chucknorrisfacts I just watched "Girl 27" on Netflix instant stream. It's a very sad movie, but I think it's worth checking out, particularly if you're a starry-eyed youth thinking of making a career in show business.The truth is, the world's a pretty nasty place, and you shouldn't trust people. Maybe that doesn't sound very nice to say, but it's the truth. It's just too bad no one ever told poor Pat Douglas that when she was growing up."Girl 27" tells the story of Pat Douglas, a young extra in the early days of Hollywood who gets raped at MGM and the subsequent cover-up that took place to protect the studio from the backlash after Douglas went public with her story.I know a lot of people have given this film negative reviews and I can't really understand why. It seems a common complaint is the director's mishandling of the material or his apparent need to put himself in front of the camera instead of the real "star".Well, first off, I'm in no way affiliated with the director, but I think if he's the one to uncover the story, he has the right to appear in his own documentary. Secondly, no one ever stopped to consider that maybe Pat Douglas wasn't comfortable talking on camera long enough to make a whole film out of it -- and that the director had to relay some information himself? I don't know...I guess I just think the people who voted this movie down because of the director missed the point of the whole documentary. It's about Pat Douglas and her tragic story, and I'm just glad the story got out and without the director that wouldn't have happened.Some may say he exploited her again for the purpose of a story, but I don't see that. I think he gave her the only vindication she received in her whole life. Otherwise, the story would never have been told, as I said before, and I think as tragic as the story is, it serves as a warning of the dangers of being young and naive and unaware of the dangers that exist in this world.I would recommend checking this movie out -- it's really sad, but I'm glad to have seen it -- because nothing like this should have to happen to anyone...and awareness is key to keeping stuff like this from happening to anyone else.

Charles Herold (cherold) I have rather mixed feelings about this movie. It brings up an interesting, forgotten scandal, which I give it credit for. But I felt the movie was always straining a little too hard to be interesting, as though the filmmaker knew he really only had a 40-minute short but was determined to get a feature length film out of it.The movie is a mix of a documentary about the rape and a documentary about uncovering the rape, and I found that an interesting, fairly successful approach. The various film clips range from relevant to flippant. The filmmaker's worst instincts came out during the interviews with the victim. Tossing in film clips earlier made a certain amount of sense, but doing the same thing during her painful answers felt gimmicky and insensitive and just took away from the power of the scene. Sometimes you have to be willing to let a person or a situation speak for itself, but that doesn't happen in this movie.

bassman592 I liked this film. Both of them.I think any analysis of this documentary must take into account that it is really 2 films in one, and I'm not really sure which one the director felt was more important. The first film is a sort of "making of" documentary. This is where the director takes you by the hand and literally shows you how and why he came to make this film. This type of thing now-a-days is usually relegated to a special feature on the DVD, but here it is incorporated in the film itself. Some of that is irritating (Jackie Onassis gave him a "mandate" - c'mon dude), and some just looks stupid (pointing out the former location of the structure in which the party took place, while the camera doesn't move from his face). However, Stenn's research is very thorough, in some cases exceptional, and the interviews, for the most part, are well done. However, this film really has a "hey look at me - didn't I do a great job" feel to it. I gave this film a 3 (out of 5). The second film is about a tragedy. The rape of a woman, the rape of a legal system, the rape of a society, and, perhaps most disturbingly, the rape of a family. And this film is brilliant. This film makes you care about a crime that was committed 70 years ago against a poor working-class girl. And although part of the crime involves the ruthless way it is handled by MGM, it is not just another Erin Brockovich big-business-is-bad story. It is also about how the crime has affected several families through several generations, particularly, of course, Douglas's. I wish he had introduced Patricia Douglas earlier, and I wish I could have heard more of her story. The film does leave some questions unanswered. For example, since Douglas was legally a minor (she was 20, and the age of maturity in those days was 21) how did Douglas choose her attorney, and how was he paid? Once her criminal case was dismissed, how did she arrive at the decision to file suit in federal court? After all, applying federal constitutional law to a rape case was not something that would have occurred to many practicing attorneys at the time (or even today!). Also, the film (with the help of Greta VanSusteren) seems to settle on the idea that her attorney was bought off - but could he instead have been threatened? (If he was bought off, then he's just a piece of scum, but if he was threatened, the moral picture for him gets a little murkier, while MGM's immorality would extend to perverting the federal courts). MGM apparently had a lot of clout, and was willing to use it, so who knows? Finally, why did she give up? The federal suit was left in limbo for 3 or 4 years before it was dismissed. Even then, it could have been re-filed. Patricia Douglas does not come across as a quitter. But then again, she's only human. I have other questions, but I guess I'll have to wait for the book(!) I gave this film 5 (out of 5). So the total is 8 (out of 10).

Jochen Lotke What does happen when an interesting story is ruined by a man who just cannot keep out of the shadows and must (simply MUST) always leap centre stage? Well it looks a bit like Girl 27.I think I am kinder than some other reviewers who give this film a one (but maybe not than those who think this is the best film of all time --- maybe the director or his friends eh?) this isn't terrible really, just fairly bad. The story, however, saves it from being awful - it is quite compelling blend of misogyny and studio politics with a victim who is left a ruin.Its his first film I think so maybe he will learn to focus more on the subject of a documentary and not to grab the attention so much for the next effort.Jochen L.