Exploitation is the name of the game here, or I should say sexploitation. We have some real dirt bag business guys, who run an operation, involving prostitution, and raping would be actresses on their way up, where they record them like when they're a little drunk and take off their clothes at parties, so they can't testify, as it could jeopardize their careers. One actress goes up against them to no avail as she's rudely interrogated by cop, J. C. Quinn, where under his tough facade, is a real compassionate fella who tells the girl Liz, up straight, what will happen if she takes these creeps to court. Another victim/actress Lisa, seeks help from Quinn where they work together, and fall in love, even though he's at least twenty years her senior. When seeing Liz in one of the creep's lesbian porn flicks, he approaches her again, but she's uncooperative, when back hooking for the same sleaze, Jack Diamond, who raped her, as letting that terrible night past. This is a bold sex drama, with frank nudity, sex scenes, but is unpleasant, and does border on the sick side. We have one scene with Liz coming home with one of Diamond's associates in politics. We have a kissing scene, where she disrobes and kisses him more until she's only her pink panties, that are as we fade into a later shot, but then we cut to Lisa and Quinn, similarly making out, and cut back where we aren't sure if it's Liz and company or the other. I liked the boldness of the film, the party scene, especially as if letting the nude actresses go loose and ad lib. This is one of those "no holding back movies", and the baddies are some real nasties, one, threatening this other actress into testifying against Lisa in court, where a more permanent solution is required in the form of a trigger happy gun for hire, John Heard, funny and fantastic, puts a polishing touch on the last of the baddies. But really the exploitation side of this, despoils it. The film, with some unwarranted scenes and frank ones, has some hot class women in it, and shows us how the justice system works in this "your word against their case" scenario, where this manipulative baddies have got their s..t together, you so want them to die.
6 Reviews
Is this supposed to be a joke?
Fire-WalkWithMe3 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Well, stupid me, tracked this movie down because of John Heard. Little did I know, I was in for the hardest thing I've ever done in my life. Sit through this movie. I really hope you publish my review IMDB! Maybe it will help some people.
*Spoilers*
First of all, well, there's so many things wrong with this 'movie'.
1. In the 'rape scenes', the men have their pants on, and in no part do they unzip them.
2. NO ONE in the movie can act. No one. Maybe the little boy. But the girls are just so stupid.. you can tell they are reading their lines (which are just sadly poorly written) off the cards
3. The dialogue is just embarrassing. In one scene, the girl is naked in her room, and her brother comes in, and I won't say anymore, it's just an awkward scene. And so stupid.
4. STARING JOHN HEARD???? If staring means he's in it for TWO MINUTES towards the end, with a cap on, so you can't even really see him that much? Whatever. They just tried to sell the movie to (saps like I was) saying he starred in it because they knew they wouldn't have a movie otherwise.
5. The relationship between the woman and the cop is just creepy. That goes back to poorly written characters though. When we first meet him, he tosses a baseball up and down ANNOYINGLY.. and they develop a relationship (?) When she's supposed to be 18, and he's really unattractive and in his 40's?
6. The characters.. The cops saying "Give it up" and etc, when the girls say they were raped, that's annoying.
That's just starting off to say what's wrong with it! Don't be like me. Don't rent or buy this because you like John Heard. OR, if you want a sleazy/rape movie (If that's YOUR thing). It's not for either, it's just stupid. 1/10.
*Spoilers*
First of all, well, there's so many things wrong with this 'movie'.
1. In the 'rape scenes', the men have their pants on, and in no part do they unzip them.
2. NO ONE in the movie can act. No one. Maybe the little boy. But the girls are just so stupid.. you can tell they are reading their lines (which are just sadly poorly written) off the cards
3. The dialogue is just embarrassing. In one scene, the girl is naked in her room, and her brother comes in, and I won't say anymore, it's just an awkward scene. And so stupid.
4. STARING JOHN HEARD???? If staring means he's in it for TWO MINUTES towards the end, with a cap on, so you can't even really see him that much? Whatever. They just tried to sell the movie to (saps like I was) saying he starred in it because they knew they wouldn't have a movie otherwise.
5. The relationship between the woman and the cop is just creepy. That goes back to poorly written characters though. When we first meet him, he tosses a baseball up and down ANNOYINGLY.. and they develop a relationship (?) When she's supposed to be 18, and he's really unattractive and in his 40's?
