• Continuity: The principal’s name is written on an envelope as “Mr. Edwards”, but he is then addressed as “Mr. Evans”, and later as “Mr. Edmunds”.

Reisz sets the desert scene on a soundstage, with absurdly bright paper skyand artificial sand, perhaps pointing to the artificiality of the piece, orof our lifelong struggles. He downplays the influence of silent comedy,making the hero a recognisable Everyman figure. This minimises the piece’shumour, but also its pathos because of the manner of filming – theatricalspace is not translated into film space; and the mime suffers. Reisz’srecourse to hackneyed close-ups and editing undercuts any momentum in thepiece, which depends on the body and its reactions. The various comic bitsare obscured by obtrusive framing.

My one wish is that I had a briefcase like Jack Gracy (Scalia'scharacter). In the movie his has a red light that when it goes off heknow an unauthorized entry at a Russian Nuclear missile silo hasoccurred. Mine would be slightly different. It would still have a redlight, but it would only go off when someone made a really goodmemorable action movie. This is not one of them.

2) A Canadian conspiracy to destroy movies forever has come one stepcloser to fruition with the very bad ‘Act of War.’ The title is adeclaration of what it intends to do the the larger body of worldcinema, the forces of good, and your free time. This movie is a bad,bad, bad thing and I’m so sorry I spent time watching it. I’ve startedto attend counseling and I’m happy to report that I do appear to bemaking a move towards recovery.

This movie is a clear sign that ‘Telefilm Canada’ is in the business ofproviding tax shelters and opportunities for tax write-offs. I’d justlike to take a moment and apologize to the rest of the world for whatmy country has inflicted upon you. The four out of ten may seemgenerous but the film has so much intended humour (which is miserablyunfunny) that the hilarity of the botched attempt actually makes thisfilm easier to watch than much similar fare you’ll find. I’ve seenworse — I’m an idiot — but I’ve seen worse.

Featuring no ‘A-List’ or ‘B’List’ players, one can’t but hope that theproducers might have tried to get a hold of ‘C-List’ material like thereliable Michael Dudikoff. Read that last line again with a straightface. I dare ya! Tragically, Dudikoff appears to have been busy on theweekend that this movie was filmed. How lucky are we that Jack Scaliastepped in to save the day instead? In fairness to Jack Scalia, he putsin as good of a performance as could be expected from a film which isnever really sure about its own identity. Hampered by a very muddyscript, terrible dialogue, goofy plot and botched satirical elements,the inmates are running the asylum. Is it a comedy, a spy thriller, anaction film, a (bad) James Bond spoof, a film with a warning on nuclearterrorism? It tries to be all of these and succeeds in being none. Thescript has no focus, giving the director no focus. A focus-lessdirector has no vision and therefore no control over the actors. Theactors ham and mug shamelessly in front of the camera and one suspectsthey are just trying to add something to their reel that they can useas audition material for better projects.

The taxi driver is completely insufferable. The President is almost asbad. The bald general with the "I’m such a bad guy and you can tell ifyou look at my characteristic ‘evilguy’ goatee" beard is awful. Thescript is mortal wound number one. The acting is mortal wound numbertwo. There are so many bad performances that the restraint to name onlythese three is unbelievable. Oh what the hell: the vice-president isover the top with his mustache twirling Snidely Whiplash performance.The satirically intended (but ultimately failing in the attempt)American general and his political equivalent are doing badimpersonations of Rod Steiger in ‘Mars Attacks!’ Jack Scalia looks likeLaurence Olivier in comparison to the rest of the cast, but an Olivierwho was older, tired and just needed some quick dough.

Don’t even get me started on the soundtrack. Hilariously awful, itundercuts every single bit of credibility that the film aspires to havewithout exception. Find me a single moment where the music in this filmhelps to support the action or the tension. My own theme music plays inthe background while I make that request. It’s ‘Mission:Impossible."The soundtrack is mortal wound number three. A shame really because itnever gives this movie a chance from the opening credits to themercifully not too far off end credits.

Paradoxically, this movie might thrive because of its awfulness. It isso bad that it is funny. One of those rare gems that are actuallyhighly enjoyable with a few friends and a few drinks in. Just don’tmake them close friends because after they see this on your shelf,they’ll never look at you the same way again. Oh for the days of’Mystery Science Theatre 3000.’ They’d have a lot of fun with this one!

