Extremities (1986) User Reviews

The Dilemma

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 22 April 2016]

In Los Angeles, the gorgeous Marjorie (Farrah Fawcett) stops her car after-hours in a parking area to buy an ice-cream. However the store has just closed and when she returns to her car, a masked stranger attacks and attempts to rape her using a knife. Marjorie succeeds to flee, but the man keeps her purse with her documents. She goes to the police to report the assault but the female officer tells her that there is no evidence and no case since it is her word against the rapist's word. A couple of days later, the rapist breaks in Marjorie's house while her roommates Patricia (Alfre Woodard) and Terry (Diana Scarwid) are not at home. The cynical Joe (James Russo) submits Marjories to sadistic abuses and humiliations preparing to rape her. Out of the blue, Marjorie sprays insecticide in Joe's eyes, reverting the situation dominating Joe and then she ties him up. She decides to bury Joe alive in a grave in her garden since she does not have evidence to keep him in prison and he had promised to return to kill her. But Terry and Patty arrive and try to convince Marjorie to call the police and think about the consequence of her intention. What will she do?

"Extremities" is a film with a dramatic story and a great dilemma. Farrah Fawcett has one of her best performances in the role of a woman abused by a stranger that she finally subdues. His first intention is to kill the man but there is a debate with her roommates and the film has a moralist conclusion. James Russo is impressive in the role of a sadistic rapist. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Seduzida ao Extremo" ("Seduced to the Extreme")

A taste of his own medicine.

[OllieSuave-007 · 7/10 · 29 December 2014]

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-

Extreme for sure

[greenheart · 7/10 · 31 July 2005]

I've never been a fan of Farrah Fawcett...Until now. She was truly amazing in this movie. The emotion she must have gone through shooting re-take after re-take doesn't bare thinking about. This was a very hard movie to watch, the subject matter is decidedly unpleasant and you feel so helpless just sitting and watching a woman being abused for what seems like an eternity. I actually felt that the whole thing deflated somewhat when her friends returned to the house and I didn't find the conclusion at all plausible. The director seemed very keen in using height in his shots and loved using mirror reflections, I believe he should have paid more attention to the pace in the second half of this piece. I'm sure this makes a heck of a powerful piece of theatre, this movie for me, although it had merit, just fell short.

Fiercely done movie.

[triple8 · 6/10 · 21 August 2003]

This was some strong movie. Very powerful, very different. Yet strangely, I didn't warm to it as much as I should have. That does not diminish the movie's power. This just proved very difficult to watch.

I can certainly appreciate the theme of having one's dignity stolen and the need to take back one's power. The movie itself was wonderfully acted and directed. And obviously it was SUPPOSED to be hard to watch. I just wish I had warmed to it enough to give it a 10 like "The Accused". I think part of the problem was the limited focus of the camera,these 2 people starring almost by themselves, the story mainly going back and forth between Farra's Character and her rapist.After awhile it gets to you.

All in all this was an edgy film that's certainly thought provoking and worth watching. I doubt I'd see it again but the film as a whole is very well done.

Insipid morality tale.

[Rid.X · 31 May 1999]

Whatever magic and power this had on the stage is lost on the screen. Scripted by Mastrosimone from his own play, this movie attempts to make a statement about the subject of rape, but ultimately fails because of weak pacing, limp dialogue, and horrendous supporting performances.

The film begins with Fawcett's character getting off work. She is terrorized by a man in a parking lot. She is able to get away and runs to the cops, who are impotent to do anything. Fast forward several days later: Fawcett is at the home she shares with her two friends. The two friends head off to their respective jobs, and moments later, Fawcett's attacker arrives at home and proceeds to slap her around and attack her in the most sadistic, brutal (and exploitative) ways. Then, she turns the tables on him. As he has a grip on her, she reaches for a can of bug spray, gets him in the eyes, throws a pot of hot water on him, then proceeds to tie him up and stuff him in the fireplace, figuring out what to do next.

At this point, much of what has gone on is remotely suspenseful. However, once the two roommates re-enter the picture, the movie becomes banal, with some horrendous dialogue (mostly shouting matches where "idiot" and "moron" are tossed around.) Since there was no actual rape, Fawcett realizes she has no case, and the cops will only let the man free to attack her again. Moreover, she can't make her own roommates believe her. The climax of the film is soap-opera material, and nothing more.

I don't feel the need to comment much more on this, except that the ending doesn't ring true, Alfre Woodard has gone on to more worthy projects ("Grand Canyon", "Down In The Delta"), and this one probably should've been left on the stage. A frustrating movie that I can't recommend.