6. The characters.. The cops saying "Give it up" and etc, when the girls say they were raped, that's annoying.
That's just starting off to say what's wrong with it! Don't be like me. Don't rent or buy this because you like John Heard. OR, if you want a sleazy/rape movie (If that's YOUR thing). It's not for either, it's just stupid. 1/10.
Inept sexploitation treatment of a serious topic
lor_16 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
My review was written in November 1986 after watching the film on Vestron video cassette.
In "Violated", filmmaker Richard Cannistraro can't seem to make up his mind whether he is making a sexploitation film for grindhouses or a serious treatment of the oft-filmed rape topic. Resulting hodgepodge, like so many other unreleased features that surface on video cassette, plays like an unfinished film bailed out of a lab. Two distinct rape-themed films with this title were made in 1984, the other one acquired by New Line Cinem and reamed "The Ladies Club".
Storyline, which resembles a telefilm but feature loads of extraneous nude scenes, has gangsters Jack Diamond (D. Balin) and Frank Lyon (Alec Massey) throwing parties to which young girls are invited and raped. Focus is narrowed here on a young victim, Lisa (April Daisy White), a soap opera actress in New York. Though she doesn't report the incident, her aunt and guardian Shirley (Kaye Dowd) does and it's spread all over the front page when a N. Y. Post reporter badgers the family for info.
Lisa quickly falls in love with the cop on the case, McBane (J. C. Quinn), but the gangsters buy off testimony and ridicule her in front of the grand jury. Film's credibility falls apart completely when gangster boss Zimmerman (Charles Gilbert) hires a hitman to kill the gangster-rapists and cop McBane turns out to be moonlighting as the pro hitman. Film ends abruptly midstream with a fadeout after one of the hits and none of its plot threads resolved.
Actors perform capably in a losing cause, with April Daisy White lending panache to her central roel. Picture is not likely to be listed in the resume of John Heard, who is nonetheless excellent in a brief role as a fidgety lowlife who acts as intermediary in hiring the cop-hitman and dreams of someday becoming a hitman himself.
In "Violated", filmmaker Richard Cannistraro can't seem to make up his mind whether he is making a sexploitation film for grindhouses or a serious treatment of the oft-filmed rape topic. Resulting hodgepodge, like so many other unreleased features that surface on video cassette, plays like an unfinished film bailed out of a lab. Two distinct rape-themed films with this title were made in 1984, the other one acquired by New Line Cinem and reamed "The Ladies Club".
Storyline, which resembles a telefilm but feature loads of extraneous nude scenes, has gangsters Jack Diamond (D. Balin) and Frank Lyon (Alec Massey) throwing parties to which young girls are invited and raped. Focus is narrowed here on a young victim, Lisa (April Daisy White), a soap opera actress in New York. Though she doesn't report the incident, her aunt and guardian Shirley (Kaye Dowd) does and it's spread all over the front page when a N. Y. Post reporter badgers the family for info.
Lisa quickly falls in love with the cop on the case, McBane (J. C. Quinn), but the gangsters buy off testimony and ridicule her in front of the grand jury. Film's credibility falls apart completely when gangster boss Zimmerman (Charles Gilbert) hires a hitman to kill the gangster-rapists and cop McBane turns out to be moonlighting as the pro hitman. Film ends abruptly midstream with a fadeout after one of the hits and none of its plot threads resolved.
Actors perform capably in a losing cause, with April Daisy White lending panache to her central roel. Picture is not likely to be listed in the resume of John Heard, who is nonetheless excellent in a brief role as a fidgety lowlife who acts as intermediary in hiring the cop-hitman and dreams of someday becoming a hitman himself.
a warning for would be rapists?
squireson200223 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The films set up revolves around a young wannabe actress. She is invited to a glamorous party where she is viciously raped by two guys while a complicit older woman watches. She continues to have flashbacks throughout the rest of the movie.
When she tries to press charges the police a re shown secret video tapes of her having fun earlier in the evening . this includes footage of her going topless into a swimming pool. It is reason enough for them to drop charges. Failing the legal remedy her and her new boyfriend go after the big shot producers with a shotgun. You can pretty much fill in the rest. The moral is the usual , having fun with strangers gives them the right to rape you without fear of retribution but you can always seduce a cop afterwards and get them in the end.
If you have read this there isn't really a compelling reason to watch the film.
