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 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.

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.