The long-awaited film adaptation of Jack Ketchum's classic novel The Girl Next Door has finally made its way to the DVD shelves of your local video store, and it's a masterfully told story that sanitizes the torture, nudity and bondage of the book, yet still retains the novel's vision and dramatic impact.

The average viewer will probably still be shocked by the subject matter of the film, and even the jaded viewers of this forum might still be put off by some of the horrific violence that befalls Meg, the doomed teenage victim of the story, well-played by 21-year old Blythe Auffarth. The story is based on real life events, about two girls that are forced to live with their Aunt Ruth after the death of their parents. Ruth is an old shrew whose days of being young and attractive are long past, and she's resentful of the fresh innocent sexuality that Meg projects toward her 3 sons and a neighbor boy, David, who quickly develops a crush on Meg. It's quite evident early on that the kids are being led astray by their mentally imbalanced mother, and they willingly go along and eventually join in when she openly punishes Meg and her handicapped younger sister for what appear to be minor infractions.

Meg makes the mistake of trying to stand up and defend herself against her aunt, and this leads to a backlash where she is tied up and literally held prisoner in the basement of their home, and the captivity and torture increases as the days go by. She is bound, gagged, blindfolded, kicked, beaten, sliced with a knife and burned, and not just by the sadistic aunt. The equally mean and vengeful boys (and even 2 neighbor girls) take their shots inflicting tortures upon the unfortunate Meg, as though having a bound victim was a plaything to have some fun with.

This leads up the more harrowing treatment that she endures during the film's final third, as she is first bound and raped by one of the sons, then has words burned onto her stomach by Ruth with a heated hairpin. Then the nastiest torment of all, as Ruth takes a blowtorch and burns off Meg's clitoris, to prevent the poor girl from ever having sexual thoughts.

Now before anybody decides this is too gross to watch, I have to interject that the director, Gregory M. Wilson, tones down the violence and the actual torture to the bare minimum, and very little is actually shown. This was a decision that was made, most likely, because Meg's character is supposed to be underage, as are most of the actors who play the roles of the boys. In the commentary track, it was disclosed that they were threatened with having their film shut down if they went too far, and so they made the "tasteful" decision to make sure the film didn't exploit the subject matter.

Indeed, GIMPers hoping to revel in the nudity, bondage and torture that was prevalent in the book will likely come away disappointed. There is very little nudity, just a 4-second frontal shot taken at a distance, and various brief views of her backside, but not nearly enough to get more than just a quick peek.

Fans of the book (and I'm a BIG fan) will also be let down by what isn't in the movie. The film completely deletes what were two of the most powerful scenes in the book, one being the scene where Ruth and the boys decide to "clean up" Meg by giving her a scalding shower, and another of my favorite scenes where Meg is tied to a post in the basement alone with Ruth, and Ruth continually flicks matches toward the frilly dress that Meg was wearing, until the dress catches fire and the flames begin to climb up toward her.

In listening to the commentary track with Ketchum and the two screenwriters, they said they cut the shower scene because it would make the film too close to pornography and exploitation. They all seemed to agree that it was the correct move, but I strongly disagree. They muted the power of the book and sanitized the script to make it more palatable to a more mainstream audience, but the fact is that this film could never have been socially acceptable to the mass public. Someone like a Rick Masters might have made a film that didn't compromise the bondage and torture of the book, but I'm not going to fault the filmmakers for their decision. They made the film they wanted to make, and it obviously wasn't made to please the sick pervs that would get off on exploitation and torture. It could have been that kind of movie, but they chose not to go that way.

Of course, the predicament that befalls poor Meg is certainly horrific, but the film is not a horror movie. At least I wouldn't classify it as such. It's clearly a dark drama that has some horrifying elements to it. Unlike a horror film, especially of the "torture porn" variety that has become so prevalent in the past few years, the evil is not celebrated at all, and in this case, it's toned down so much that the viewer would have a hard time really enjoying her suffering. That's Wilson's decision, and while it makes the film a bit more palatable to the casual moviegoer, it tones down the important prurient thrills that made the book so special.

If you're looking to enjoy bondage, pain and torture, watch and admire this movie for its story, and then read the book and see how good could it could have (and should have) been. The story is the same, but the visceral thrill from reading the book is 10 times higher. That's a testament to the power of Ketchum's writing, and the unfortunate limitations the filmmakers had in adapting this challenging story to the screen.