The Boy Next Door

Not rated yet!
Director
Rob Cohen
Runtime
1 h 31 min
Release Date
23 January 2015
Genres
Thriller
Overview
A recently cheated on married woman falls for a younger man who has moved in next door, but their torrid affair soon takes a dangerous turn.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?

 

SIGN UP!

Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)




 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
John Hanlon2
John Hanlon Reviews



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Boy Next Door
    If there is a victim whose reputation has been tarnished by The Boy Next Door, approved it will not be Jennifer Lopez, who stars in and produces the film. Nor will it be audience members who go in hoping for a thrilling time and leave shocked and...
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The Movies of 2015
    (”The Boy Next Door” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    The end of 2016 is quickly approaching. With that in mind, patient I went back and created a list of all of the films that I reviewed this year and the different ratings I gave them. Of course, story this isn’t a complete list of all of the films I saw this year....
    ...
    (Review Source)

Plugged In2
Focus on the Family



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Boy Next Door
    DramaMystery/Suspense We hope this review was both interesting and useful. Please share it with family and friends who would benefit from it as well.Movie ReviewClaire knows a thing or two about mistakes. Her philandering hubby made one—repeatedly—with a San Francisco treat. Sure, Garrett says he's sorry, and he should be. But in the realm of mistakes, that's a pretty big 'un, so Claire punts his cheating heart to the curb for a bit while she ponders whether she made a mistake by marrying the guy. It's a vulnerable time for Claire, who already had plenty to worry about. The school year's just around the corner, and Claire—a high school lit teacher—has to figure out a way to get her pupils jazzed about The Iliad. Her high school-age son, Kevin, is occasionally bullied. Oh, and she has a new, handsome, highly distracting neighbor. Noah seems nice enough at first. He's moved in to help Claire's aged neighbor, Mr. Sandborn, through a bone marrow transplant. The young man has a deep respect for classic literature, too—a feather in his Elizabethan cap, as far as Claire's concerned. And he hasn't been in the neighborhood more than five minutes before he and Kevin are the best of friends. Does it matter that Noah's nearly 20 (and still finishing high school) while Kevin's face is still looking for its first date with a razor? Of course not. We must not be petty, and Claire's just happy that Kevin's found a chum. But while Noah might like Kevin, he has a much different sort of affection for Claire. He dreamily runs his eyes across her body. He tells her how sexy she is in their stolen moments together. He's hot for teacher, and he wants her to know it. Claire knows any sort of interlude with Noah would be wrong on every conceivable level. She's still married, after all. And having sex with a high school student, even if he is nearly 20, is almost guaranteed to get you a mention on Fox News … and fired. But Noah, what with his Narcissus eyes and superhero abs, can be quite persuasive. And one night over a botched chicken dinner, the hunky guy goes to work. "No judgments," he says as he kisses her. "No rules. Just us." Everyone makes mistakes. But some mistakes are bigger than others. Especially when you make one with a pretty but seriously psychopathic neighbor.Positive ElementsAt least Claire feels horrible about her big mistake immediately thereafter and tries hard to get her priorities back on track. And what are those? Her son, first of all. She loves him and wants the best for him. She has a lingering love for her wayward husband, too. And she and Garrett actually do work toward trying to fix whatever went wrong with their marriage. Noah's clearly 98% bad. But that other 2% prompts him to boost Kevin's confidence and defend the younger guy when he's bullied. (He does it by almost killing the kid's attacker, but we'll put off that subject till later.) He even saves Kevin's life. (A gesture somewhat mitigated, of course, by the fact that he tries to kill him later.)Spiritual ContentSexual Content No definitely doesn't mean no for Claire. She tells Noah no a whole bunch of times as they commence their encounter, but he doesn't stop, and she doesn't really seem to