3) I rented this movie because I wanted a movie where thought process wasminimal. That is what I got. There was lots of explosions and shoot outs,and no big name stars. Jack Scillia played the take no crap one man armyofthis movie. He shot people, blew things up and in the end he romanced thegirl. Sounds like James Bond you say? Well it is very similar. There isevena character that resembled Odd-Job from "Goldfinger". This was not theworstmovie I have ever seen ( the worst being "Trucks" and "Ape" ) but I wasdownthere. There were many acting problems due to the fact that no one couldact. And the fact that the camera kept zooming on Jack’s eyes, I amclueless.I give it a *1/2 out of ****.

4) It is set in some fictious Soviet country, terrorists take over a palaceand the Scalia character has to come in to save the day. I liked theeffectsequences of the Palace in the final scene. If you like typical action,you’ll like this film.

5) Watched it on TV, started to wonder why others liked the explosions. Justabad movie all around. They must have a lot of money in Hollywood to goaheadwith this movie. I would like to read plots of movies that did not makethecut because they must be really horrible if this movie gotmade.

‘The Postman’ was a great action flick next to this.

6) It looks like they took Die Hard and moved it to an ex-soviet republic.It must have taken the writers a day to watch Die HArd and copy downthe storyline and then another day to take the transpose the storylineand set it in another country.

Instead of fake terrorists robbing the safe, you have a fake coup torob the treasury; one of the co-workers selling out Bonnie Bedelia hereyou have an embassy employee making the same deal. etc. Even the heroappearing in an undershirt at the end.

The stereotyping of the characters – the taxi driver who had cousinswho could do anything was horrible, the villain you could tell by hisgoatee and the Soviet politician who drinks too much – is worthy of amovie from the cold war era.

7) When oh when will I learn that the bargain priced movies in the bin atWalmart are there for one reason. They’re shoddy junk. "Act Of War" fora buck fifty was no exception. James Bond without the class. JohnLeCarre without the intelligence. The acting is bad. The plot issimplistic and predictable. As usual in these bang bang epics, the badguys are all lousy shots. I know nothing about guns but I’m sure Icould kill more people banging off an automatic weapon than this bunch.But then, if they hit their targets, the movie could be a good fortyminutes shorter. (Which might not be a bad thing.)This indeed is one ofthose films that is so bad it’s almost good. One suggestion. If youmust buy bargain movies at Walmart, go for VHS rather than DVD. Atleast that way you can re-use the tape. I haven’t yet found a use forold DVD’s.

This is an insult to James Bond…They try to copy a 007 movie by usingbadactors & bad scenario. What were they thinking??? You have to be fool tomake a near movie! I give it nothing more than 1 out of 5 (and I amgenerous).

• Continuity: At the end of the movie, when the car crashes head-on into the light pole, Frank Enley is thrown forward by the impact. He is next seen lying in the street several yards to the rear of the car.
• Continuity: At the end of the movie Joe Parkson bends the knee of his right leg, the ‘lame’ leg he has been nearly unable to bend throughout the entire story.
• Continuity: In the scene where Enley leaves Pat’s room, the lighting on Pat suddenly changes from very shadowy to bright for no apparent reason.

In "Act of Violence" Zinnemann returns to the aftermath of war – this timetelling of two prisoner-of-war camp survivors, one of whom was a Nazicollaborator, the other one a vengeful fellow prisoner who takes it uponhimself to track down and kill his former friend. Cinematographer RobertSurtees makes great use of Los Angeles’ seedier parts of town – I wasreminded of how his son Bruce Surtees made similar effective use of SanFrancisco in "Dirty Harry" – this is noir at its best, not only in cinematicterms, but with those "only come out at night" characters you expect in atop notch thriller.

Mary Astor is most effective as the barfly (couldn’t make her a prostitute,though it is more than obvious) – and after her performance in the garish"Desert Fury" it’s nice to see her in black-and-white again. We first meether in a pub in which Van Heflin runs for sanctuary, the lighting there hasus admiring the way she has held up, but when we move to the harsherlighting of her apartment (the lamp hanging on a cord is unshaded), werealize that the first impression was too kind. It’s a magnificentperformance – perhaps the best that I’ve seen of her.

Barry Kroeger, whose altogether too infrequent appearances included suchnoir classics as "Cry of the City" and "Gun Crazy," makes the most of hisfew moments as an underworld "enforcer" who would be quite willing to killRyan for a price. While Ryan seems to be a man who is on the verge ofviolence at any second, barely able to restrain himself, Kroeger is evenmore chilling. His calm, rational demeanor puts him in a different class ofpredator – he’s good at what he does and he’s used to doing it, like AlanLadd’s character in "This Gun For Hire" we can be sure that when committingmurder, he feels "Fine, just fine."

