradiction to the people who actually made the film. Get a reliable source or just leave the issue alone. Your personal opinions on it are irrelevant, as are mine and anybody else's.
At this stage I'll also mention I find it quite disturbing you removed User:SineBot signing your own post. You're just attracting more attention to yourself be trying to hide, and your attempt to hide is completely pointless since this talk page, like all others, has a publicly searchable edit history. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Please change every reference of Ellen Page to Elliot Page and pronouns from she to he. The actor came out as transgender on twitter, so this needs to be updated. 173.216.168.112 (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. There's an ongoing discussion about this issue in general at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works. This article will not be modified until a consensus is reached. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Done. --LordNimon (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@LordNimon: Clearly you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS for starters. You can't re-instate a contested edit, such as the one you just made, until a consensus is reached. Continuing to do so may result in a loss of editing privilege's. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Damien Linnane: I didn't realise the edit was contested at the time I made it. In any case, I don't feel that threats and insults are an appropriate way to deal with this situation. --LordNimon (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@LordNimon: Do you not understand the meaning of the word contested? It means someone opposed it. I had clearly already opposed it, and you both ignored that and refused to discuss the matter. I'm not threatening you. I'm informing you of what happens when you continue to reinstate contested material instead of discussing the matter. I apologise if I seem obtuse, but you set the tone for this conversation when you decided to completely ignore other editors concerns and instead just do what you wanted. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, legitimate BLP concerns override BRD, and 3RR for that matter. We'll see how the community ends up deciding on this issue. Newimpartial (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd contest that your concern is legitimate, since it's a historical article and an accurate reflection of how the person was credited in the film. But yes, we'll see. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The RFC has closed. This article currently uses "Elliot Page" with a footnote to "credited as Ellen Page". That is the preferred form. Parenthetical phrases are also allowed, but given the number of references that are annotated here, using footnotes seems good because it reduces duplication. It's possible that fewer footnotes are needed, but I have no strong opinion about that. There is another RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: Use of deadname in quotes specifically concerning the use of Elliot vs. Ellen in quotations, which I will be closing in the next few days. -- Beland (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems positively Orwellian for Wikipedia to rewrite the past. By all means let people define their own future and give them the freedom and respect and call them by the name they chose but it seems misguided for an encyclopedia to override the past and then explain further with a footnote. I think it would be far better, more rigorous, more like what an encyclopedia should do, to list the Cast as they were credited at the time, and to put any further explanations in the footnotes. I am not edit warring over it and I will respect the consensus and abide by the policy but it is disappointing that a more rational facts based approach was not taken. It is disappointing some editors are accusing others in their edit summaries of being transphobic for expressing their disagreement. Even if we disagree editors should still be civil about it. -- 109.78.195.245 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
So you are here again to criticize my and other editors' discussions and consensus? I presume this is you too, one of your IPs at least, that was reverted by multiple editors and yet kept undoing to your preferred wording while disregarding the article in question, ignoring MOS:GENDERID that was shown as a revert reason in the edit summary, and violating the RFC. Continuous/deliberate misgendering and deadnaming are part of transphobia. What you are doing is uncivil, not mine or others. I am not surprised by this IP editor's edits here, given the history of their edits and numerous unregistered accounts. ภץאคгöร 09:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Can we renew the semi-protected edit to protect from transphobia?–🐦DrWho42👻 06:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)