Pretty good, overall

[caa821 · 7/10 · 5 November 2006]

Having looked at some of the other comments here, I have a main complaint with this presentation.

The two primary characters are attractive in their own ways - the beautiful "victim," and the handsome, obviously extremely "off-center," blue-collar protagonist (if just short of "totally-deranged") - take turns beating the hell out of each other, sort of like a Caucasian Kabuki scenario.

This is all right, and this is, of course, mainly a "turning-the-tables" story. However, my referenced complaint is that I believe the director got caught-up in his desire to display Farrah's well-known and obvious physical attributes. Beginning with her being enticingly clad in a thin robe, and with a number of scenes displaying more than needed for any dramatic effect - while immensely pleasing to the eyes, these distract from the poignancy level of the drama.

Her roommates I'm certain give performances as written and directed - however, their respective skepticism and histrionic babbling and sobbing, don't ring true -- based upon Farrah's previous experience with this guy, the obvious evidence of his having come to their premises with only the worst of intentions, and that she would have absolutely no grounds to be exaggerating what has occurred.

But this is a film and story, compelling as much in spite of, as because of, the director's work.

Excellent movie with great performances but....

[shaman1969 · 7/10 · 30 March 2011]

I remember first seeing this movie back in the late 80s and I thought it was amazing.I just recently bought the DVD and watched it again. I think its an excellent movie with great performances by Farrah Fawcett and James Russo but I felt that the ending was a bit of a let down.I am amazed how some reviewers have commented that it was exploitative.Seriously you really need to get out more. I have seen plenty of rape/revenge movies that were way more exploitative than this.I Spit On Your Grave aka Day Of The Woman is one example.I thought the movie explored the issue of rape and/or sexual assault and how the legal system often leaves the victim feeling powerless very well.Okay she is not actually raped but at the beginning of the movie her attacker holds a knife to her throat and forces her to touch his genitals.Even though that is not actual rape it is still sexual assault. A thought provoking movie that I highly recommend despite the weak ending.

I liked this movie better when I was a kid

[GuRUCLANdotcom · 5/10 · 25 July 2010]

I am a Fawcett fan, liked her in Charlies Angle's and I thought she was amazing in The Burning Bed.

I liked this movie more when I was a kid, probably because I had less of an understanding of reality.

I thought the performances where great from the main two characters, but the rest, is just not believable. What is believable is that pig would have been released, even with a confession that was circumstantial at best, an attorney would have had a field day with that. She had a knife to his throat so it didn't mean anything.

More over, it is perfectly legal to kill an intruder in your home, whether they're there to rape you or still your freaking television. So that's why the plot was ridiculous to me. I wouldn't have had to ponder anything, I wouldn't have needed a confession.

What I would have done was killed him, quite painfully, and then called the police.

An Intense Drama Featuring a Gritty Performance from its star...

[Isaac5855 · 8/10 · 2 May 2007]

EXTREMITIES is the disturbing, yet riveting screen version of a play by William Mastriosimone (who adapted his own play for the screen) about a woman who is attacked in her car one night by a would-be rapist on her way home and is terrified when she realizes the man got her purse and knows where she lives. After her roommates leave for work the next day, the guy shows up at her home and attempts to rape her. The story takes a surprising twist when, at one point, the woman turns the tables on the man and is able to overpower him; but when she realizes there is no way that attempted rape can be proved and if the man is arrested, he will just get off, she decides to keep him prisoner in the house until she can get a confession out of him. Far-fetched? Maybe. Disturbing? Definitely, but there's a wonderfully claustrophobic feel about this film, especially the middle with just the woman and her attacker, that you can't help but feel completely a part of what's going on. I did not see the play on Broadway, but I would imagine a piece like this works better onstage, but that doesn't make this film any less riveting an experience. Farrah Fawcett, one of the last actresses to do the role on Broadway, was awarded the role of Marjorie in the film version and delivers a taut and deeply moving performance as the victim who refuses to be a victim. Many critics found Fawcett's performance to be one-note, but for me, Marjorie is a woman completely numbed by what she has been through and the performance works for me. James Russo, in the performance of his career, is slimy and menacing as the would-be rapist who finds Marjorie to be much more of a challenge than he assumed. Alfre Woodard and Diana Scarwid co-star as Marjorie's roommates, who come home after Marjorie has overpowered the guy and has him tied up and stuffed in their fireplace upon their arrival. And it's the arrival of the roommates that take the story to an unexpected level because they didn't see what we saw Marjorie go through and therefore, think she should call the police and let them handle the guy. Not for the faint of heart, but if you can stand it, a gripping film experience anchored by a lead performance that will surprise you.