Janet Leigh appears as Heflin’s wife – it’s an early turn for her, and whileit is a most stereotypically written "wifey" role, she invests it with allthat she has, but the ending is such that we have to wonder just how shewill react. Right before that we have a taut scene with Heflin about toconfront Ryan while Kroeger is watching. The tension is almost unbearable,all done through editing and camerawork and not one line ofdialogue.

Zinnemann would continue to look at war’s effects on those who came home in"The Men" as well as "Teresa" and in "Hatful Of Rain" – the man may be themost unheralded of classic film directors, but his resume includes Oscarwinners such as "High Noon" and "A Man For All Seasons" as well as suchnailbiters as this film and the original "Day of the Jackal."

2) Home from WWII, veteran Frank Enley (Van Heflin) leads a comfortablelife with his younger wife (Janet Leigh) in a small all-American town,until one day Joe Parkson (Robert Ryan), a former member from hisplatoon shows up, who seems to be out for revenge against him.

ACT OF VIOLENCE never makes it easy on you by telling who the good guyand the bad guy is: Frank may have done something wrong in the past,but is tormented by guilt (Heflin gives a great performance here),whereas Joe may be on a righteous mission, but his need for vengeanceis obsessive and blind. It introduces two radically opposed charactersand in the end makes you empathize with both of them. It’s the movieHOUSE OF SAND AND FOG tried to be, but failed.

With a strong, gripping and tense conflict like this, you hope for agreat ending. It almost delivers, but not quite: the final act wrapsthings up too neatly, it’s a screenwriter’s ending, not a real lifeone.

Nevertheless, ACT OF VIOLENCE is a greatly underrated American film.

3) This grim look a couple of demobbed soldiers continuing their private war athome rarely get mentioned in lists of essential noirs; maybe, upon releasein 1949, it was just a little too close for comfort — hinting a truths thevictorious American public were unwilling to acknowledge. If so, the filmhas yet to be rediscovered –or reappraised. Van Heflin is living out themodest American dream in sunny California when into his life strides an oldcombat buddy, Robert Ryan (at his most menacing, which is nothing to sneezeat). To his wife’s (Janet Leigh’s) consternation, Heflin takes it on thelam, and slowly we learned what happened, or may have happened, over in aPOW camp in the European Theater of War. As Heflin’s flight takes him intoseedier and more sinister surroundings, he links up with Mary Astor, livingon the vague border of prostitution. (After helping to launch the cyclewith her spectacular turn as Brigid O’Shaugnessey in The Maltese Falcon,Astor appeared in disappointingly few film noir; her expert performance heremakes one wonder why, why, why?) Though the script opts for a strange andbitter "redemptive" ending, the acrid taste of Act of Violence lingers long.

4) I caught this film on TCM recently. At first I wasn’t sure if I would likeit but was sucked in thanks to the mystery of why Van Heflin’s character wasbeing stalked by Robert Ryan. Revealing why would spoil it for most people,but I highly recommend watching the film. Quite frankly this could beanother classic Hollywood film noir, as it takes place in 1940’s LosAngeles, and includes many famous landmarks, like the extinct "Angel’sFlight."

Janet Leigh, in her fifth film, gives a fine performance as Heflin’sconcerned wife, and Mary Astor is a real delight as the woman who befriendsHeflin in his state of panic.

This would make an excellent remake today, if done in the style of "L.A.Confidential." Catch this film sometime if you can. You’ll enjoy it.

5) Van Heflin plays a land developer in Los Angeles in the booming yearsafter WW2, whom we see cutting the ribbon on a new sub-division that'sopening up. He has a beautiful young wife played by Janet Leigh whoadores everything about him and a toddler son as well. When an armybuddy played by Robert Ryan unexpectedly shows up, it throws Heflin'slittle paradise into chaos. His wartime history emerges, presenting adisturbing picture of cowardice and betrayal, things he's kept hiddenfrom everyone, including his wife, but which his own conscience andRyan as well, won't let him escape. It turns out Ryan's been trailinghim from coast to coast. Heflin's disintegration is awesome, one of thefinest acting jobs ever. It's all perfectly capped off when he's tryingto explain what happened to his unbelieving wife. He winds up on LA'sskid row, meeting a party girl who's seen much better days played byMary Astor, who gets him to confide in her and introduces him to Johnny(Berry Kroeger), someone who can arrange to have all his problems takencare of for a hefty price. The conclusion, a classic western style noirshowdown on a breezy night on the railroad tracks, is beautifully done.

