"The Boy Next Door" 2008 (TV movie) 3 out of 10 ⭐ Lots of missed opportunities…

 "The Boy Next Door" 3 out of 10 ⭐ Lots of missed opportunities…

SYNOPSIS:

After the dissolution of her fifteen year marriage, mystery writer Sara Wylde (Dina Meyer) is feeling unsettled. She's also being pressured by her publisher to finish her latest book. Her personal problems have been getting in the way of her creative process, and she hopes a change of scenery will help. She's rented a cabin on a lake, and she's sure it will get her creative juices going again. But the murder of her young, handsome neighbor interrupts her process. Inept police, busybody neighbors, and no script direction are just a few of the things she has to deal with.

WHAT WORKS:

*DINA MEYER'S ACTING IS DECENT

Dina Meyer does a fine job with a terrible script. She never phones things in, and always gives a quality performance. It's too bad it couldn't help this movie, because this could have been an ok made-for-tv movie, if someone had plugged the plot holes.

*BOTH THE TRAILER AND COVER ART ARE AVERAGE I know this is low budget, and shot in just seven days... BUT I'm so sick of mediocrity, coming from GREED! It's one thing if there's a time crunch, and things have to be hurried, but it's something else if we all just aim for "good enough" to save money. 

WHAT DOESN'T WORK:

*I'M SO SICK OF A-HOLE COPS AS A PLOT DEVICE Women staying alone in a new place tend to look outside, when they hear a noise. That's NOT SUSPICIOUS! Also, the cop can see Sara (Dina Meyer) lives in a house with a lot of windows (it overlooks a lake). They look in, and see her, so they know the opposite has to be true as well. THAT'S NOT SUSPICIOUS EITHER!

*COPS AREN'T STUPID Writers like Peter Layton, need to stop portraying cops as not  having two brain cells to run together, it's not a believable plot device, just another plot hole.

*NO ONE IN THE SMALL TOWN WOULD BELIEVE SARAH KILLED MICHAEL Small towns are funny places. The people who live there would know the dark underbelly. The would have their own theories, and they wouldn't include a tiny woman, who'd only been in town a few days. They'd know the enemies of the most rich and powerful family in town, and they'd suspect them. They wouldn't suspect some small woman, of killing a huge young man, she'd only known in passing, for two days. THAT'S ASININE, and Peter Layton should know better. We, as viewers, are owed better.

*IN A SMALL TOWN, THEY'D IGNORE THE BUSYBODY The plot device of having the town busybody (Sheelah Megill) tell the police Sarah is suspicious, and having the police believe it is LUDICROUS!  In a small town, people would know Marie (Sheelah Megill) was a nosy b*tch, who liked to get people in trouble. THEY'D WOULD IGNORE HER!

*COPS WOULDN'T SUSPECT A WOMAN IN THIS CRIME Sara Wylde (Dina Meyer) is new to the area. She barely knows Michael (Christopher Russell), she has no motive, and no means to kill him. He's early 20's, and extremely well built. She's tiny, in her 40's, he'd swat her like a fly.

*COPS WOULDN'T SUSPECT A FAMOUS WRITER Even if they took Marie seriously, they would run a background check, see that Sarah has no priors, no connection to this crime or victim. It's stupid, to the point of being insulting, and Peter Layton should know better.

*RICH PEOPLE HAVE LAWYERS Cops know rich people have lawyers. Cops also know said lawyers can make their lives a living hell. This is why real cops tread lightly, until they have overwhelming evidence, when rich people are involved, and they would here as well.

*I'M SICK OF SEEING THE LAW BASTARDIZED FOR THE SAKE OF PLOT DEVICES It is irresponsible for writers to portray the law in an unrealistic way. People learn from TV. They shouldn't, but they do. Did you know the real NYPD SVU cops have hardly any training, and mimic what the see on Law and Order: SVU? THAT'S TRUE! So writers like Peter Layton should be more responsible when writing scripts. The cops gets a warrant for Sarah's house - full stop. WHAT?! WITH WHAT EVIDENCE?!The writer, Peter Layton, should be taught to do RESEARCH, instead of just writing whatever drivel comes into his pathetic head. Cops need this thing called P-R-O-B-A-B-L-E  C-A-U-S-E  to get a warrant. They have nothing on Sarah, except the word of a busybody neighbor, who's only complaint is, "Sarah didn't eat my muffins" waaaah! The judge would laugh them out of court, and Sarah could sue civilly, for invasion of privacy. Why could she sue? Police and prosecutors protections go away when they do things they know are wrong. A first year law student, or first week police cadet would know THIS IS WRONG.

*WHEN SARAH IS RUN OFF THE ROAD, AND HER HOUSE IS BROKEN INTO, THE COPS WOULD BE IN TROUBLE The cops refuse to believe her, they don't even take the threatening note left in her house, for prints. At this point, rich people with lawyers would call said lawyers, the lawyers would call the state police (and file a civil rights complaint with the justice department), and the state police would take over their inept investigation. END OF STORY 

*THE DIRECTING AND CINEMATOGRAPHY ARE BAD This movie looks rushed, the shots are set up poorly, everything is either too close, or too far away. It's clunky, and Neill Fearnley (director) and Neil Cervin (cinematographer) should know better.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:

*I am a huge Dina Meyer fan, and I normally LOVE her made-for-tv movies, but not this time. The script has plot holes big enough for the whole movie to fall into, and it's unfortunate, because it could have been decent. If you're looking for a quality Dina Meyer made-for-tv movie, I'd recommend instead Evil Doctor or Lethal Seduction (see my review and pictures).

If you're interested in more info about this movie, (images, actor/actress info, filming locations, videos, etc) check out it's page on The Lifetime Movies Wiki here (full disclosure: I'm the admin & main creator on the wiki)