Deadly Daphne's Revenge

Four middle-aged guys in the Los Angeles area are set for a weekend of partying and hunting at a remote vacation home. They pick up an alluring blonde hitchhiker on a whim to spice things up, but the unbridled celebration results in life-changing events.

"Deadly Daphne's Revenge" starts and ends as a cabin-in-the-woods flick, but it's also a crime thriller and legal drama (minus a court room) with a little horror/slasher. Despite the 1987 copyright, the production can be traced to 1981 and looks like it was shot in the 70s with its Columbo movie aura; just edgier with slight nudity, racial slurs and so forth.

The title is eye-rolling and unfitting in a way, but no one can argue that it's totally irrelevant. It was called the more ambiguous (and superior) "Hunting Season" during shooting, not to mention released to video as such in at least four countries.

The male protagonist, played by Richard Gardner, looks like a taller, more rugged version of Lee Majors. Gardner also cowrote and directed the film, based on a book. His only other screen credit is as the writer of the novel that "Scandalous John" (1971) was based on. Except for a glorified cameo by James Avery, the other key actors don't have many movies to their credit and, usually, only this one.

Some critics call it a "snoozefest," perhaps because they were expecting a rape/revenge flick, like "I Spit on Your Grave," yet that's not what this is. Sure, there's a rape, and revenge does fit into the story, yet this is way more creative and unpredictable, as well as thought-provoking.

Being low-budget, it's clearly a 'B' flick with melodramatic portrayals, particularly shapely Cindy with her 'troubled brow.' Nevertheless, I found the characters true-to-life in an exaggerated way. I also found the story compelling throughout. The closest comparison would be Peter Fonda's "Open Season" from 1974, which had a bigger budget and is understandably more technically impressive, but this is the better movie in all-around entertainment.

What's the moral? The folly of hubris. But there are other quality insights as well, like the domino effect of bad decisions. Some complain that the quasi-hero looks to be at least 40 years-old and yet he's willing to make it with a female who's a week from being 18. However, that's what happens when people drink and experience an undeniable attraction, not to mention there's uncertainty about so-and-so's real age. Besides, a little later in the story she's fully 18 and ordering liquor at the bar. Moreover, it's not like a difference in age of 20-some years is unbelievable; look no further than Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas.

It runs 1 hour, 30 minutes, and was shot in SoCal.

GRADE: B.

Just so you know what I'm all about: I love drive-in shlock exploitation "B" films and find most mainstream Hollywood productions to be quite lame and boring...

Not your usual Hollywood garbage,but boring none the less.....Sloooooooow paced crime drama pawned off as a horror film.It has a lame "made for TV" production feel to it.Not what you would expect from the fine folks at Troma at all.The first reel had me thinking it was going to be interesting,then it takes a sharp turn for the worst into a crime drama .Let's put it this way: I'm typing this review as I watch the film,just to have something to do!When is something going to HAPPEN already?Fighting off sleep now....stay awake you can do it...Finally (1:15:00 into the movie) the maniac shows up!Can she save this waste of film?Nope....forget it.Shame on you Troma!....and you thought "Manos" was bad ,at least it was watchable.I can't even say that for this film.....do something more entertaining like stare at a wall.I think I hurt my brain watching this junk.

This total waste of time came in the otherwise watchable 3 DVD set "Toxie's Triple Terror #1" Watch the other 2 DVDs and use this one for a Frizbee or coaster.

1/10 on the Drive-in freak-o-meter The DVD makes a handy coaster.

Troma films -- ALL Troma films -- have a pitch. They have something to them to make you want to see them. Either they star someone who went on to be a major actor who first appeared in B-Movie crap (Billy Bob Thornton in Chopper Chicks) or they have a cult following (Bloodsucking Freaks) or they have something infamous about them (the ending of Beware: Children at Play). Or they just have cool titles (Stuff Stephanie in the Incinerator, Rabid Grannies, etc...). This film has none of those elements. In fact, it's pretty much useless garbage that seemingly has no reason to exist.

