Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

The subject of Girl 27 is incredibly relevant today, more so now than when it debuted about a decade ago. It involves a 1937 scandal, where an MGM extra girl named Patricia Douglas was raped after being lured to a big studio party under false pretenses. She took the attack to court, but was slandered as a "tramp," the sole witness to the attack was bullied into perjury, and the case was buried for decades. Douglas's life afterwards was one of loneliness and bitterness; the rape affected her all her life. This is a story which reveals how the wealthy and powerful are allowed to escape the consequences of any wrongdoing. Considering the sexual abuse allegations which have come out in Hollywood recently, this story is as relevant in 2017 as ever. It is a story worth telling.Too bad the filmmakers handling this story are incompetent.There are so many things which keep this documentary from being great. Firstly, while I get why Stenn wanted to use film clips of women being harassed or hit in the Hollywood movies of the period- to show how social misogyny manifested in popular entertainment in subtle and not so subtle ways-it all comes off as cartoonish, almost making light of this woman's tragedy when we're talking abuse one minute, then showing Betty Boop and MGM musical clips with horror movie music over them the next. It reminds me of a similar technique used in the documentary Buster Keaton: So Funny It Hurt, where they felt the need to try to "illustrate" Keaton's bad home life and alcoholism with clips from his MGM talkies. Here, it is FARRR worse, given the nature of the subject matter. It doesn't feel edgy or smart; it feels tacky and amateurish at best, disrespectful at worst.Stenn also feels the need to prop up his own ego constantly, reminding us of how good and noble HE is for bringing this story to light. He turns the camera on himself often. I get the meta approach, but he often seems like he wants to show off how knowledgeable he is about classic film or how morally stupendous he is for making this movie, even though at times he asks her rather invasive questions that almost seem exploitative. Whenever Stenn talks about how he was nervous when meeting Douglas face to face for the first time and then we have a few minutes of Douglas praising him for his "sweetness"-ugh, we get it Stenn, you're sooo great. GET BACK TO THE STORY.Of course, the documentary is worth watching because Douglas was truly a remarkable, brave woman to try to fight the studios back for the injustice done her in an age when victims of sexual violence were forced into silence due to shame and social pressure. In the recorded interviews, she comes off as a feisty yet bitter woman who wants public vindication after being humiliated and slandered-she now has it. Honestly, you're probably better off reading Stenn's article on Douglas's sad story, which is concise, detailed, and full of the same details that the movie gives, but without the obnoxious ego boosting or distracting, tone deaf movie clip montages.

This is a true glimpse at life and how fragile it really can be. A young virgin, raped. Then the covered up by powerful, greedy, vicious men with no regard for just one girl. I loved this film more than I can say. I fell in love with Patricia! I adore her and feel for every single tragic life experience and painful moment she suffered. She was wonderful and the film maker is incredibly kind, patient, honest and wonderful in his story telling of her life. I loved what he's done here. To bring something out of a woman who's covered it up for 65 years, is a credit to him. No wonder Jackie O suggested he continue on his journey to the end with .....Patricia rip beautiful girl.

A documentary that could have used a lot less of the documenter, David Stenn spends far to much time on camera and does, what is to me the death kiss of documentaries. Stenn's editing forces his audience to see thing his way and no other, to feel the emotions he feels and to come to all the same conclusions he does. This is in no way anything new to documentaries, Michael Moore for example is the very master of this, now to be fair, does that mean these film makers viewpoints are wrong, no not at all, sometimes they are right on with mine but for heaven sakes let me come to my own opinion honestly. Give me both sides of a story fairly as best as possible and let me use my brain to decide which I believe. Now, I do realize in the case of Girl 27 there is no real way to show both sides, and to listen to Patricia Douglas talk I have no doubt in my mind that she is an honest woman, but it degrades her to surround her story with unfair edits of MGM convention footage with sinister music overplaying. Also on a side not I found the story about Loretta Young & Clark Gable's daughter to be heartbreaking, to hear Judy Lewis tell her story was one of the saddest things I have ever heard, it made me loose a lot of respect for those two actors. Anyway, David Stenn, let Patricia Douglas tell her story, realize what you have in that, it is all your film needs. The bravery of that women to do what she did in both her situation and during that time period is amazing, and for her to go in front of a camera and re-tell that to the world is to be admired.

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.