User reviews

I was very unsure on how to rate this film. I watched it all and to be fair the film held my interest throughout. I would say it is probably a good film but something I cannot say I enjoyed watching, which was probably the aim of the director. Taboo subjects in society change rapidly over the years and this film deals with argumentibly the most taboo, certainly a topic most people find hard to talk about. Abuse and torture happen. Fact. What this film managed to do for me is to take both subjects and ram them down my throat at a more than uncomfortable rate. And that is the story line. No humour. No romance as such and no happiness. For me this was not entertainment. I guess some people will enjoy this film, in the same way that people like to rubber neck at accidents when they drive past. The publicity will make this film popular and it will no doubt develop a form of notoriety that clockwork orange and the exorcist enjoyed twenty years ago. But for me. I will not be watching it again as I would not be able to get anything positive out of it.

A bum is run over by a car. Some guy in a business suit gives him CPR for some reason and save his life somehow. The suit then tells us about pain and that nothing has been right in his life since the summer of '58. He pulls some painting out of an envelope.

Now we're in 1958 when this guy, named David of course, was a kid. While at the river he runs into some older girl. They get along well. She tells him she lives with her aunt, Ruth, and sister, Susan, next door to him, after her parent died in a car accident.

This was a time when doors were kept unlocked and kids just showed up in your living room. We meet some of the other teen and preteen kids in the neighborhood, mostly mean guys who don't treat girls well. They also play mean games. David and the girl, Meg, run into each other a couple more times and they start liking each other, even though David seems several years younger. David starts visiting Meg at Ruth's place. There are always a bunch of kids there. Ruth is single, and for some reason she offers these kids beer and cigarettes. She gives moralizing speeches aimed to belittle Meg and Susan. Susan is disabled, wears knee braces, and uses crutches, but that doesn't stop Ruth from violently disciplining her in front of the kids.

One day Meg gives David a painting--the same painting from the intro. When Ruth finds out she interprets it as proof that Meg is a slut. After more abuse eventually Meg is bound in some torture position in the basement while Ruth and all the kids figure out how to make her suffer. They take her clothes off, start cutting her, burning her, eventually raping her. And things go downhill from there, while no one dares say a word and everyone except David participates enthusiastically.

And that's what this movie is about--human inhumanity and cruelty--for the sake of cruelty. It's never clear what Ruth gains from all this, what her motivation is. Perhaps it's just the sorry need to feel superior and doing something because it can be done. I guess that's the common denominator in all torture whether in the 50s or today, allegedly for the sake of "security." More than horror torture porn, this is rather drama torture porn, it's not particularly explicit or visually gruesome. The movie is fairly slow and oddly enough the filmmakers don't bother to establish the character of Meg enough, which is why we can't really feel for her all that much until the very end.

I found this film in a list of best torture films. I love saw and hostel and was hoping for this kind of thing. It's a slow burner at first, it sets the scene for over half an hour and I began thinking am I watching the right film? But when it starts it REALLY starts. I could say a lot about this film, like how the main guy could have done a lot more to help the situation. But I won't say much because I want you to watch it knowing and expecting nothing like I did. What I will say though, is I actually cried at this film. And I don't think I've ever done that in a horror film before. Enjoy!

This is a very harrowing movie based on a true story from 1958 of an adopted teenage girl who is kept tied-up in a basement and horribly physically and sexually abused by her male cousins and other neighborhood kids, all under the orchestration of her very insane woman-hating aunt.

This movie is definitely hard to watch (it prompted at least one walk-out at the midnight film festival showing I attended), but it's nowhere as graphic as it COULD be given the subject matter, and it doesn't revel in the abuse and degradation of the girl like many of these kind of movies tend to (think "I Spit on Your Grave" and some of the recent so-called "torture porn."). It also has a strong moral center in the form of the pubescent boy next door who befriends the girl and becomes increasing disturbed by what is happening to her, but is unable to tell the authorities or even his clueless parents out of loyalty to his friends. This kind of helpless but moral hero is actually a lot more realistic than the usual avenging Rambo type in typical Hollywood movies (which ought to be called "revenge porn", and are even more dangerous than legitimate "torture porn" because they create the kind of dangerous fantasies that lead entire countries to blunder into places like Vietnam or Iraq). In that respect, it kind of reminded me of one of my favorite all-time movies, "River's Edge", which is also very disturbing, but ultimately very morally uplifting in a human (rather than revenge fantasy) way.

