The Girl Next Door

Otis Driftwood

I just finished watching this and Im pretty lost for words.The movie is adapted from Jack Ketchums book of the same name and based on the true story of Meg Loughlin.Meg lost both parents in a car accident that crippled her sister and was sent to live with distant relatives in 1950s America.The mother of the house,Ruth Chandler(brilliantly played by Blanche Baker)is a tyrannical,borderline alcoholic figure that takes an instant dislike to Meg and the film unfolds,the abuse of Meg and her sister escalates with much of the final 60 minutes of it happening in the basement of Ruths house where Meg is basically held captive.The abuse gets more and more harsh culminating in one of the most shocking things Ive ever seen in a movie,and Ive watched a hell of alot of out there movies.

Where this movie succeeds is that it is not overtly graphic,alot of the violence/torture happens off screen,including the final scene I mentioned above.It could have easily descended into a graphic slice and dice exploitation film but it is so much better for not doing that.The performances are all top drawer particularly Blythe Auffarth who plays Meg.In what is a very challanging role not once does it become hammy and what she is going through raised genuine empathy in me,something not many actors can do.

Its hard to say if I enjoyed this movie.Ive heard others saying they endured rather than enjoyed it which isnt a bad way of describing the viewing experience.I would recommend it to viewers that want something totally different from the norm but be advised,this is not an easy watch.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830558/

Sad Professor

Horrific real life story but the film is little more than torture porn. It's disturbing but also feels contrived and clichéd. Don't be fooled — it's well made and acted but it's still a horror movie with all the trappings of the genre. Belongs on the rental shelf next to Hostel.

Basq

Hmmm, I thought this thread was the Elisha Cuthbert comedy..


.. clearly not!

MikeC101

Sad Professor wrote: »

Horrific real life story but the film is little more than torture porn. It's disturbing but also feels contrived and clichéd. Don't be fooled — it's well made and acted but it's still a horror movie with all the trappings of the genre. Belongs on the rental shelf next to Hostel.

Having just recently seen Hostel, I was surprised at the lack of violence / torture / gore. There is a fair amount sure, but a lot of it takes place off screen. People had really been building up how horrific and torture filled it was - the only scene I cringed at was the eyeball snipping bit.

Having said that, I'm an Eli Roth fan - I like what he does.

nacho libre

I prefer the An American Crime version of this real life tragedy.

Otis Driftwood

Sad Professor wrote: »

Horrific real life story but the film is little more than torture porn. It's disturbing but also feels contrived and clichéd. Don't be fooled — it's well made and acted but it's still a horror movie with all the trappings of the genre. Belongs on the rental shelf next to Hostel.

Surely you jest?

"Torture porn" (I hate even writing that term) is violence for the sake of violence,up close and in your face.
TGND is nothing like Saw,Hostel etc etc and I personally find the comparison laughable.

Sad Professor

nedtheshed wrote: »

Surely you jest?

"Torture porn" (I hate even writing that term) is violence for the sake of violence,up close and in your face.
TGND is nothing like Saw,Hostel etc etc and I personally find the comparison laughable.

Why? Because it says "based on a true story"? It's amazing how that little line changes how we respond to a film. Watch it again and pretend it's fiction.

The film is sneaky. The "true story" label attracts a different audience than, say, Hostel, who perhaps don't recognise what they are watching. But the underlying filmmaking style is the same, i.e. exploitative. The filmmakers shouldn't get a free pass for this just because it was inspired by a true story.

The film depicts scenes of terrible violence and abuse. And like those other films the worst violence is saved for the end. What is the justification for such scenes? There's no message, no point, just clichéd drivel delivered in voice over, more befitting of a Stephen King adaptation.

I actually don't have any problem with Hostel. At least it isn't pretending to be something that it isn't.

Otis Driftwood

You have seen it right?


I ask because your posts read like Mary Whitehouse video nasty press snippets,ie,she rabbled on about movies that she had never seen.

The violence in the movie is by and large implied,never seen,never focused on,never presented in an exploitative manner,in any scene.

The last scene in the movie is a perfect example of this.

Nothing is visualised and even Megs reaction is not lingered upon,it gets 2 or 3 seconds screen time maximum.

To even try and argue its in the same vein as Hostel et al is ludicrous.

Sad Professor

Even some of the violence in the Hostel/Saw films take place off-screen but I'm no expert on the genre so I can't really say. My definition of "torture porn" is a horror film that dwells on the depiction of pain and misery. TGND may not be as explicit or take the same delight in the violence as those other films but it's so lacking in substance that it deserves to be put in the same category imo.

There are long drawn out scenes of degradation and humiliation. Even if it isn't torture porn it's still definitely a horror film. And I'd consider a horror film dominated by scenes of a teenage girl being tortured under the guise of a true story to be exploitative.

And yes I have seen it. There was a previous thread about it on this board over a year ago. At the time from the reading the synopsis and some reviews it seemed to me like a serious film about a serious and tragic event. So I was quite disappointed.

Otis Driftwood

What kind of substance were you looking for?

Its a movie about a teenage girl that was systematically tortured.How should it be presented?????

The subject matter was presented in the most non exploitative manner as it possibly could be.

There was no relishing of the violence,there was no flashy camera work,there wasnt any lingering shots of Megs injuries,the movie presented the story as it happened.It is a depressing and shocking story so how could it possibly transfer onto the screen in any other fashion?

Hostel and Saw set their stall out as horror movies,plain and simple.TGND is not a horror movie,yes,it is horrific,because the events depicted happened but to put TGND in the same bracket as the other 2 franchises is the same as saying Monsters Ball is hardcore porn.

Im afraid we are just going to have to agree to disagee.