MovieChat Forums > Hard Candy (2006) Discussion > Its never clear if he is guilty right?!?

Its never clear if he is guilty right?!?

posted 11 years ago by aeris20000
96 replies | jump to latest

Just read some reviews and even a Wikipedia summary, and ppl treat Jeff like he is definitely a murdering child abuser and Hayley was seeking revenge.

Did we watch the same movie?! Thats the complete opposite impression I got from this movie.

Even at the end it is never clear if he was involved with the girls death and strongly hints that he is just saying what she wants to hear. He has been worn down and tortured and because he does fancy under age girls,(not a crime in itself and its never revealed whether he ever acted on it or if the images in his safe were even illegal or just his private legal shame, its ambiguous on whether there is any real evidence or just stuff Hayley fabricated), he is ashamed and doesn't want his ex, the woman he loves, to find out about it.

That is the true strength of this film, we feel and empathise with both characters simultaneously, never knowing if Jeff is an abuser, under age sex perp, or completely innocent of any crime. Never knowing if Hayley is the friend of the murdered girl,was abused before and drove psycho by it, or was lying or is just a pure psycho.

All we KNOW is that Jeff fancies under age girls, nothing else. This ambiguity makes this film a classic.....

And thats what I thought everyone who loved it got. Finding out other ppl dont has been my biggest movie interpretation shock in years.

Maybe this film is just a mirror that shows us back our prejudices, values and assumptions of the world if ppl who also love this film get the exact opposite interpretation.

So anyone who loves the film (7/10 or above), please respond. I give the film a 7/10,making it a superb film as I am a harsh reviewer. If the film really does say Jeff is the abuser and Hayley was seeking revenge, 100%, case closed. I would have to drop it to an average 5/10.

[–] novastar_6 11 years ago

He's guilty, simple as that.

[–] aeris20000 11 years ago

Wow, I am stunned by the intellectual magnitude of this comment. I mean, wow, this comment is so stunning I dont think even the very first lesson of the first day of year one Troll school would be at such a pathetic level.

Obvious Trolls are like inexorable invulnerable Gods compared to the level of Troll shown by this comment.

Being right at the bottom of the Official Troll rankings is not something to aspire too Novastar_6

[–] ScottM2753 11 years ago

Wow, the intellectual magnitude of YOUR original post clearly shows that you are too stupid to understand the relevance of the evidence that was pulled from the safe, yet obviously not shown on the screen to know that he was guilty. Not to mention his admission of guilt at the very end of the movie.

So, by your above attack on someone who is obviously far more intelligent than you in knowing the guy was guilty - who does that make the troll... hmmm, oh right! The troll is you!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dini0519 11 years ago

I'd give it a 2/10. I couldn't stop watching it, but will never watch it again. And no, it did NOT seem clear that he was guilty. The only thing clear was that the Ellen Page character was insane.

Dini

[–] LionInWinter 10 years ago

He was so obviously guilty. You're just in denial because you liked his character, and so did I. But there's no way he isn't.

[–] actionmanozzie 8 years ago

the trivia on this page actually says that he was not guilty.

[–] LionInWinter 8 years ago

Only about not killing the other girl, everything else he still did.

[–] dealey52 10 years ago

I totally agree with you dini0519! And now how many blind paths are police going to be led down looking to clear other crimes that he had nothing to do with.

[–] disneyed 9 years ago

I SO agree with you dini! I would give the film a 4/10, but it was like a really bad car accident. I wanted to stop looking and couldn't. His character, if in fact he was guilty, and he probably was, was despicable. But her...this was the best portrayal of a psychopath I have even seen and would like to NEVER see again.

"You find a glimmer of happiness in this world, there's always someone who wants to destroy it." JD

[–] VBeretta 8 years ago

That she was insane doesn't make him not guilty. The whole movie could have been a clash between two very sick people.

[–] danloki 8 years ago

That she was insane doesn't make him not guilty. The whole movie could have been a clash between two very sick people.

👏 My thoughts as well.

[–] Kataspie 11 years ago

Didn't Hayley find some evidence in his safe, but it was never shown on screen?

Evolve or die.