want him to. What follows is an intensely sensual and erotic onscreen sex scene. He strips off her clothes, groping and fondling her pretty much everywhere. Only his hands hide parts of her breasts from the camera's view, and it's implied he gives her oral sex. Unbeknownst to Claire, Noah records their sexual session and later prints hundreds of pictures of them (some of which we see). He's taken other clandestine photos (and video) of her as well, eventually using them to blackmail her. Noah has sex with someone else, too, and we see them fully nude (her from the front, waist up, him from the side). It's clear that she performs oral sex on him. We see Claire kissing and getting hot and heavy with her estranged husband at one point. Claire spies on Noah from her window, ogling the guy as he undresses. We see his bare backside, see her walking around in skimpy nightgowns, etc. A man leers at a waitress's cleavage. Another ogles a woman as she lifts her skirt. Raunchy double entendres and sexual allusions are thrown around. "Advice" is given about oral sex. Crude references are made to infidelity, and there's talk of erectile dysfunction. Recommended ResourceA Chicken's Guide to Talking Turkey With Your Kids About SexKevin LemanEven the bravest parents feel timid about discussing sex with their 8- to 14-year-olds! This resource offers reassuring, humorous, real-life anecdotes along with reliable information to help you with this challenging task.Buy NowViolent ContentNoah attacks Claire sexually in a school bathroom, pinning her to the wall and forcibly thrusting against her. She knees him in the crotch to get away. When Claire tells Noah that their night together was indeed a mistake, he punches a wall, causing his knuckles to bleed. He nearly kills Kevin's tormentor, slamming the boy's head repeatedly into a locker and against the floor before someone pulls him off. (We later hear that the boy went to the hospital with a fractured skull.) A woman is killed. (When Claire finds her, her face and torso are covered in blood.) It's implied that another murder is committed by way of a rigged minivan exploding. The brakes go out in another tampered-with vehicle, leading to an accident and nearly a deadly tragedy. An eye gets stabbed with an EpiPen (which then sticks grotesquely out of the socket). That eye is then "run through" with the assailant's finger (which we see up close). People are hit, kicked, bonked by long pieces of metal, choked, bashed in the groin, and crushed with the live-action equivalent of huge ACME safes. Folks are bloodied and tied up. Someone gets shot in the shoulder. Kevin's severe allergy attack is finally halted when Noah jabs him in the chest with the EpiPen.Crude or Profane LanguageA dozen f-words (some used sexually, one written), about six s-words and one c-word. We also hear "p---y," "c--k," "a--," "h---" and "p---," among other crudities. God's name is misused more than a dozen times, sometimes with "d--n."Drug and Alcohol ContentClaire and others drink wine. Garrett drives drunk.Other Negative ElementsBullies call Kevin "Whiz," a nickname stemming from an incident years earlier where he lost control of his bladder during an allergy attack. Claire spends a huge amount of time and energy trying to keep her one-night fling with Noah a secret. That's wrong in an of itself, of course. But toward the end of the movie, when it becomes clear Noah might be trying to kill the people she loves and still she doesn't tell the police, well, that's not just wrong, it's ludicrous. Noah, Kevin and others drive exceedingly dangerously at times. Perhaps we can credit that to the influence of director Rob Cohen, best known for steering The Fast and the Furious.ConclusionEverybody makes mistakes, it's true. Take this movie, for example. Hundreds of people had a hand in creating this mistake. And as a reviewer forced to watch the result, all I can hope is that they've now learned their lesson and don't ever repeat it. The Boy Next Door is meant to be a thriller, but it veers dangerously close to sex-soaked comedy—a campy send-up filled with ludicrous one-liners and oh-so-predictable jump scenes. This isn't just a waste of 90 perfectly good minutes. It's an obliteration of them.Pro-social ContentObjectionable ContentSummary AdvisoryPlot SummaryChristian BeliefsOther Belief SystemsAuthority RolesProfanity/ViolenceKissing/Sex/HomosexualityDiscussion TopicsAdditional Comments/NotesEpisode Reviews]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Debbie Schlussel1
The New York Post



