Act of Vengeance (1974)

Act of Vengeance (1974) ** (out of 4) Linda (Jo Ann Harris) is raped by a masked maniac who also forces her to sing Jingle Bells while he attacks her. She goes to the police but they're less than helpful and she eventually meets four other victims of the Jingle Bells rapist. The women decide to form a support group for rape victims and soon their attacker wants some more of them.ACT OF VENGEANCE comes from AIP and it's not nearly as good as its reputation would have you believe. I had heard a lot of good things about this film but I honestly found it to be pretty boring and without too many interesting things going on. The film might want to take a serious subject like rape and so something decent with it but instead this is basically just an exploitation at heart.I say that because these type of movies often want to give the idea that they support women standing up but this is more of a gimmick than anything else. The film has pretty much everything you'd expect in an exploitation movie from some silly kung fu battles between creeps and a female karate instructor and there's also loads of nudity. There's not only nudity in the rape scenes but there's also a shower sequence, which as fans of exploitation knows is a must for the genre.The performances are decent for what they are but no one really stands out with a great performance. The cinematography and score aren't all that impressive as both are victims of the "B" movie feel. The biggest problem with ACT OF VENGEANCE is that it just really doesn't try to be anything good or even special. It's just a cheap exploitation film that has a trashy vibe.

I thought this movie would be a good movie to watch. It has a couple of my favorite actors in Jo Ann Harris and Peter Brown, and I liked the idea behind the movie - rape victims getting together and trying to capture their rapist. However, I believe the film concentrates too much on the Rape Scenes, showing the Rapes once or twice would have been more than enough. And I absolutely hated them using Jingle Bells during the Rape Scenes.This movie could have been made as a made for TV movie without the nudity and I think most people would have called it an OK movie. For me, there is way too much nudity and the acting is not very good. You get no idea why this guy is raping these women and that would be fine if the movie did not spend a considerable amount of time with him on the screen committing these attacks. For me this movie was OK, but not great.

This is an interesting movie. On one hand, it is a completely earnest. TV-movie style flick about a group of women who have all been victimized by the "Jingle Bell rapist" and ban together to fight against piggish male behavior in general and eventually take on their hockey-masked, Christmas-caroling assailant. Of course, the women are also sexy as hell, frequently undressed, and ALWAYS under-dressed, which supposedly compromises the feminist message. Why? I'd reckon 100 percent of heterosexual men like to see sexy, undressed women, while maybe 2 percent (a lot of whom are already in prison) really want to see ANY woman violently raped (and I'm not talking about one of those ridiculous Japanese "rape" scenarios here). So for 98 percent of men there is no contradiction here. Many present-day filmmakers feel they need bow down to the altar of man-hating "feminists" like Andrea Dworkin who conflate any expression of male heterosexuality with rape, but I thank god 70's filmmakers didn't. And as for female viewers, are they only allowed to relate to rape victims if they are unattractive, butch lesbians who dress like Lizzie Borden on a cold day? There are some ridiculous scenes (I know I always meet with MY vigilante gang while sitting naked in a hot tub). The end where the gang goes to a deserted zoo to confront the "Jingle Bell rapist" without the one woman who knows karate is pretty dumb. But this movie is also much more believable than most rape-revenge films in that the women don't immediately and easily turn into remorseless fighting/killing machines. Nothing is less believable than the modern-day "butt-kicking babe" stereotype where a 105lb. fashion model takes on guys three times her size just because she knows karate (and, of course, these big guys never do).The gang here is led by Joanne Harris, who played the young girl who successfully seduces Clint Eastwood in "The Beguiled". I've seen Filipino actress Jennifer Lee in various films. Perennial cheesecake actresses Connie Strickland and Anneka DiLorenzo were both in the similar (but more misogynistic) "The Centerfold Girls". This movie is basically a much more naked and violent version of "Charlie's Angels". But, hey, there's nothing wrong with that. . .

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