[–] Rayvio 11 years ago

correct. for reasons which I would hope are obvious, the evidence was never shown on screen but the scene makes it clear beyond any doubt what it actually is and that he is guilty

~~~
"I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me..."

[–] Fungazi 11 years ago

She found the evidence in his safe, maybe you were busy doing imdb postings or something. Also, I wouldn't say most people emphasize with either, the pedophile weirdo, or the pyshopathic teenager.

[–] jamieflor 9 years ago

I think you meant empathize. Empathy, and emphasis. are 2 very different words.

[–] SolitaryCZ 11 years ago

SPOILERS ahead:

I guess you did not see the same movie, because the ending is pretty clear on the subject of Jeff being involved. When he is confessing on the roof, he says that it was him and another guy, but he just watched and wanted to take photos, but he did not let him and it was the other guy who killed Donna and if she let him go, he will tell her his name... and you are right that this can be just some begging and telling her what she wants to hear... BUT when she mentions that this is exactly what Aaron said before he killed himself (easy deduction = she already got to him first and he confessed the same thing), you can clearly see Jeff giving up, because he was beaten. She knew everything, she wasn't just some random crazy teenager, she was the movie's justice. We can only speculate how did she found Aaron, but it's safe to say that it was probably him who pointed Hayley to Jeff.

By the way, just before Jeff heads up to the roof he has his "rage" moment when he stabs the picture ranting and thanking her how he is glad that he can finally see who he is. Finally admitting to himself that this is what he is (killer, predator) and that she let him see it.

So yeah, he was definitely directly involved, I can't honestly see how can anyone doubt that... this movie never tried to deny his guilt... sure half of the movie is trying to be little ambiguous about his guilt, but in the end it's all out. What we don't know is who actually killed the girl, but that is the point of the movie. Noone knows, not even Hayley, but she did not care, she wasn't police or law... they both share the same guilt.

[–] greasykid1 11 years ago

Totally agree with the description of the evidence here. Only thing I'd say is that, while Hayley takes the form of the movie's "justice", it IS vigilante justice and still inherently wrong.

The movie does not portray Hayley as the hero. She is completely insane. The fact that this movie really has no real moral "message" that it's trying to make us, the viewers follow, is what makes is so great.

Jeff is clearly proven to be guilty - even if only as an accessory - to the rape and murder Donna.
But, by the end of the movie we also know that Hayley is also (at least) a 2-time murderer herself.

[–] ForTheNonce 11 years ago

it IS vigilante justice and still inherently wrong.

How is it "inherently" wrong? Because Hayley didn't go to a police academy first? She went through EXTREME, life-threatening situations to get the proof he was guilty before she did anything.

What would be "inherently wrong" is him never being served his justice.

[–] dealey52 10 years ago

NO she wasn't a sworn officer of the law, police academy or not. She's just a loose cannon killer with no conscience or remorse.

[–] ForTheNonce 9 years ago

But she isn't. Firstly, she didn't kill anyone, she just threatened to expose what they did and THEY committed suicide. She isn't running around shooting people. She had a very good reason why she chose those men.

[–] gerbilstunts 8 years ago

There's nothing legal about driving someone to suicide.

[–] edfor 8 years ago

She went through life-threatening situations by choice to get off as a sadistic predator, which she was. If anything, she was projecting how much she loathes herself onto the men, because she's just like them. Only she preys on pedophiles; they prey on kids. Either way: Both sadistic *beep*

[–] twacy_anne 10 years ago

Hayley isn't actually a murderer, since Jeff and Aaron both killed themselves.

[–] novastar_6 10 years ago

Exactly, they made that choice.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Splarne 10 years ago

her friend also made the choice to go hang out with adult males. i guess that absolves them of the crime since she was "willing"

***

Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

[–] walkenschvitzen 10 years ago

You have one disgusting mindset.

Did you really just say that if the guy who was forced to take ownership in his involvement in serial child abuse and the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl -- whether that meant the woman of his dreams finding out about who he really is, and jail; or taking his own life -- that if that represents that man getting what he deserves, because he fell for the bait of a 14-year-old girl who wanted him to face up to the monstrous evil that he committed; then that also means that the 14-year-old girl who was raped and murdered also got what she deserved because she fell for the bait set by her rapists and murderers?

Yeah, um, why don't you have a seat right over there?

I have to say that's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard.

[–] Splarne 10 years ago

yeah. i did. what of it?

it's a over-the-top movie about revenge and forcing someone to get "instant karma" for their wrong doings. it's a movie.

this is the less graphic version of "i spit on your grave"

stop treating this as if it is "based on a true story".

***

Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

[–] TeenGangDeb 9 years ago

stop treating this as if it is "based on a true story".

The screenplay's inspiration came from Japan. Producer David Higgins had read reports of Japanese schoolgirls ambushing men who surfed the Internet for underage dates and later developed the story.

++++++
Love means never having to say you're ugly. - The Abominable Dr. Phibes

[–] ForTheNonce 9 years ago

She was willing to be killed, eh? 

BTW it is still rape whether a MINOR is willing or not.

[–] kcott44 9 years ago

I respectfully disagree, I hate this film with a passion but I think the film DOES portray her as a hero. I love revenge films, probably my favorite sub-genre, vigilantism is not the right thing to do, I think more films capture that a lot better. Death Wish, the severely underrated Death Sentence, Dead Man's Shoes, Rolling Thunder, Cutter's Way, etc. are fine films that show the horror and pain of vigilantism. I wouldn't say Jeff is clearly proven guilty as a pedophile/murderer, yes, as an accessory, he did admit but as for the rest, nope. Hard Candy comes off as a pretty man-hating film, yes I know it was written and directed by two different men but it still comes across as such.

I absolutely hate this film, I will admit I haven't seen it in about 3 years but it is one of my least favorite films of all time.

[–] VBeretta 8 years ago

We don't know about Aaron, but Hayley didn't kill Jeff. That was, IMHO, the beauty of her plan.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrJJay 11 years ago

You should stop watching movies. Don't get me wrong. I don't say it to disparage you. I'm just saying cuz you definetely seem to wasting your time.

Sure, there are still some ambiguity -which makes the movie even better- like we don't exactly know whether he killed the girl 'himself' which is not the point as Hayley said but asking if he's guilty? Seriously??
And saying that you're a harsh reviewer, pff, nice troll. Nice try though, i'll give you that. ;)

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] showa48 9 years ago

"You have no business being a "harsh reviewer" because you obviously have the attention span of a gnat, and should stick to "reviewing" SpongeBob."

Wow....easy now..!!

He might not have catched some parts of the movie - but there is absolutely no reason for a demeaning tone like that.

There is nothing inside - and they rebuild it every 20th year.

[–] Prismark10 11 years ago

He said he never killed her but just took photos. According to the law of joint enterprise he is guilty.

Its that man again!!

[–] novastar_6 11 years ago

He is not just guilty, under law there's NO difference if he killed her or not, he was there, he's JUST as guilty of murder either way.

[–] sillyspaghetti 11 years ago

He admits he was a part of it at the end. Whether he or "Aaron" did the killing or the watching, he is a despicable, deplorable human who gets EXACTLY what he deserves!!!