The acting by all involved is excellent and the directing more than adequate. Some may fault the movie for not having an obvious "message", but SFW. Don't see this if you're easily offended, but I would recommend it to anyone willing to give it a chance.

After a few years when most cinefiles have had the opportunity to view this perverse (Eli Roth, James Wan, Leigh Wannell should bow to this landmark exploitative realist torture porn exercise)freak show, Blanche Baker's performance as the ringleader of some of the most demented and cruel forms of abuse ever depicted on celluloid. Perfectly cast, this once attractive woman has given into her bitterness and misogynistic hatred. (Did I miss any allusions of her hubby(ies) leaving her for other women?) Any vespice of decency has evaporated. Her skin grows more ragged, pale and lined with each cigarette that mephistocoleanly cascades around her heavily made up face. What makes her so mezmerizing is her command of both language and seductive techniques. The children, some of which are devious to be begin with, fall to Ruth's most primitive primeval desires. Although the film respects its victims to never display any of the sexual abuse on-screen, Ruth's permanent content smile serves the salacious quotient. Oh my, and her voice is god-awful pleasant, delicious - akin to a ripe deep red strawberry sliding down your throat. Although heavy-handed (and apparently not historcially accurate) the movie's visual style impressively mocks the pure, clean-living images usually associated with white-bread 1950's Americana. Outside the cemetery-grey basement, the colors are bright, sunny and filled with the promise of budding adolescence. As to keep the audience horrifyingly subjected to Ruth's hold over the children, certain logical problems of prevention - aka either the children or the system preventing Ruth from caring for so many children - arose. Also, the forment of jealousy inside Ruth over Meg's burgeoning good looks, and other situational contexts are dismissed for intimacy concerns. Ummm...not really sure what the bookended present-day scenes served outside to add some fatuous symbolism. The end credits score should have haunted me more.

This had the feel of a made for TV movie from the 1980's. It starts slowly but you gradually get a sense of dread at what will happen next. Unfortunately even if you are prepared for what will happen it is still pretty shocking.

The acting is generally pretty low rate though the two main young actors Blythe Auffarth as Meg and Daniel Manche as David are both excellent.

This is not a film to enjoy unless you are some kind of sick sadist. It is grim and undeniably hard to watch and the fact it is based on a true story makes it even more shocking and it's a sad fact that things like this went on and still go on.

You may ask why make a film like this. Well in my mind if these things are swept under the carpet then nothing changes. If films like this make even one person speak up about the abuse they have suffered in silence then that's a good thing.

I didn't enjoy watching the film but it is well done and has an important message that you should never keep quiet when you know something is wrong.

I consider myself a Horror freak. I'm pretty experienced with the genre, and I don't scare or shock easily. I've "survived" Martyrs, The Inside and Murder Set Pieces. This film squeezed my soul to the point of trauma.

The entire film is one long psychological torture, leaving the audience desperate, enraged, frustrated and helpless. It's been a while since I felt the urge to scream, pick up the computer screen and bash it to pieces. That was what I wanted to do to the characters of this film (except the one protagonist of course).

If you've ever thought a person could be cruel, abusive, and plain down right evil - The Girl Next Door will teach you that you haven't seen anything yet. There's barely any blood, and still - I have never, ever been more shocked and disturbed over a film. I'm a grown man, and I had to continuously remind myself that it was just a film and not real. Watching this makes you wanna curl inside yourself and cry like a child, or scream and go on a rampage.

This film is a proof that immense implication of violence always leaves a harder mark than graphic violence and gore. The script, the acting, the screenplay... all put together create a sick and traumatizing experience. The fact that this is based on a true story and real events - makes it even more shocking. Seriously, I need a hug right now.

I will never recommend this film to anyone, except people who have emotional problems, feel numb and unable to experience emotions. This film would make a dead body cry. One might be able to appreciate it as a film, but not enjoy it. I really hope there's a hell dark enough with sadistic enough eternal torture for those who committed the acts portrayed here.

First time I've rated a film 10.