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Wknd Box Office: The Boy Next Door, Mortdecai, Two Days, One Night
    Blog Posts Movie Reviews Two Days, One Night [Deux Jours, Une Nuit]“: This French film with English subtitles takes place in Belgium. It’s your typical left-wing anti-business movie. 9/11 truther Marion Cotillard plays a woman who has been on sick leave from her working-class factory job, due to depression. While she was away, her employer realized it could get all of the necessary work done with 16 employees, rather than the usual 17 including her. And the plant foreman doesn’t like her. When she seeks to return to work, the union has a vote between a large bonus or allowing Cotillard to get her job back. Most employees vote for the bonus. But Cotillard’s employer allows a second vote, and with the encouragement of her devoted husband, Cotillard visits her fellow employees over the weekend to try to convince them to vote for her to keep her job instead of them getting the bonus. Throughout, she’s tearful, whiny, and popping pills. Not only is it depressing, but it’s your typical anti-capitalist, anti-free-market movie depicting the narrative of “evil” businesses pitting poor working-class employees against each other in order to try to fight for their jobs. And the movie is slow and boring, to boot. No way I’d pay to see this. FOUR MARXES ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff1
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • September's 10 Most Popular Movie Trailers
    Lifestyle Fall is decisively under way. September saw the release of many new movie trailers. It’s an interesting time of the year, not quite late enough to start seeing much from next year’s highly anticipated lineup of blockbusters. That clears the way for some lesser known projects to take a greater share of the public’s attention. Here are the top 10 most popular movie trailers released in September. var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'God Help The Girl Official Trailer #1 (2014) - Emily Browning Movie HD', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); 10. God Help the GirlEmily Browning has a stealthy little career going for her, working steadily in films which no one sees. Her most mainstream appearance came in Zack Snyder’s directorial misstep Sucker Punch. The other places you may have seen her were this year’s Pompeii and the Jim Carrey showpiece from a few years back, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.She has a trademark beauty which oscillates between strange and captivating. It’s a look which suits this eccentric musical drama well. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/10/7/septembers-10-most-popular-movie-trailers/ previous Page 1 of 10 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Vox Day1
Castalia House



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ 𝐄𝐃𝐆𝐘 🔥 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐓 🔥 𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 🔥 (𝐍𝐒𝐅𝐖?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • They really are THAT arrogant
    (”The Boy Next Door” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    I don't think I'll be working with Hollywood anytime soon:
    We’re not gonna lie, after watching the cringe-worthy “Iliad” scene from J.Lo’s new movie “The Boy Next Door” we wept for humanity a bit. Then, like the rest of the world we wondered “How the heck did this happen? Is Hollywood really that stupid?”

    In case you missed it, the awful scene shows J.Lo’s hunky love interest / psychotic neighbor giving her a “first edition” copy of Homer’s The Iliad. You know, that epic 3,000-year-old-ish poem he wrote. The one in which the oldest version, called the Venetus A, dates back to the 10th century? Yeah. The “first edition” seen in the movie is clearly not 3,000 years old.

    We just couldn’t let it go (seriously, The Iliad? Pick ANY other book), so we contacted the screenwriter, Barbara Curry, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, and asked her point blank: “WTF happened?”

    Turns out writers aren’t that dumb. But Hollywood producers are.

    “Much of my original script was rewritten by the producers and the director. I was not given the opportunity to participate in the production of this movie,” Curry told Fusion. “As for the first edition ‘Iliad’ reference in the movie, that was not something I wrote in my original script,” she says.
    As a publisher of other folks novels, I will have a responsibility to be polite if options of those novels are pursued. But if anyone EXCEPT the guys who produce A Game of Thrones contacts me again about my own books, I am going to tell them, as before, the answer is no. And if they make the mistake of asking me why, I I will absolutely tell them that I have zero interest in working with retards with no respect for the Western canon.