6) "Act of Violence" is the penultimate noir film, containing many keyelements that made the genre so formidable. Coming a year before CarolReed's classic "The Third Man," the imagery of the tunnel as a symbolfor the search for redemption is presented already full blown by FredZinnemann. The effective utilization of urban nocturnal sounds in placeof music punctuate the mood of desperation and hopelessness like asharp knife slashing the soul asunder. What can be more lonely than adistant train whistle in the middle of a dark night? Or wind whistlingthrough the eves of houses occupied by deserted, lost individuals? Noplace is as desolate as the empty streets of a large city in the weehours of morning just before dawn. Zinnemann and his superb cameraman,Robert Surtees, provide these chilling images plus so much more.

Who can forget Frank R. Enley (Van Heflin at his best) escaping fromhis demons, not just limping Joe Parkson (Robert Ryan) or bad boyJohnny (Berry Kroeger), through a vacant tunnel screaming at the top ofhis lungs, "Don't do it, Joe…Don't…." Or the scenes of Joe runningdown oppressive stairways to get away from the specters that haunt him.His actions are not enough to justify recompense. Recompense comes onlyat the end of the film, not a closing that most would want or expect ina Hollywood film of the day, but the required one for the theme of thestory.

The entire cast of "Act of Violence" is first rate, giving performancesworthy of recognition, but veteran actress Mary Astor as the lost soul,Pat, who takes an ambivalent attitude toward Frank, runs away with theshow. She portrays despair and desperation writ large. Pat's human sidewants to help Frank, to free him of the hell hounds nipping at hisheels. But the survival part of Pat wants to throw him to the wolvesfor a pittance. A telling scene occurs when Johnny nonchalantly dashesa drink into her face for attempting to aid Frank. She reacts in animpassive manner, as if this were a daily occurrence. Pat isperennially at the mercy of men who treat her like trash. She viewslife the same way she views men.

One other performance of note comes from Taylor Holmes as Gavery, theaged shyster lawyer. Holmes makes his small part shine, becoming theepitome of an intelligent, educated professional, corrupted by greedand ego. His surroundings suggest Gavery is debarred, now living onfunds extorted or purloined from illegal activities. Johnny, played toperfection by Berry Kroeger, is a crude, immoral mental dwarf ruled byemotion and violence, a counterpart to Holmes who uses punks such asJohnny to do the dirty work and be the patsy if caught. Johnny is alsoa foil for Joe who seeks to kill Frank for moral, altruism reasons.

The script by Robert Richards from a story by Collier Young is not muchand would have withered on the vine in the hands of a journeymandirector. Fred Zinnemann and cinematographer Robert Surtees breathelife into the routine story to make it one of the best noir thrillersof them all, innovative and entertaining. A leading citizen of a smalltown, Frank Enley, is being stalked by a former army buddy, JoeParkson, because of an incident that took place in a German POW campthat led to the death of several fellow soldiers. Joe was left for deadbut miraculously survived to hunt down the informer, Frank, and killhim. Frank attempts to escape by hiding out in a seedy section of LosAngeles. He meets a fellow creature of the night, Pat, who introduceshim to a hit-man, Johnny. While drunk and out of his mind, Frank makesa deal with the devil. Realizing too late what he has done, Frankrushes to stop the inevitable.

7) This dark, unsettling film is surely too unhappy ever to have found muchaudience. But TCM’s frequent showings will find it at last a few viewersinterested in knowing some of the scarier aspects of the post-war period.Apurported war-hero lives in terror of being revealed as having informed onfellow POW’s, and by the time his traumatized accuser, Robert Ryan, hasclosed in to take vengeance, the punishment seems almost secondary to VanHeflin’s self-torment. I grew up the son of a POW, and know the dark area,not discussed openly, surrounding those soldiers who were not noble orself-sacrificing.

Robert Ryan and Van Heflin do a great job in this menacing film. Niceguy Heflin is being stalked and threatened by hot-head Ryan whopersonally blames him for cowardice and double-dealing during the war.But, since Ryan is so obviously "off his rocker", you really feel forHeflin and his family. After all, can’t he just get on with his life?But, just when you think you’ve got this movie figured out, it hits youwith some real surprises and intensity that raise it above theordinary. Also, I guess I like it because I am a sucker for movies withactors like these two men–rather ordinary looking men who simply couldact and act well. See it and see two highly under-appreciatedcraftsmen.