This film is based on a real-life murder case. Although I have seen this story before with Ellen Page, it was worth watching again. In fact, both this and the Page film An American Crime, came out the same year.

This film lets you in the door easy. It starts with children playing, and it progresses gradually. Next we see the mom (Blanche Baker) providing her sons with beer and cigarettes, while talking about hoochie-coochie dancers.

Mom raises the stakes while humiliating Meg (Blythe Auffarth) in front of her sons. Meg is in her Aunt's home because her parents died. It gets worse and worse.

After she goes to the police, she is tied up naked in the basement. One can only imagine what perversity awaits her.

The torture increases to levels that were difficult to watch. This is made more difficult when you realize that this is based upon a true story and real people were involved.

If I was to say the movie was as good as the book I'd be a big fat liar. It's not a bad movie by any means but it just didn't feel like it did the trick. After I finished the book, I remember thinking that it was one of the most disturbing books I've read. But after watching the movie, the first thought I had was "Meh".

As everyone probably already knows the story is based on Jack Ketchum's depressing and disturbing read by the same name, The Girl Next Door. I suppose the movie was played out in a faithful enough way, but how it felt is an entirely different story. I don't know about anyone else, but this really felt like a made-for-TV movie. And they could have easily made it so if they deleted a little nudity and took out the swear words. The acting in this flick is laughable at times, especially when you have the characters Meg and Davey alone together. Also the bully, what's his name....well, when he first entered the movie strutting along....now that was some cheesy acting. This really reminds me of how amazing the young actors were in Stand By Me. But anyways, during last 30 minutes or so the movie sticks with the disturbing nature of the book and goes from a really average movie, to an alright film. The movie moves at a pretty nice pace, but some scenes, like when Ruth is describing things to the kids, those seem a little lengthy sometimes.

I only know a couple people that have seen this as well, and they happened to love it. It's pretty obvious that the acting in this film (besides the actress who played Ruth) is amateur at best, and with a movie with nothing but acting to drive it along, I'm surprised so many people are really enjoying it as much as they say. But whatever, besides the Made-for-TV feel and the weak acting, it stayed pretty faithful enough to the book, and that's a pretty rare thing. But this is another case where the book outshines the movie by a large margin. And if you have the choice watch the movie first, because that way the likelihood of being letdown is much lower. A 6 outta 10.

I hated this movie! I know this story has to be told because it happens more than we would like to think. My problem with this movie is they glorify the torture that this girl goes through and to be honest this should have never been made into a movie. This should be a documentary of the real failure of CPS, government, and every citizen not saying anything when they see abuse. This story happened 50 years ago but look at Gabriel Hernandez who suffered the same fate, we have to stand up for children because nobody else will. This should also be a wake up call on the justice system, the people that perpetrated these disgusting acts of torture that lead to this girls death were all released from jail serving the minimum sentence.

I think this is the most disturbing film I've ever seen. I'm a horror film buff and thought I had seen it all, from indie chillers to Asian horror. But never has a film scraped my core like this one. I wouldn't call it "entertaining". But I guess I felt like I had to see it through. Most of the direct abuse is implied and described, which is a method that only adds to the horrifying emotions that result. I believe that the liberties taken in movies when dealing with true crime almost force people to feel what they should be feeling upon learning about such events. It's unfortunate that people skim the news with little emotion. Production, writing, acting and directing are superb in making this story real. Knowing that such an event really took place made it hurt so much more. I actually took an Alka-Seltzer after watching. Please don't let the kids watch.

In the summer 1958, David Moran befriends Meg Loughlin who had just moved in next door. She and her crippled sister Susan from NYC lost their parents in the car accident. They are forced to live with their disturbed aunt Ruth Chandler (Blanche Baker) and her three sons. Ruth belittles the girls teaching her sons to abuse Meg. Soon the abuse turns to torture and rape as Ruth brings in the neighborhood kids. David tries to help Meg but he is a powerless boy.

The story is beyond disturbing. It is more disturbing than even the worst torture porn generated by Hollywood. It is the use of children that is the most disturbing. The run-of-the-mill torture horror is something manufactured. It gets a scare and possibly a laugh. This movie disturbs the audience to their core. That's before I realize that it has a real life counterpart. The Sylvia Likens story sounds even worst. The pregnant daughter sounds just as scary as the mother. The movie does struggle to depict the torture in any acceptable way which is a tough proposition. Director Gregory Wilson doesn't bring much in terms of style. The lead kid is quite good but I'm not sure how any of the kids dealt with filming the torture.