Extreme Measures

[sol- · 6/10 · 5 October 2017]

Revisited by a man who fled after sexually assaulting her, a strong-willed woman is forced to consider her actions (given that the police told her before that it is her word against his) in this gritty thriller based on a successful stage play. The movie gets off to a superb start with a creepy, horror style music score and effective point-of-view shots as the man stalks her at night. This first act is, however, the clear highlight of the movie. The second act is pretty decent too with the two protagonists scurrying about her house and him dragging out the potential rape to nail-biting extremes. The ease with which he enters the house never quite feels right though and occurring during the daytime, the second act is not as spooky as the first act, but it is still gripping. Everything falls apart though in the haphazard third act with usually reliable actresses Diana Scarwid and Alfre Woodard turning in very melodramatic performances as lead actress Farrah Fawcett's best friends. While the third act is clearly meant to be the film's moral compass, it lacks the juiciness of the first two acts, which are an intense combat of two minds: would-be rapist versus potential victim. Whatever the case, Fawcett is certainly very effective here in the only theatrical motion picture to ever nab her a Golden Globe nomination, plus the film has a terrific mood-setting theme song by Bonnie Raitt.

Good idea, but how do we add dramatic tension?

[Jimmy-128 · 5/10 · 24 April 2005]

WARNING--THERE ARE SPOILERS IN THE REVIEW BELOW. OF COURSE, THE MOVIE CAME OUT 20 YEARS AGO, SO YOU'VE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO SEE IT.

Rape and revenge is one of the oldest themes in female-centered fiction, so for a story of that genre--as this one is--to stand out, the writer has to be very careful in how s/he executes it.

This one could have been a little more careful.

Okay, so Marjorie can't prove attempted rape. She can sure as hell prove assault (unless of course, consensual sex includes windows broken FROM THE OUTSIDE)--not in the same class, but better than nothing. But we need The System to be helpless so that Marjorie has to take the law into her own hands, so this doesn't occur to any of the characters.

Also, given what they know of the situation, Pat and Terry are way too willing to give Joe the benefit of the doubt. Let's review the facts as they know them:

1. Marjorie was attacked and almost raped a week before.

2. She escaped, but had to leave her wallet--with her address--behind. Therefore, her attacker now knows where she lives.

3. A total stranger is in their living room fireplace, with bug spray in his eyes and a nice scalp cut near his temple.

4. There's obviously been a fight, because there's broken crockery on the floor and the phones have been yanked out of the wall.

So why in the name of God is Pat so willing to hear Joe out??????? Is it really so much of a leap for her to figure out that this is the guy who attacked Marjorie before??????? But we need there to be some doubt in how this will play out, so Pat has to play incredibly dumb and almost fall for Joe's story.

All in all, the plot's inherent weakness overshadows very strong performances from the four principals. This should have been a lot better than it was.

Don't mess with an angel

[videorama-759-859391 · 8/10 · 25 May 2014]

Here's a film, I'll always remember seeing that late Farrah for who died a day apart from Michael Jackson. Ironically they were good friends, and one thing that Farrah could do instead of Michael, and that was act. She scorches up the screen here, a raging queen of revenge on her attacker, who has come to attack her, for the second time, invading her home. She scarcely escapes the first attack, a car jacking, where they end up in a discreet parking spot. She manages to get away, leaving her car and wallet behind. With not much help from authorities (der, we've seen it so many times before in rape films) it now becomes a game of waiting, with Farrah, quite on edge, and rightfully so. She does share house with two other women. Diana Scarwid, very good as a wild impulsive sort, and Alfre Woodard, as a more wiser black woman, the only one partially sympathetic to the rapist after the tables are turned, and turned they are. Farrah becomes caught in conflict with her mates who return to find Joe, the battered faced rapist chained up in the fireplace. She wants to kill Joe, on the too probable count, that if tried, and he gets off, he will come at her again. This is a real life situation scenario here, Woodard of course, dead set against the idea. For rape victims, this movie is not for you. It's an intense grueling flick about the rape process, where the consequences for a criminal's acts here are extreme (hence the title) for low class sort, Joe (a wonderful Russo) But it's Farrah who engrosses us, where Extremities is an engrossing and with a wonderfully claustrophobic atmosphere, where indeed it's well shot, where most of the movie is set in Farrah's pad. For some viewers it'll be tough to watch. Too, what's shocking is Russo's admittance, and his intentions, when untied and falling to the floor, where then Scarwid surprisingly becomes sympathetic. Although I really didn't like it's ending Extremities is powerful movie making and far from escapist fare for viewers, wanting to leave reality behind. I would also like to see the play one day, but for now, I'll stick to the movie.