9) A potent, almost forgotten film from Fred Zinneman. Van Heflin is aWWII vet living the post-war dream with wife Janet Leigh until old armybuddy Robert Ryan shows up with an ax to grind. What really went onduring the war for these two men and how each acted at the time sets aoff a chain of events that has Heflin on the run, Ryan in pursuit andLeigh in a panic. ACT OF VIOLENCE touches on the same themes thatZinneman would explore later in his work: bravery; redemption;cowardice; loyalty. He would expand on these themes with the likes ofHIGH NOON, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY and, to a certain degree, JULIA.

Heflin is stellar in a role perfectly suited for his off-kilterpersonality and Ryan is every inch his malevolent match. It's notnecessarily clear who's a bad person and who isn't. Leigh holds her ownin some heady company with this early role and Mary Astor makes abrief, yet odd, appearance. It's a psychological study in the guise offilm noir.

10) "What is it, love trouble or money trouble?" a burnt-out good-time-galasks the man she just picked up in a bar. She's seen all the troublesin the world, she tells him, "And they boil down to just those two.You're broke, or you're lonely." Most noir films confirm this: the herois brought down by lust or greed or some combination of the two; by thetemptations of crime or the lure of a femme fatale. But this time theworld-weary hooker is wrong; her man's problem has nothing to do withlove or money. It has to do with the war, when, as the man tells hiswife, "A lot of things happened…that you don't understand."

World War II is an undercurrent in many post-war noirs. A generation ofmen had faced violence and death; they couldn't settle back into theirostentatiously wholesome communities, and they were all too ready topull out their service revolvers to solve peacetime problems. ACT OFVIOLENCE offers the most direct analysis of the war as a source of noirangst, becoming both one of the best examples of the genre and one ofthe best films about the effects of war. Four years after America'svictory, it was still daring to admit that not all of our boys behavedhonorably overseas, and that our prosperity might rest on corruptfoundations.

Frank Enley (Van Heflin) is a perfect image of postwar success, a warhero with a thriving business, a nice house in the suburbs, a beautifulwife and a young son. This idyll of fishing trips and checkered apronsis invaded by Joe Parkson (Robert Ryan), a creepy, limping,gun-wielding, apparently deranged stalker. He was with Frank in thearmy and in a P.O.W. camp, and holds a mysterious, murderous grudgeagainst him. The first part of the movie plays like a horror film,using magnified sounds–especially the slow, shuffling drag ofParkson's lame leg–in eerie stillness to heighten suspense. As welearn more about what really happened in the war, the black-and-whitescenario of threatened innocence unfolds into a complex moral puzzle.Can desperate circumstances or good intentions mitigate an act ofbetrayal and moral cowardice? Is violent revenge ever justified?

Robert Ryan starts out in typical form: intense, tightly-wound, scary,seething with hate. But we also get to glimpse the suffering and moraloutrage that underlie his tortured obsession. His anger might berighteous, but he's still a figure of terror. Van Heflin has the richerpart, and he reveals the full measure of his under-appreciatedbrilliance. He doesn't look like a movie star–he was well described as"attractively homely"–and he doesn't act like a movie star either.He's so transparent and direct; he never advertises what he's doing.Like Arthur Kennedy, he specialized in ambiguity, playing nice guyswith something shifty and unreliable about them, or unscrupulous heelswith decent cores. Here he evolves from an amiable pillar of thecommunity to a man so sick with self-loathing that he can hardly standup straight.

In a classic noir trajectory, he moves from the sunny suburbs to thewasteland of an urban night, where the desolate streets around L.A.'sAngel's Flight mirror his state of mind. (The suburbs too have darkshadows and unsettling overtones, like the background motif of theEnleys' baby screaming behind the bars of his crib or playpen, trappedand helpless as his father.) At the end of his rope, Frank meets afriendly, worn-out barfly (a shockingly weathered and tawdry MaryAstor.) Astor works wonders with a clichéd part, all nervous tics andgenerosity pinched by fear and bad memories. She keeps talking about"getting her kicks"–it's all she has left. "Gee, there's no law saysyou gotta be happy."

In this seedy underworld, the man with the tortured conscience meets aman with no conscience, a killer-for-hire with a smooth voice andplump, evil face (Barry Kroeger) who plays the part of Satan, temptingFrank to get rid of his problem the easiest way. Heflin manages toretain sympathy for his weak and sometimes despicable character,through the honesty and vividness of his anguish. Fred Zinneman keepsthe suspense mounting through taut, spare direction: no excessive musicor flashy visuals or extraneous flourishes, just a relentless focus onthe collision courses of the main characters, who include Frank's wife(the girlish, gorgeous Janet Leigh) and Parkson's girlfriend (PhyllisThaxter), who doesn't want her man to be a murderer.