This is a one and done movie. It has to be one of the most gruesome movies and stories I've ever seen. This is based on a novel? If so, the writer is one sick SOB.

Meg Loughlin's parents are dead, causing her and her sister to live with their aunt Ruth. Ruth is not like the other parents: she allows the neighborhood children to smoke and drink, and has an intense dislike for Meg -- for no real reason. After telling the police about mistreatment, Meg's punishment becomes more and more severe.

First, let me say that Blythe Auffarth (who plays Meg Loughlin) is an amazing actress. Some of the scenes in this film are truly awful -- not acted awful, mind you, but are just visually repellent. Most actresses would say no to the torture, rape and beatings contained in this film. And you cannot blame them. But Auffarth accepts the role and does an amazing job of being the normal "girl next door".

While watching this film, I told myself I had finally found the spiritual successor to "Last House on the Left" and my opinion remains the same. Like "Last House", this film is scary because of its realism. The events could actually happen to the victim, it's not just a psycho with an ax (which, while possible, is more fantasy than anything). Perhaps this film even trumps "Last House" in a way because the events really did happen, and actually happened worse than depicted here. The real girl, for example, also had to consume human waste, which is not shown here.

Making the film even more powerful is that we are shown the events from the point of view of the neighbor boy, who has a crush on Meg (despite being a few years younger). We watch them meet, become friends and then as events spin more and more out of control we see how completely helpless the boy is. While the boy is only mildly harmed in the film, it's an emotional roller coaster to be put in his shoes knowing everything that is happening and having nothing available to remedy it. The suffering he feels vicariously, we also feel vicariously. It's a pain train.

I cannot recommend this film for the squeamish. I was very uneasy watching it, making this film a member of a very exclusive list (with such others as "Kids"). Even those who enjoy seeing a film of slaughter (and sometimes I do) will be shocked in some way by this one. It's not your Jason or Freddy film, it's your sister or girlfriend really being kidnapped and there's nothing you can do about it. And yes, this really did happen and it can happen again.

I wasn't really sure what I was sitting down to watch as I sat down late in 2020 to watch the 2007 movie "The Girl Next Door" from writers Daniel Farrands and Philip Nutman. But on the count of never having seen the movie, of course I managed to find the time to sit down to watch it.

And while "The Girl Next Door" is a rather slow paced movie, I have to say that you should endure and stick with it, because director Gregory Wilson definitely managed to slowly set up the story and build up the dread and suspense in the way that he directed the movie. So bear with the slow pacing of the narrative, because this movie turns out to be the kind of movie that will stick with you for some time and get under your skin - especially so since it was based around actual real events.

The storyline told in "The Girl Next Door" is a rather brutal storyline actually. While the movie starts out slow and almost boring, it does build up in intensity and you get drawn in by the horrible events that take place, and it end up being cringeworthy to watch, and I know that "The Girl Next Door" was definitely getting an emotional reaction roused in me. I have to say that the contents of this movie is definitely not suited for just everyone in the audience; so viewer discretion is advisable. I found "The Girl Next Door" to be a movie that appalled me, but also at the same time brought some clarity to events of how deeply disturbed some people can be.

The acting in the movie is good, and both Blythe Auffarth and Daniel Manche carried the movie quite well with their performances. And as much as I loathed the Ruth character, I have to say that actress Blanche Baker definitely put on a very memorable performance here. The movie also have familiar faces such as William Atherton and Grant Show on the cast list, in smaller roles though.

If you are not the squeamish and easily disturbed type, then you should definitely take the time to sit down and watch "The Girl Next Door", if you find yourself with the chance to do so. While this movie is a disturbing movie, it is definitely one that has a story well-worth telling, especially if you have an interest in the human psyche.

My rating of "The Girl Next Door" is a solid seven out of ten stars.

I accidentally clicked on this title thinking it was American Crime starring Ellen Page and a whole roster of real, quality actors. When I realized I did not recognize one person, and the "storyline" was just torture,fast forwarded to the end. Was expecting a courtroom scene or credits referencing the real life case. That did not happen, because this movie is based on someone's fiction.

