OllieSuave-007 I remember catching this movie on TV a few times and it always was an extreme experience for me. Here, a vulnerable woman named Marjorie (Farah Fawcett) who falls victim to an attempted rape by Joe (James Russo) escapes and turns the tables on him, caging the criminal in her fireplace.Seeing Joe abuse Marjorie left and right was difficult to watch, but it was thrilling to see Marjorie give her attacker a taste of his own medicine. It is also pretty suspenseful to see what will her and her two roommates, Patricia (Alfre Woodard) and Terry (Diana Scarwid), do to the confined attacker after the incident. A majority of the film takes place in the house and you get to know a little bit of background on all three women and how the course of the film's events affect them. The plot does drag after all the action but the generating suspense does keep the movie a somewhat intriguing experience.Grade B-

zimbo_the_donkey_boy This isn't a film. The credits claim the screenplay was written from a play but there is no screenplay. This is simply the filming of a (fictional) psychopath torturing his victim and then the victim torturing him back. Why would anyone wish to watch this, except for the people who apparently find porno bondage films entertaining? Neither the rapist or the victim fights realistically but that comment suggests that this is a real film. It's not. It's simply an assembly of misery. Farah Fawcett has made some fine films but this is not one of them. Every character in this slop is literally retarded.The whole point of this thing is that any criminal can get away with any crime, as long as there aren't other (besides the victim) witnesses, though that does not apply to the criminal. If a victim tries to (incompetently) torture the criminal back, that does not require witnesses to send her away to the slammer.This wasn't set in America. Was it meant to represent North Korea? The moon? The municipal sewer? Using the film's own logic, why on earth didn't Farah simply get the ax out of her garden shed, chop off both the psychopathic rapist's legs, and then call the police and say he chopped off his own legs while breaking into her house? There'd be no witnesses against Farah so she'd go perfectly free, and yet the rapist couldn't re-terrorize Farrah or any other rape-victims. The why not is because then the film would have been over.Why did Farah's "friend" and house-mate believe everything that the rapist told her but nothing that Farah told her? This must have been written and filmed by that piece of scum who wrote a book and went on talkshows a few years ago claiming that ALL men are potential rapists and would commit rape, under the right circumstances. This monstrosity is evil. The makers of this thing worship Satan. Do they let people as stupid as these characters actually have drivers licenses (as they had in this)? I'd hate to think that I ever come even within twenty feet of scum like EACH of the characters, including the "police".I know that some men work in the septic tank pumping business but at least they're paid to do that, and it's a useful service. Watching this slime serves no purpose, unless you've drunk some poison and need something to induce vomiting. Why did neither of Farrah's "friends" and house-mates believe Farrah or get mad at the rapist until Farrah tortured him back, in front of them, and then they believed his new version of the story, even though he'd only coughed up his "confession" with a knife to his throat? Oh, I already answered that one--because they're literally retarded.And why was the friend so hateful towards Farrah and believing of the rapist, earlier in the flick? Because her girlfriend's father had raped her but she, of course, couldn't do anything about it because there had, of course, been no witnesses so she had to always see her own rapist time & time again without being, of course, able to do anything about it. This is a horror flick, though not about the horror of rape and/or torture but rather the horror of people walking around who believe that this slime made sense.

Michael_Elliott Extremities (1986)* 1/2 (out of 4)A woman (Farrah Fawcett) is attacked by a would be rapist but manages to get away before any serious harm can be done. A week later the attacker (James Russo) shows up at her home to finish the job but soon the woman turns the tables on him. That's a pretty simple set up for this psychological drama that comes off as a major disappointment. I had heard how terrific the original play was and how wonderful Fawcett was in it but this adaptation is a complete disaster that is poorly directed and features some questionable acting. I'll start with the direction which is just a complete horrid mess. There isn't a single thing in this movie that manages to have any emotion. None of the characters are believable and even worse is that we're never given anything to feel from start to finish. The opening attack sequence is meant to be full of suspense but it isn't. Fawcett's "fear" is meant to be dramatic but it isn't. The terror she's living in is meant to be dramatic but never is. Then when the cat and mouse game begins we're suppose to feel this psychological drama of the two characters going back and forth yet we never feel this. I've seen exploitation rape/revenge movies that have more emotion than this thing and that's pretty sad. I wouldn't place all the blame on the director because the cast has to take some of the heat for these horrid performances. Fawcett must have lost whatever she had in the play because she gives a one-note performance here and really comes off looking bad. Not once did I believe the shock her character was going through or anything else she was suppose to be portraying. Russo is just as bad as the rapist and Alfre Woodard and Diane Scarwid come off pretty poorly as well. This is all rather shocking because all four have proved that they can give good performance so why they're so incredibly bad here doesn't make any sense. The movie never really knows what it wants to do as it throws out so many mixed messages of rape, revenge and countless other items that are thrown out there only to slowly die off or be replaced by the next thought that the film tries to explain. A poor film all around and a real disappointment.

MarieGabrielle Kudos to Fawcett to taking on roles that, at the time were considered controversial. To my recollection, rape was still a taboo subject in the 1980's, and women's rights and emotions were rarely so deeply examined during that time.Fawcett is simply a woman who is followed, then stalked by actor James Russo. He is adequate as the obsessed psychopath, but at times a bit transparent.Diana Scarwid has a bit role, as does Alfre Woodard as the house mate. Woodard worries about the legal consequences when Fawcett, the rape victim, takes revenge on the culprit. The scene where she throws a frying pan of hot oil at Russo is classic, and as the rapist he deserves it. She then keeps him in bondage, and the consequences must be faced.A very real story reflecting the emotions and rage of rape victims who have been violated, physically, and mentally. Highly recommended. 8/10.