    I watched a documentary on a day in the production of A Game of Thrones and it confirmed for me that I prefer the game industry. There is a LOT of carpentry involved, among other things; it is insane how many people and moving parts are required in order to produce a show of that quality. And then to think how readily they will throw all that sort of effort away because some arrogant executive philistine is uneducated really boggles the mind

    Labels:

    ...
    (Review Source)

The Federalist Staff1
The Federalist



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • How To Make The Razzies Fun Again
    (”The Boy Next Door” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    There is no enjoyment in the pre-Oscars debates about who should not have been nominated, what titles were overlooked, and how white all the nominees appear. It is an irritant when codgers in a bar hold these quorums about retired baseball players, and it becomes intolerable when sober millennials do the same over “serious” titles they insist be called “films.” Given my unstilted attitude towards the entertainment industry and my affinity for horrid movies, it is exceedingly fair to say I have a masochistic bent regarding Hollywood releases. I have accepted my corrupted cultural taste, but have become dissatisfied with a dependable source of revelry: the annual Razzie Awards, also called the Golden Raspberry Awards. Once considered the high-water mark of the low-tide movies, this rundown of the run-down releases in theaters has in recent years delivered diminishing returns. This year was not very different. Many titles I had pegged as worst of the year made the cut in some fashion. “Pan” and “The Boy Next Door” were surprises with some acting nods. I was pleased Channing Tatum’s turn as a space-boots-wearing albino hybrid human-wolf alien in “Jupiter Ascending” was recognized, and in a just world Josh Trank would be a lock as Worst Director for the ways he mangled “Fantastic Four.” Mind the Gaping Omissions But yes (sounding exactly like those latte-sipping film school hipsters), I see glaring omissions from the list. The laughably serious “Chappie” has no recognition. The painfully shrill comedy “Hot Pursuit” garnered zero nods, while the biggest crime of all is that “Jem And The Holograms” is nowhere to be found! Along with the exclusions, we meet some of the usual ham-fisted humor in the Worst Screen Combo category: The committee relies overly on hitting broad targets and plucking low-hanging raspberries. Johnny Depp, and his glued-on mustache Kevin James, and his Segue scooter Adam Sandler, and any pair of shoes My conflicted reaction has become the norm with The Razzies in recent years. At once I am excited at the tabulation of last year’s septic cinema, then unimpressed with the selections and omissions while enduring groan-inducing gags and puns. The committee relies overly on hitting broad targets and plucking low-hanging raspberries. Grandstanding nominations are common, and many selections feel less an acknowledgment of poor content than cagily generated for press releases. (Oscar-caliber actors get skewered! Adam Sandler gets TEN nominations!) If the point is to note bad releases and thus hold Hollywood accountable, more examples would fulfill that goal, rather than beating a few titles like a piñata. Past the Freshness Date For those not steeped in bad film history, The Razzies kicked off more than three decades ago in the living room of current director John J.B. Wilson. He and a group of friends staged a mock awards show between themselves, springing somewhat from Michael Medved’s Golden Turkey Awards, created years earlier. Wilson parlayed that novelty into an annual event serving as prologue to the Oscars, a counterpoint to that pompous carnival. But a desire to make sweeping statements with the nominations has blunted this cathartic merriment. Part of the problem with these awards is they have grown in scope over the years but have not grown up. Frequently you are subjected to humor that seems parked in Wilson’s 1980s living room. The “Transformers” films being referred to as “Trannies: 3” is just one “wry” example. I recognize it looks odd to insist on a level of propriety when making fun of Hollywood trainwrecks. But fans and writers reference the Razzies for years after. Yes, this means there is some import, so some of the decisions become a disservice. Wilson’s trophy is a recognizable decoration attached to certain movies, so superfluous nominations rob worthy titles or performances of being canonized with disdain. Part of the problem with these awards is they have grown in scope over the years but have not grown up. For disclosure, I deliver this dismay as a former voting member. I used to participate in the selection process with upbeat energy. However, it soon became apparent that, instead of raising pitchforks collectively at studio cynicism, those final picks delivered many missed opportunities. The Razzie selection process involves a ballot with many choices under the categories, and voters choose a handful of selections for each. These cover a wide array of titles from the year, with numerous delicious picks expected to be “honored” and thus catalogued for future risibility. But when nominations were announced, they dispatched those hoped-for