I Want To Spit On Your Grave....but i'm too nice...

[FlashCallahan · 6/10 · 27 February 2017]

A sexual assault victim manages to escape from her attacker, but leaves her purse behind.

Worried that he may finish what he started, she contacts the police but they are unable to help.

Her worst fears are realised when, alone in the house, her attacker visits and attempts to assault her once more.

Circumstances allow her not only to resist the attack, but to turn the tables and lock him away.

And this is where the situation really begins to escalate. Does she release him and risk another attack, or does she go for the eye for an eye route....

Based on a stage play (and clearly shows) the film tries hard to get a message across, but I feel that a stage production would carry the message a little further.

Fawcett and Russo are great in their respective roles, but as soon as the secondary characters become involved, it turns almost farcical with it's narrative.

One starts drinking heavily and becomes the whiner of the pack, the other tries to play doctor, but only escalates the situation, and the element of the terrible dilemma that is placed on the three becomes almost laughable.

If it was just Fawcett and Russo in one setting, this could have been one of the most tense thrillers to be released in 1986, instead it feels more like a late night edition of one of your favourite soaps.

It's not a terrible film by any means, it's just that the third act takes any intensity away that the first two did...

A filmed stage play would be an improvement

[cabotcove · 5/10 · 29 May 2000]

Robert Young (no relation) gives on e of the most unimaginative directing efforts in the history of cinema. Fawcett is marvelous, and Woodard and Scarwid give her ample support, but they are undermined totally by all the directorial and production-related aspects. I loved this on the stage, and a bootlegged videotape of the production I saw would be infinitely superior to this. This is a movie that needed a female director and didn't get one.

See the Play it is better

[richrach26 · 20 March 2003]

While this movie is a good movie, it has the T.V. movie of the week feel to it. The play by William Mastrosimone is tons better, and has a much better ending.

Farrah proved she could play more than everyone's favorite angel with this one, but unlike her "Burning Bed" character, has a bit of a mean streak. Russo is good as the Rapist, as well as Alfre Woodard as the roomate who tries to convince Marjorie she is going too far. Scarwid provides much needed laughs with her stolen "Mommie Dearest" performance as the flaked out roommate.

Thriller That Packs A Punch

[tildagravette · 7/10 · 24 April 2020]

Extremities stars Farrah Fawcett as Marjorie who is attacked by a man in a ski mask on a routine trip to get ice cream. She manages to get away, but she forgets her purse and she starts living in constant fear that he'll use her drivers license to find her. To make matters worse, the police say there's very little they can do unless he does come back. One day, when her roommates (Diana Scarwid, Alfre Woodard) are out of the house, this man (James Russo) does return sans ski mask and is hoping to finish the job this time. But is Marjorie more prepared than she was the last time?

On the surface, Extremities sounds like any other typical slasher/home invasion thriller, but thanks to its stage roots, it plays out with more psychological mind games than your usual slasher flick. For example, the attacker, Joe, will try to make Marjorie think that no one will believe her and he even tries to turn her friends on her once they return and he's been captured.

Fawcett is in just about every frame of the film and her transition from meek victim to take no prisoners woman is a sight to behold. It's probably her finest performance. Scarwid and Woodard have a bit less to do, but are both incredibly effective with Russo sleazing up the joint (in the best way) as Joe.

Extremities is highly recommended for fans of thrillers.

Just because it's in the script doesn't make this true.

[mark.waltz · 2/10 · 8 March 2022]

It's too bad that they didn't work on the script to make this seem anywhere to be realistic, but the chilling opening sequence leads to some ridiculous follow-ups that turns what could have been a very intense thriller into something worth watching (once), then recommending, at least for the acting of Farrah Fawcett, into a film to physically toss away. Up until this point, she had not gotten good reviews in films, mainly a beautiful blond sex pot and not much else, and indeed, she really is giving her all to make this character realistic. But the script is very manipulative and very forced, and the moment the attempted rapist from the opening scene gets into the apartment that she shares with Alfre Woodard and Diana Scarwid (during the full light of day after they've gone to work and she's home alone), the script and comes as creepy and crazy as the character played by James Russo.

I truly wanted to give Farrah a chance because she never got the credit that she deserves, and she's not the fault with this movie. The fault is with the script and with the direction, and the way she is supposed to react to the intruder makes absolutely no sense. She interacts with him as if he's the plumber, having personal conversations with him while waiting for the attempted rape to begin. Then the table turns on him, and the convenience of certain household items being able to be used as weapons being close by is just far too convenient. Farrah really acts this out when the few moments of reality do allow her to become a real character, not just someone we've seen leave her job for the day, stop by a store and all of a sudden be attacked.