When she tries to press charges the police a re shown secret video tapes of her having fun earlier in the evening . this includes footage of her going topless into a swimming pool. It is reason enough for them to drop charges. Failing the legal remedy her and her new boyfriend go after the big shot producers with a shotgun. You can pretty much fill in the rest. The moral is the usual , having fun with strangers gives them the right to rape you without fear of retribution but you can always seduce a cop afterwards and get them in the end.
If you have read this there isn't really a compelling reason to watch the film.
A sick exploitation film!
drhannibal66614 November 2000
This grim exploitation drama follows the cruelty of New York gangsters who prey upon young, naive actresses by inviting them to fancy parties where they are to be viciously raped...
No words can describe how sick is this film...
My Rating:1/10
No words can describe how sick is this film...
My Rating:1/10
And that's exactly how you'll feel afterwards... Violated!
Coventry24 May 2022
Okay, wow, there are so many things wrong with this film I don't even properly know where to begin! "Violated" is a bad film in terms of plotting, acting, and directing, but that really isn't the main issue. It's also just plain wrong from every moral and ethical perspective. We've seen a lot of extremely misogynistic and brutally graphic slashers and exploitation movies during the 70s and early 80s, but even they had more of an overall sense of decency than this (righteously) obscure low-budget piece of filth.
The plot, for as far as you can refer to it as such, revolves around how a beautiful, young, and very nave actress - Lisa Robb - is lured to the house party of a rich producer, and then getting viciously raped by him, his buddy and even his shrew of a wife. When the girl presses charges, she's laughed at by the police, humiliated in court, and loses her role in a popular TV-sitcom. So far, so good. I mean, it's trash, but there are quite many 70s/80s "rape and revenge" movies dealing with the same, or a very similar, plot.
What makes "Violated" unacceptable and morally repulsive are a bunch of sequences and assumptions that are downright sick, and yet incorporated into the film like they are the most common things in the world. The first rape victim is treated more disrespectful by the police than by the actual rapist. One of Lisa's actress friends is literally begging to get raped as well. The 40-year-old, and very unattractive, cop starts a relationship with an 18-year-old rape victim. It's suggested that a raped girl went into the prostitution business afterwards because it makes good money. A 13-year-old brother walks into the room of his naked sister, but they act like it's totally normal. Etc. The only reason why I'm giving the film one extra point is because the actresses (Daisy White, Elizabeth Kaitan, Juliet Graham, ...) are very good-looking, and they certainly do have talent, but they sadly ended up in the wrong movie.
I have my own theory of why "Violated" is such a rejectable effort. Richard Cannistraro wrote, directed, produced, and played the part of the most loathsome rapist, all by himself. He did everything alone, but do you know how many other movies he worked on in his "career"? None. Zero. This individual isn't a filmmaker, and he never intended to be one. He's simply a perv who wanted to film his own twisted fantasies, and somehow succeeded.
The plot, for as far as you can refer to it as such, revolves around how a beautiful, young, and very nave actress - Lisa Robb - is lured to the house party of a rich producer, and then getting viciously raped by him, his buddy and even his shrew of a wife. When the girl presses charges, she's laughed at by the police, humiliated in court, and loses her role in a popular TV-sitcom. So far, so good. I mean, it's trash, but there are quite many 70s/80s "rape and revenge" movies dealing with the same, or a very similar, plot.
What makes "Violated" unacceptable and morally repulsive are a bunch of sequences and assumptions that are downright sick, and yet incorporated into the film like they are the most common things in the world. The first rape victim is treated more disrespectful by the police than by the actual rapist. One of Lisa's actress friends is literally begging to get raped as well. The 40-year-old, and very unattractive, cop starts a relationship with an 18-year-old rape victim. It's suggested that a raped girl went into the prostitution business afterwards because it makes good money. A 13-year-old brother walks into the room of his naked sister, but they act like it's totally normal. Etc. The only reason why I'm giving the film one extra point is because the actresses (Daisy White, Elizabeth Kaitan, Juliet Graham, ...) are very good-looking, and they certainly do have talent, but they sadly ended up in the wrong movie.
I have my own theory of why "Violated" is such a rejectable effort. Richard Cannistraro wrote, directed, produced, and played the part of the most loathsome rapist, all by himself. He did everything alone, but do you know how many other movies he worked on in his "career"? None. Zero. This individual isn't a filmmaker, and he never intended to be one. He's simply a perv who wanted to film his own twisted fantasies, and somehow succeeded.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