What would you do if you were starving, literally fighting forsurvival, and you had a chance to save yourself? What if you had donesomething terrible and knew that only one living witness knew about it?What if you were that witness? There are no easy answers in this movie,which attacks the popular notion that when a war is over it's over, andpeople can just get on with their lives. An "act of violence" is neverthe end, it always leads to another.

2) I'm a big Ellen Burstyn fan, so I'll see anything with her. But Ididn't have high expectations for this based on the title (sounds likea Steven Seagal actioner) and the cover artwork (looks like a pulpyB-movie, with Ellen's mug thrown in as an afterthought).

Nonetheless, I was pleasantly surprised. Ellen was excellent as always,but Charles Bronson was also terrific, as was a young Keanu (spelledKeannu in the credits) Reeves. But the real revelation here is WilfordBrimley as the union boss. What a great bad-ass! For those used toseeing Wilford harp about cholesterol and diabetes, check this one out.You'll realize how much he's wasting his talent by doing thosecommercials.

This is a moving human drama with fine performances, captivatingdirection and a compelling, if occasionally clichéd, script. It's anact of triumph. Eight out of 10 stars.

3) I grew up in Pennsylvania, and although we were far from coal country,some news was so big, it got around. The Yablonski killings were allover the western end of the state when they happened, but we didn'treally understand what was happening behind them. I'm sure someliberties were taken in collapsing events, but this film does a greatjob of putting the times, the relationships between Big Unions and BigBusiness in context, and the power of the common man to make, or try tomake, things better. The cinematography really caught the gritty worldof coal mining, and the areas in which is happens. This was one of thefirst roles I saw Charles Bronson in, and I thought he was terrific,probably bringing a much deeper sensibility to the part as a formercoal miner and, as I understand, a card-carrying member of the UnitedMine Workers throughout his life. His campaign stops even had some veryfunny one liners you wouldn't think would work coming out of Il Bruto.I actually checked out some of his other films after seeing this one.The gang that couldn't shoot straight, but obviously eventually did,were such complete idiots you were surprised they managed not to shootthemselves, and were able to kill Yablonski only with Keanu Reeves'help. This film is probably only available at a library, or maybe avideo store that doesn't clear out stock once a year. But it'sdefinitely worth watching.

4) The world of politics can be a dangerous place, and no one knows this morethan real life union-activist Jock Yablonski (Charles Bronson). Aftersuccessfully defeating the long-standing president of the United MineWorkers in a 1969 election, Yablonski and two of his immediate familymembers were murdered at night while they slept. Rather than focus on themurders themselves, director Mackenzie tells the story of everyone involvedwith the crime in three separate, but intertwining stories. We follow thecampaign trail of Yablonski, the desperation of Tony Boyle and his cronies,and the hired assassins, getting an eagle eye’s view into their lives. Doneeffectively, this is a very powerful tool in helping the audience associatewith the characters, and the situations they find themselves in. Whether itwas because of the confines of a made for TV movie or just bad direction I’mnot sure, but Mackenzie was not successful in representing all sides evenly,and it was glaringly apparent where his biases lie. All of the acting wassolid, with Bronson and Ellen Burstyn playing a very convincing marriedcouple. Wilford Brimley turned in another great performance as the racist,corrupt, and all around dirty president of the Mine Workers’ Union, andKeanu acted just as Keanu does, albeit without much screen time. If you’refiercely interested in American politics I would say it’s worth checkingout. If not, don’t bother: go outside and take a walk, or learn how to makea new dish, this is not worth your time. Rating: 21/40

5) What a wonderful surprise, Charles Bronsonn actually acts a little in thisfine HBO film as union rebel Jock Yablonski whose wish to change the UMWcost him his life. Ellen Burstyn is wonderful as his doomed wife andWilfordBrimley is sinister as corrupt union President Tony Boyle. The guys whokilled Yablonski and his family were first class idiots who wereimmediatelyarrested. They were the dumbest assassins you can imagine.

