This is the first film that's ever truly disturbed me (as an adult). I've seen Irreversible, A Serbian Film, Cannibal Holocaust and a whole bunch of other extreme films and none of them unnerved me like this one. Maybe it just depends on the individual, so I am intrigued... could anyone who didn't have such a reaction to this film tell me which films they did?
Last 3:
The Girl Next Door-2007 (3/10)
Monster (7/10)
Red State (5/10)
Really? This movie wasn't disturbing.. maybe just a bit. Whereas Irreversible is *beep* sick.
"It's All in the Game."
My Vote History: imdb.com/user/ur10932798/ratings
Yes, I found this movie extremely disturbing. I would compare it to "The Stoning of Soraya M" in the feelings that it gave me, but for Soraya, I was sobbing - physically SOBBING - at the end. This movie became MORE disturbing after reading the wikipedia article on Gertrude Baniszewski - I wasn't aware it was based on a true story until after watching it.
It did what a good movie should - left my heart racing and my mind a little dumbfounded
...and remember it's based on a true case!
share[deleted]
I don't know if disturbing was the word for me, but this was one of those rare films where you truly felt for the victim. That was brutal. Megan is Missing still takes my most disturbing movie.
"They're all dead.....they just don't know it yet." - Eric Draven
I've seen most of the films on the long list above. This didn't disturb me, nor did 'An American Crime' which was based on the same case. It's all in the execution - the true events these films are based on are reprehensible and disturbing in the extreme, but these films aren't particularly well made. They're competent, at best, but neither are directed in a particularly powerful way, so, if you're not susceptible to the shock value, there's really not much to chew on. This isn't the fault of the actors, but of the writers and directors. Those films COULD have been disturbing, while being no more, and even perhaps less explicit, if they had really put us into any of the characters' skins. But distancing devices, like using a narrator to relate the story in flashback, only highlight the artificiality (which isn't to say that that device can't be used effectively, but its not easy). Neither film successfully navigated the most disturbing aspect of the story - the gradual escalation and normalization of the abuse and creeping dehumanization as it is participated in by numerous third parties. This to me is the most interesting aspect of the original crime, and both films seem to find it too complicated to even properly deal with - much less make us experience and understand the sadstic exhilaration of exercising power over a helpless other that has turned many rational adults into monsters, and which may come even more naturally to children. Instead we are presented yet again with a film that treats its monsters as an aberration, rather than showing us how seemingly normal people can be easily baptized in crime and viciousness under the right circumstances. (This is a common failure of movies that treat Nazism, as well - they are treated as being comfortingly Inhuman, when, in fact, they were all TOO human. As long as we see them as freaks we never have to face the possibility that we may not be so far removed ourselves, when it's CERTAINTY of our moral superiority that actually points the way down that path.) What we are left with is an outsiders view of events that remain comfortably inexplicable. It is either a failure of nerve, a failure of intelligence, or both - but I'm still waiting to see the movie that actually goes as far as implicating the viewer - THAT would be disturbing. (At least 'Cannibal Holocaust' seems to exist to punish you for wanting to see a movie called 'Cannibal Holocaust' - openly chiding the audience and reminding us to be careful what we wish for.) Finally, I am reminded of the experience of being bored senseless by the nonstop, over the top violence and gore of 'Inside' and wondering if I'm not just jaded, then being deeply affected by the PG-rated 'White Dog' the following day. That film had some clunky, awkward moments, but it also had a director who knew how to set up a scene to deliver an emotional punch, and therein lies the difference. I have seen less explicit films that I found more disturbing, and more explicit films that I found more disturbing. 'The Girl Next Door' and 'An American Crime' fail because they show us these disturbing events, but soft-pedal or avoid the very thing that MAKES them disturbing - not, I believe, because they are unwilling to disturb (they both try pretty hard), but because they fail in both insight and technique. And the first is a critical part of the second.
share"I have seen less explicit films that I found more disturbing, and more explicit films that I found more disturbing."
Absolutely. Something that is psychologically disturbing will trump violence and gore any day of the week. That's partly why Silence of the Lambs really made an impact 20 years ago. It wasn't particularly violent, a lot of far worse stuff had come out in the 80s. But it got into the mind of killers, and that got to a lot of people. Gore is largely irrelevant. I've only seen Girl Next Door, not American Crime, but reading descriptions of the case is far more disturbing and haunting to me than the actual film.
[deleted]
what do you mean in the end you found myself despite myself weeping for her?
shareSame hear, I have a fairly tough skin when it comes to these sorts of movies, but this one was extremely difficult to get through. I believes it's because of how realistic it is, knowing that the basis for the story is the Sylvia Liken's case, and that such horrid abuse occurs towards helpless people all the time
share