I guess this film was made to cash-in on some kind of rape/revenge craze like Last House on the Left, I Spit On Your Grave, etc., and things actually start out pretty interestingly. 10 minutes in, we have racist rednecks. 20 minutes in, we have racist redneck raping. 30 minutes in, we have boredom. And that continues on and on and on and on until... DEADLY DAPHNE APPEARS! Now, lemme talk about Deadly Daphne for just a moment: She is mentioned (almost as an afterthought) in the background near the beginning of the movie. She is then mentioned later. Then, she appears in the last few minutes and the film ends. Indeed, she gets her revenge... on the viewer. I'm not sure what I did wrong to watch this film, but I can safely say it's the worst Troma film ever. They tried to do some interesting things with the mob and such, but it never materializes and the film just never comes up with anything compelling. Is it a drama? No, it's not dramatic! It's not a comedy, because it's only funny if you laugh at how awful it is. And it isn't action, despite a gun or two being drawn. Hey, it isn't even worth watching for the rape scenes or the revenge scenes. In fact, it isn't even worth watching. Period.

One of the worst films ever. And I LOVED Nightmare Weekend!

This film begins with 4 young men picking up a hitchhiker by the name of "Cindy Langely" (Laurie Tait Partridge) while on their way to a cabin out in the woods. However, rather than letting her off once they get to her requested destination, they all decide stop off at their cabin to relax and drink some beer instead. Eventually, one thing leads to another and, even though one of the men named "Charlie Johnson" (Anthony Holt) has been rather insistent about sleeping with her, she decides to spend the night with another man named "Steve" (Richard Gardner) who seems to be much nicer and has assured her that Charlie has passed out on the couch and won't disturb her anymore. Unfortunately, once Steve leaves her alone in the bedroom, Charlie and another man come in and rape her without Steve knowing anything about it. The next morning, Steve is told by Charlie that Cindy had left several hours earlier but, prior to that, she voluntarily had sex with Charlie as well. Although initially puzzled by this, Steve eventually takes Charlie's word for it and, after a couple of days in the cabin, they all return to their homes. Not long afterward, they are all indicted for rape--and that's when things get worse for all concerned. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that was a rather strange rape-revenge drama which suffered to a certain extent from its haphazard plot and all-around bad acting. Likewise, although it was supposedly produced in 1987, it has the look and feel of a film produced in the late-70's--or possibly the early-80's. I'm not sure why. In any case, I wasn't too impressed with this movie overall, and I have rated it accordingly. Below average.

Deadly Daphne's Revenge (1987)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Four buddies are on a camping trip when they decide to pick up a 17-year-old hitchhiker (Candy Castillo). It does take long for the leader of the pack to get drunk and start making advances towards the young girl. She eventually willingly sleeps with one of the men but later that night she is raped by two others. She eventually goes to the police and the local DA brings up charges on all four men but that's not the end of the story.

DEADLY DAPHNE'S REVENGE is a film that was released from Troma and they changed its title to try and make it seem more like an exploitation movie. In fact, this picture has been sold as some sort of rape/revenge thriller with horror elements but it's certainly not that. In fact, I'm really not sure what the filmmakers were intending when they made this film because it doesn't fit into any genre really. If I had to force it into something I'd call it a low-budget drama.

The film's story is incredibly active because it's constantly doing something but that doesn't mean it's entertaining. The story starts off like a typical drama but it then gets into the rape and then the law gets involved. You'd think the film would follow some sort of plot that we've seen countless times before but it doesn't. No, I give the filmmakers credit for doing things a bit differently but the screenplay takes the story all over the place and there are just too many boring moments or things that just lead to non-stop dialogue scenes that get rather tiresome.

Richard Gardner directed, co-wrote and plays a major role in the film so obviously this here was his baby. As I've said, I give him credit for trying to do something different but there's just nothing here that makes the film stand out and in all honesty it's easy to see why Troma would have to make stuff up to get the picture sold. There's some nudity and some mild violence but very little else. The performances are the best thing about the picture but this here isn't going to keep you glued to what's going on.