6) First of all this, yes this TV films was more like a genuine Bronson filmwith a great performance.This is one to watch for everybody.I’m 17 and live in the UK and don’t get many Bronson films over hereconsidering he made his great career over in before he did in the great US.The only way i can get Bronson films is one Ebay, and i’m nerely completeofall his films, i have all the great 80’s films he did apart from this one.(soon hopefully)And i’ll have most of all the 70’s ones aswell, on dvd onvideo..Why isn’t this film and all the 80’s and most of the early 70’s bronsonfilms on DVD like The Mechanic. Come on people that film needs to be on DVDwith a Death Wish box set aswell…

This film really does work, and as a kid i always wouldn’t who that guy waswithout his mustash, it was the guy nerely unrecognisible.I mean i can tell Bronson in his other 70’s films without THE GREAT TASH.Like Hard Times… But in the 80’s that was his crown, well and the 70’sbut without the tash it wasn’t really the guy, but still tough.(Likeschwarzenegger’s crown was his hair like in commando and Clint with his 44Magnum).

People watch this great film, this is superb and fantastic action dramafilm…

2) RAPE SQUAD is an odd-ball of an exploit film – it's shot to look likeyour typical made-for-TV movie, but contains all the sleaze elementsthat are common amongst the more notable exploit films.

The plot revolves around a hockey-masked serial-rapist who spouts ofsilly one-liners and makes his victims sing "Jingle Bells" as he bonesthem. A group of victims that all meet up to try to ID the rapist at apolice line-up decide that the cops aren't taking a serious enoughinterest in their case, and decide to start a women's group to supportand help rape victims. Along the way, hockey-mask surveils the womenand in their attempts to try to smoke him out – Mr. Rapist devises hisown plan to trap the "Rape Squad" so he can have a final bit of funwith them all collectively…

Honestly – RAPE SQUAD isn't nearly as sleazy or graphic as many of themore well-known rape/revenge films – but it's a solid entry in thegenre. It's entertaining enough to keep interest and there's justenough sleaze to still appeal to the exploit fans out there. Not myfavorite of the genre – but a "fun" piece nonetheless…7/10

3) What's a nice young man like Peter Brown doing wearing a horror maskand forcing terrified women to sing "Jingle Bells" while he rapes theliving daylights out of them? Peter Brown, who was that good-lookingclean-cut Deputy Johnny McKay throughout TV's excellent "Lawman" series(1958-60). What would marshal Troop think of him now? All those sweetappearances in such TV evergreens as, "Maverick,""Cheyenne,""Colt .45,""Loredo," "Sugarfoot" and countless others have led to this manner ofextreme debauchery in a rather unnerving exploitation cheapie full ofmeanness and skin? Little Peter Brown, wearing an orange jumpsuit,leaping out of the bushes, ripping the duds off hapless women andviolating them as breasts flop around to the frenzied squeaking of ahappy Christmas tune? I have to give it five big curiosity points forbeing one actor's most astonishingly bizarre screen turnaround. Peter,you naughty boy.

4) How about that. My first movie with the word "Rape" in the title andit's not Japanese! Unfortunately the Japanese are still the winnerswhen it comes down to movies with the "Rape" in the title. But hell,this was still a nice effort.

Story focuses on a group of women who refer to themselves as The RapeSquad. Guess what they all have in common? Wrong! They've all beenraped by the same guy! Jeez, how can you be so off? They all love theblack guy from the Mod Squad….? Wow, awful guess. Anyways, they'veall been raped by the same Hockey Mask, Orange Jumpsuit wearing rapistwho loves the song Jingle Bells. Now they've joined forces and they'reabout to show these pushy men what real women can do! Rape Squad was adecent enough flick. There are many rape and revenge flicks out therethat are much better, but this is definitely one to check out if you'rea big fan of the genre. Checking out the Rapist alone is reason enough.It's tough to beat a confident, smooth talking rapist who dresses uplike Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees combined. And the coolest thingis, this predates both of those movies by a couple years. Oh and hesings Jingle Bells. Whoever was writing this flick had their creativejuices flowing big time. The movie suffers from a few lulls when thegirls are just chit-chatting….but you gotta admit, it's realistic.And I was hoping for the movie to be a little more graphic, especiallythe ending, but hell, the movie entertained me enough. So yeah, ifyou're into rape/revenge films, give this baby a shot. 6.5 outta 10.

5) I worked at the company that made this. Actually, many years later Iwent through the files after the company was bought by MGM. The funnything is the director had a really Jewish name so he used an alias.(Tells you something about the MPAA that they let him do that.) Ihaven't seen it myself but when it was made some women working on itcomplained so they knew they had a problem. It wasn't intentional. AIPmade all sorts of terrible films or sometimes bought them. In the filesthere were notes on the screening from Sam Arkoff like "the dubbing onthis is terrible but we can make some money". Back then porno wasn't soeasy to get so this type of movie was a substitute.