cultural lacerations in favor of obvious hits and gleeful overreach. Most fans already know Sandler delivers sub-par comedies, and he has four nominations this year. His appearance annually in the “worst-of” mix seems assured. There is no compulsion to unload multiple awards on what is a foregone result, yet Wilson and his staff cannot resist. Rather than sound like a bossy crank, however, I’d like to help. Instead of cursing the darkness, I’d rather light a candle, offering ways to get this unserious recognition back to respectability. Fresher Pickings The Issue: Misplaced Scorn. Too often, the Razzies are geared towards getting a reaction, picking juicy targets assured to generate headlines. While the “Twilight” films carry a level of risibility, do they truly rank as classic “bad films”? With each release from that franchise, Wilson and Co. unloaded—the final movie won seven total trophies. These hardly will be regarded as classic bad films down the road. In this fashion, “50 Shades of Grey” was guaranteed to be a nominee this year. While some years a particular title may stand out as the most glaring debacle, Wilson and crew tend to bestow numerous trophies to drive a point home. The Fix: If you feel the need, a few token noms would do the trick, but let more deserving trash get some recognition. Also, if the goal is to grant multiple awards to a specific title, why not expand to more categories? This could still provide noms to deserving movies. The Issue: Overloaded Ridicule. While some years a particular title may stand out as the most glaring debacle, Wilson and crew tend to bestow numerous trophies to drive a point home. Similar to “TBD2,” Sandler’s 2011 cross-dressing turn in “Jack and Jill” won all ten categories. More than piling on, it was simply too much. Now it appears no other bad movies were released in 2011. The Fix: Show some restraint. The adage with humor is “less is more.” They could have lambasted Sandler perfectly with a Worst Picture and by giving him a Worst Actress win, then gone on to let other titles get recognized. The Issue: Concentrated Attention. Too often selections get multiple nominations in overlapping categories, denying slots others could occupy. Many times performers have been featured twice, as both solo and cast selections. In 2011, redundancy was the rule, as four of the titles up for Worst Picture were also featured in Worst Sequel Remake, nearly halving the field of available titles. The Fix: Pretty basic—stop. With the glut of sequels and retread titles Hollywood foists on us each year, you can’t tell me they do not generate enough titles for separate selections above the five standard picks. More targets, more fun. The Issue: Puerile Selections. As noted above, Wilson adores his gag choices. Other “hilarious” Worst Couple nominations have been “Kellen Lutz, and either his pecs, abs, or glutes” (“Hercules”), or “Tyler Perry, and that worn-out wig and dress” (“A Madea Christmas”). Point is, these droll commentaries deny other acting mockery. This year, three of these zingers replace possible casting condemnation. Dial back on the guffaws or, if these blunt-nosed barbs are truly necessary, expand to more categories. The Fix: Dial back on the guffaws or, if these blunt-nosed barbs are truly necessary, expand to more categories. If they create a Worst Makeup/Costume category then they get the chance to yuck it up over Depp’s moustache, and still recognize onscreen duos. The Issue: Stunt Nominations. Occasionally, Wilson has introduced picks that either revealed personal animus or even political posturing. In 2005 he used Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 911” as an excuse to have George Bush “win” along with Donald Rumsfeld and Brittany Spears, detracting entirely from the awards. Likewise, Sarah Palin was later recognized in another documentary, for no reason other than spite. The Jonas brothers were dual acting selections once—for their concert film. The pettiness was misplaced. The Fix: Stick with the movies. This is not an issue over being politically offended. I was offended as a bad movie fan. These picks had zero to do with sewer cinema and, worse, they were not funny. To drive home a point about Bush we watched Wilson deny four potential winners Razzie immortality. The Last Act One last note: Why not give us more subjects to bat around? Hollywood is now releasing upwards of 800 titles a year. There is a wide swath of content to mine for ridicule. If Wilson and his Razzie committee want to show their comedic chops, then how about broadening the nomination field to include other categories? Worst Costume/Hair would be a layup every year. For a change, Worst Song should deliver some mirth. There could be nominations in other genres: Worst Family Film, Worst Slasher Picture, and the like. The bad movie fanbase is growing, and it only makes sense to expand along with them. And give it a rest with Sandler. By now, everyone gets it. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
 
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
 
Misandry Average rating:  
 
Affirmative action Average rating:  
 
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
 
Anti-God Average rating:  
 

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️  Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail