MovieChat Forums > Hard Candy (2006) Discussion > What's wrong with people?

What's wrong with people?

posted 10 years ago by novastar_6
32 replies | jump to latest

Everybody saying 'there's no real PROOF he's a pedophile', uh HELLO? WHAT is he doing with a 14 year old in the first place? Yeah, he chatted her up, then picked her up, and took her back to his place, tried getting pictures of her doing a striptease, oh that's not suspicious behavior at ALL, is it? NOT for somebody who's not fat, bald and ugly, if he were those things then YES he'd obviously be a pedophile but he's 'good looking' so therefore he's innocent and there's a logical explanation for what he does with young girls. What the hell?

[–] stickyfingaz_reincarnated 10 years ago

So where's the proof he's a pedophile?

You know, I don't find this stuff amusing anymore...

[–] novastar_6 10 years ago

The whole damn movie, that's where.

[–] HelloMyNameIsMrBurns 8 years ago

False.

[–] codeinemassacre 10 years ago

The only proof is Jeff had an attraction to Hayley, who he assumed to be 14. Hayley got him drunk and he yelled at her to sit down because she was making him uncomfortable, and he was wasted/drugged.

He also had an attraction to underage girls according to his portfolio, but we never see the photos.

Was this wrong? Yes. They were young and impressionable. He found a legal loophole.

Were they children? It's unlikely he would be able to photograph children nude. Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children, not girls developed enough to be models.

The movie didn't explain much of anything. Based on every small aspect of his behavior, my assumption is he was sexually interested in underage girls, although he was just reaching the tipping point of actually having sex with them. By definition, he wasn't a pedophile, though.

[–] novastar_6 10 years ago

But by definition he's a child murderer by his own admission.

[–] codeinemassacre 10 years ago

He could be, but he said he didn't do it. He said he just wanted to photograph it.

[–] therefdotcom 10 years ago

he was present when an underage girl was gangraped and killed AND he wanted to take pictures of that. that part he admits to. also, the pics in the vault set off panic in him once discovered, plus he did not want the police to check his computer after his suicide. and finally he prefers death to her calling the police. did you sleep through the film?

[–] codeinemassacre 10 years ago

The film didn't mention anything about a "gang rape" and we did not see the pictures in the vault.

None of what you mentioned proves Jeff killed the girl. You probably were too stupid to understand my post, but I mentioned earlier Jeff said he wasn't the one who did it. He was just present and wanted to photograph.

You clearly didn't watch the same movie. It's likely you're a troll considering this is the second post by me you've responded to acting like a prick, when you don't know a damn thing about the factual information the film presents.

[–] novastar_6 10 years ago

Jeff said he wasn't the one who did it. He was just present and wanted to photograph.

Check the law, whether he's lying, or whether he just watched and photographed her rape and murder, he is equally liable for her murder as his partner. You have ANY connection to a murder, your ass is just as much grass as the one who actually did the deed.

[–] codeinemassacre 10 years ago

You're missing the point. The OP said Jeff killed her. Regardless if he was present during the crime and therefore involved in some manner, that doesn't mean he directly murdered her. We have no idea what he was doing. I don't think the film meant for anyone question rushed dialogue (I say rushed because the producer stated the last 1/4 was done in this manner to meet a deadline, and it's rather apparent).

[–] therefdotcom 10 years ago

"Divergent (2014)
You know, this was actually decent."

that explains a lot.

[–] doubl3 9 years ago

Plus what fi he was lying to begin with because she wasn't believing his story that he wasn't the murderer, so he just changed it to he saw it, but wasn't involved, in hopes she would believe he (possibly truthfully) didn't commit murder.

[–] TheManInOil 10 years ago

What are you talking about? She found kiddy porn in his safe. He raped and killed a girl.

No proof?

[–] codeinemassacre 10 years ago

No, again, there is no proof. As the viewer, we are presented with absolutely no clear evidence. The pictures in the safe are not shown. Jeff said he didn't kill the girl. He never said he raped her, either. He was present during the situation and wanted to photograph.

There is no clear evidence whatsoever. It's meant to be left to the viewer to decide.

[–] novastar_6 10 years ago

Yeah, he was THERE when she was being raped and murdered but OH, as long as he says he was JUST taking pictures, that makes it okay? That makes him less guilty? No it doesn't. Which EVER of them actually did it, they are both equally guilty of murder. Exactly WHAT part of that don't you get? In what world are you INNOCENT if you're present during a murder and do NOTHING to stop it?

[–] hihi_hellokitty 8 years ago

Jeff SAYS he only took pictures. How do you know he's not lying? At what point did the movie make you think ANYTHING he says is truthful? His accomplice claims that Jeff was the one who killed Donna. I think they are both liers trying to cover for themselves.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jenx42 10 years ago

Exactly! But also, a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, regardless of whether or not they ever lay a hand on one. I guess people don't understand that.

[–] CharmingAss_hole 10 years ago

Exactly! But also, a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, regardless of whether or not they ever lay a hand on one. I guess people don't understand that.

I guess you don't understand that a pedophile is defined as a person who is attracted to prepubescent children; the female lead (and wildly overrated actress) in this movie did not portray a prepubescent child. His crime in terms of attraction would be ephebophelia, which isn't a universal crime across the world and also isn't biologically illogical. Get on your high horse all you want about how men shouldn't fundamentally desire underage girls (that's never gonna stop btw), but your current classification of the characters in this movie is totally inaccurate.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe f_uck yourself.

[–] jenx42 10 years ago

Um,that's what I said, children. I think you took my comment wrong as I wasn't talking about the characters in this movie. I was simply referring to the "no proof he touched anyone" garbage and speaking in real life terms, that any kind of "phile" doesn't have to act on the desire to be considered to have the psychological disorder. Also, there are many things not expressly stated in this film. I took that to mean that we don't fully know what all his twisted proclivities are. Seems you're the one on a high horse here dude!

[–] seth-shaw23 10 years ago

He didn't touch her but he did take a girl who said she was 14 to his house and preceded to serve her alcoholic drinks. This is obviously inappropriate but he was still not going to be in serious trouble as he could just say she was modeling and his DNA isn't on her. However, once she finds the safe he is done. We are led to believe there are very incriminating photos that would be indefensible. Not to mention that he clearly admitted his guiltiness at the end.

To me this movie was more interesting to consider who this girl really is and what happened to her previously.

[–] Jimbo_BSD 10 years ago

I'm actually blown away by the conversations on this page. The guy was clearly a pedophile and deserved exactly what he got. I've never seen so many people defend the creep. It's kinda scary. Makes me wonder what's up with those people.

All the evidence is there. For some reason, some people choose not to see it. I can't understand why. But it's very disturbing to see the support he's getting and the hate she's getting.

[–] novastar_6 10 years ago

I'm actually blown away by the conversations on this page. The guy was clearly a pedophile and deserved exactly what he got. I've never seen so many people defend the creep. It's kinda scary. Makes me wonder what's up with those people.

All the evidence is there. For some reason, some people choose not to see it. I can't understand why. But it's very disturbing to see the support he's getting and the hate she's getting.

It's because he's not a bald 300 pound goon with body hair and scars and tattoos, if he was all those things combined, he wouldn't have anybody in his corner, but he's 'good looking' so he MUST be innocent, it MUST be a mistake, a misunderstanding, etc.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jimbo_BSD 9 years ago

You're sticking up for the monster and I'm the one that needs help? OK, buddy. Do the world a favor and stay away from kids.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IMDbUser123456 9 years ago

What movie did you watch? She was the one talking him into all the stuff you mentioned. She set up the meeting, she told him to take her back to his place, she made the drinks, she told him to take pictures of him, she started stripping without him telling her to.
You are simply so blinded by your emotions against pedophiles/child molesters that you refuse to see the obvious.
It was all part of her plan, if she hadn't been the one pushing for everything to happen it wouldn't have.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

you are on a watchlist, aren't you?

[–] IMDbUser123456 9 years ago

Was that supposed to be some kind of childish attempt at insulting me because you are too dull to actually answer to my comment?

[–] hihi_hellokitty 8 years ago

Oh because Hayley was coming on to Jeff that makes it totally ok that Jeff never tries to stop her being the ADULT. Disgusting you're gross. Tell your mom, wife, children, grandmother how you feel about this movie and Jeff.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hihi_hellokitty 8 years ago

No you're sad. Talking to a 14 year old girl is fine, but Jeff's intentions were never to just talk to Hayley. I think that much is obvious.