6) "Rape Squad" is a really bad movie; plain and simple. I only wanted towatch this movie because I am a BIG fan of actress Lada Edmund Jr., buteven she did next to nothing to perk-up this movie for me.

I agree with other comments made, that this movie is disturbing in manyways. Although the dialogue is hokey and atrocious, the rape scenesjust seem too realistic and unsettling at times. When the menacingFoul-Mouth attacks his victims, he tortures them by making them sing"Jingle-Bells" while he rapes them. The idea of that alone ishorrifying to consider. He brutalizes the women too, with many viciouspunches during his attack. To be honest, I fast-forwarded through someof these scenes, because I had no desire to watch them.

But as for the acting ability and skills used in "Rape Squad", they arereally quite pitiful. The dialogue is annoying and foolish often times.Not that she’s a terrific actress, but even my favorite Lada Edmund Jr.had some of the WORST lines in this movie. I mean c’mon, she plays a5′4 martial-arts instructor named "Tiny", with super-short croppedhair; I guess bad lines are to be expected. Although she’s a favoriteactress of mine, she only added to the obsurdity of this film.

Truthfully, I cannot give anyone good enough reason to watch "RapeSquad". The rape scenes are too much to stomach for most people, andwould possibly make you push the "fast-forward" button too. Take-outthe rape scenes though, and you’re left with one of the most terriblydirected and acted movies out there. My advice: don’t watch this movieif you can help it. You won’t be in right mind-set for a few weeksafterwards.

7) Although it's not as sleazy or violent as it sounds (or as others ofits ilk), "Rape Squad" is still a solid and entertaining entry in thehole "rape revenge" genre with a strong feminist touch. It's about agroup of women who have all been raped by the same hockey mask andorange jumped suit wearing rapist who makes them sing jingle bellsright before he rapes them. Believing the police aren't doing enough tocatch him the girls form the "rape Squad" a group dedicated to helpingwomen who have been raped and punishing the rapists. The big catchhowever is the one with the hockey mask.

Anyway, this film isn't particularly nasty, but it does have somepretty sleazy elements I dug, one of those being the forced singing of"jingle bells". The rapes aren't shown on screen, but there is power inthe suggestion. And honestly its pretty obvious that director BobKelljan is trying to make a "female empowerment" rape/ exploitationfilm but unlike other directors who tried to pull that off like QuentinTarantino in "Death Proof" and Meir Zarchi in "I Spit on Your Grave"(sorry guys, never understood the appeal of that one) this one managesto work, mostly because Kelljan is able to get his point across withoutbeating the audience over the head with it and acting self righteous.Now, it does drag here and there and I still wish it was more violentand sleazy, but this is still a solid film. This really needs a DVDrelease.

Parts of this movie are certainly disturbing. The rapist (Foul Mouth) isconvincing as the menacing rapist. The main victim played by Jo Ann Harrisis certainly attractive as well as determined to exact revenge. I thoughtthe part of the movie where he forces his victims to sing a song was notonly unnecessary but it trivialized the rapes themselves.

9) This movie is pathetic. An anti-rape film that wants to have it both waysbybeing exploitive too. The men are portrayed as insensitive buffoons andthevictims are self-pitying, careless, indecisive, vindictive and stupid. Thegratuitous nudity is another issue that I have with this piece of junk.Andthe ending in which I guess is suppose to have the audience cheering justseem ridiculous (as I’m sure it did back in ‘74). A previous reviewerrefered to this movie as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE-lite. ISOYG didn’t try tohidethe fact that it’s trash. This one tries to have it’s cake and eat ittoo.

10) I found this movie so incredibly silly and stupid it made me laugh. Itwasn’t meant to be stupid tho or funny I think that’s what made it evenmorefunny. What seemed so out of place was the whole way the movie waspresented. I mean there was so much nudity that totally contradicted thesupposed message of the film. I mean not only in the rapescenes, you see ascene where the girls meet up in a bath-house and chatting and they arealltotally nude and they show everything. What is the point of showing that?Ithink the real message was to make guys horny but since it wanted to gainsome recognition it pretended to be a "decent" picture. God it was awfulbutI laughed at it.SOme of the dialogue was so stupid too like it was supposed to dig intotheminds of a raped woman, in one scene two of the raped girls are at a discoand they talk and a girl just said no to a guy that wanted to dance withherand afterwards they talk "I’m really horny but after that thing I’m notmyself anymore". WEll I’ve already spent to many lines on that movie I’mnotgonna bother writing anymore about it, I’m very curious to read morereviewsabout it tho.