Although this movie came out around the same time as American Crime, there was zero reason to make this film except to hide perversion in plain sight. Who submitted all the 10-star reviews? Someone paid? Someone sending a dogwhistle to other maps types? Maybe someone trying to trick a naive viewer into watching something unwatchable and disturbing? Because there is nothing "entertaining" in this film, and no message or moral lesson to learn. If you like to watch children being mutilated and abused, please seek therapy. Today.

One of the problems I had with Jack Ketchum's strongly-recommended novel "The Girl Next Door" was its inability to alienate itself from the basement of genre pulp--granted, I sat through much of the novel with a knot in my stomach, and I "got" the author's transformation of a gang of neighborhood kids into one faceless mass, herded by Ruth Chandler--a sadistic matriarch in the throes of mental dissolution. But the sadism ultimately outweighed the humanity scratching beneath the surface, leaving me unsettled but also indifferent toward the novel as a whole. And the incessant metaphors pertaining to "darkness" and "monsters" grew repetitive and trite early on.

So I approached Gregory Wilson's filmed adaptation with some skepticism, and a lot of curiosity (particularly in how the novel's subject matter could be distilled into an R-rated feature). While "The Girl Next Door" has its share of rough edges (both literally and aesthetically), it is a film that left me heartbroken and on the verge of tears by the end. It's a raw, brutal experience that also balances the scale of Humanity vs. Sadism that Ketchum could not.

The most noticeable change (and, ultimately, probably most necessary for the medium) is the alteration of David Moran's (Daniel Manche) character into a more pure-hearted onlooker than a conscientious participant in the actual deeds that bring about the demise of Meg Loughlin (Blythe Auffarth). What screenwriters Daniel Farrands and Philip Nutman do, however, is make David "just one of the boys"--filled with youthful innocence but also a morality that is kick-started (and accelerated) by his meeting with Meg. The tortures the girl suffers at the hands of Ruth Chandler (Blanche Baker) become all the more harrowing because of David's forced implication, but also his inability to outrun the syndicate of vile peer pressure employed by his friends.

The second most noticeable change is the truncating of characterization (another necessary evil in adaptation), which ultimately leaves the rest of the neighborhood kids only vaguely defined. Yet for the film's purposes, this almost does a better job of presenting the "faceless mob" than Ketchum's prose.

While the performances of the child actors can occasionally be overwrought, Manche is fantastic as the curious and conflicted David, showing a maturity that makes the third act all the more compelling; Auffrath is convincing and heartbreaking as Meg, a truly courageous performance. But the biggest standout is--quite appropriately--Baker's Ruth, who begins as a beautiful Donna Reed type, but slowly descends into a haggard, chain-smoking gargoyle, whose own internalized self-loathing has transformed Meg into a tableau for torture, leaving her mourning (with an always-blank stare) for an era that will never return. It's a strong performance of sinister subtleties.

Additionally, the unflinching violence of the novel has been pared down, but is far from gone. Wilson manages to film the most repulsive acts with a tactful eye that makes them all the more chilling. If you're willing to make the emotional deposit "The Girl Next Door" requires, you'll be shaken, disturbed, and ultimately saddened by the events which transpire.

If you're interested in this story from a crime perspective, do yourself a favor and rent "American Crime" instead. You get A-list actors like Catherine Keener and Ellen Page, a believable story arc and progression, and character back-stories and motivations.

If you're interested in seeing just scene after scene of graphic torture and are just one sick f*ck, then this is the version for you. Truly, "The Girl Next Door" is as tawdry as its peek-a-boo title and poster art.

First of all, the plot device of David (and that's all he is) is pointless and manipulative. There's no need for this character to be in this story except to make you squirm and feel implicit guilt (you're watching it too...deep!). Secondly, the acting is marginal and clichéd. Thirdly, and worst, is the ridiculously fast progression to the torture and rape scenes which linger to the point of being fetishistic.

The way this rendition plays out (no pun intended) is the very definition of snuff: the killing of someone to derive a sexual response. This goes beyond documentary, beyond mere exposition. It's just offensive.

I give it three stars merely because yes, it's an important story to tell and yes, it is harsh because the crimes were harsh. But harsh and perverted are just not the same thing. Not at all.