Yes, the attack is horrible, and how she gets away deserves applause, but there's something about how the main attack occurs that made me roll my eyes, especially coming so soon after the attack, especially when he demands that she make him something to eat. How foolish does the scriptwriter thinks the audience is? Did they think that only victims of attacks would watch this film? There are so many implausible elements about the film that even with great performances, it's torture to watch it, not just because of the violence. Russo is beyond vile, and the extremist way he's presented alas a psychopathic rapist (who apparently has a wife and child) shows a motivation in the writing, especially proven when Fawcett is rude to a delivery man without provocation while her roommates are nice to him. When films become too forceful about their agenda, they tend to fail, and there's nothing about this successful, even if it did prove that Farrah could be more than just a pretty face.

Woman's revenge

[Petey-10 · 8/10 · 8 January 2010]

Marjorie, a young woman who works in a museum and lives with two female roommates, Pat and Terry.One night she gets in her car and is attacked by masked man with a knife.His plan is to rape her, but she manages to escape.The man has her purse.The police can't help her, since the actual rape didn't happen.Then one day, when Marjorie's roommates are at work, her assailant comes there.His name is Joe.A long battle begins against this man.But then she manages to spray his eyes and mouth with insect repellent, stuff that will kill him if he won't get help soon.She ties him up and makes Joe the subject of the same kind of physical and mental assaults he used on her earlier.The Extremities (1986) is directed by Robert M. Young.It's based on the controversial off-Broadway play from 1982 by William Mastrosimone.Farrah Fawcett, who sadly lost her battle with cancer last year, is terrific as Marjorie.James Russo, who played the attacker also in the play, is convincing as Joe.Alfre Woodard and Diana Scarwid are great as Pat and Terry.James Avery is seen as Security Guard.She got a Golden Globe nomination.This is not a movie that is supposed to entertain you.It asks a question is revenge justified.This is not a perfect movie, but I recommend it.

Almost aggressively without thought...and too much compromise

[moonspinner55 · 4/10 · 2 February 2001]

Young woman is attacked twice by a handsome, cackling psychotic, the second time in her own home. Based on the hit play, the screen translation doesn't work. The material is too one-dimensional, and the heroine is a problem. Did the filmmakers think that if we were shown a strong (headstrong, physically and emotionally strong) woman, we wouldn't be interested in seeing her turn the tables on this scheming psycho? Why is it that Farrah Fawcett is made to gape in shock, lethargic when she should be active? Later, after crawling along the carpet as the camera closes in, she slaps at the man in a playground manner. Yes, she gets in some digs at his expense, but she can't even get her own roommates to believe her story (these 'friends' obviously have no idea who she is, where she came from, what she's been through--they are stock-idiots in the screenwriter's stable of clichés). The attacker is not some slimy worm--which would've worked--but a muscular mechanic-type with a New Yawk drawl and tight-across-the-rear blue jeans. The formulaic structuring and presentation here provide hostility and resentment instead of food for thought. It leaves us whipped and bowed, but conscious only of the fact we have seen Farrah being ordered to cook her attacker breakfast--and then having her naked breast foisted at us in close-up. Certainly not the intent when they launched the off-Broadway show? ** from ****

Another good message film, with Fawcett excelling...

[MarieGabrielle · 8/10 · 8 April 2009]

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.

for people who get their understanding of the law from watching TV

[zimbo_the_donkey_boy · 1/10 · 19 July 2010]

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.

Crudely exploitative

[Gary-161 · 4 December 2000]

This remarkably stupid film expects us to swallow the idea that a man's confession made under threat of violence in front of witnesses solves the female victim's problem. The reality is that any confession made by a man threatened with having his private parts eviscerated is inevitably going to be thrown out of court. This film ends where it should really be beginning, in examining the low conviction rates for sexual assault and why the system lets some men get away with multiple rape time and again but settles instead for cheap exploitation and bogus catharsis.

Great Performances Undermined By Awful Direction

[aromatic-2 · 5/10 · 23 June 2001]

Farrah Fawcett performs straight from the gut. She is unforgettable. Diana Scarwid and Alfre Woodard are excellent as her feckless friends. The perpitrator is just a tad off in his shading of the character, and is disturbingly inconsistent. But, the camerawork, presumably an attempt at cinema verite, comes off merely as conspicuously clumsy and amateurish. And, there is absolutely NO fluidity from scene to scene. In the hands of Penny Marshall or Betty Thomas, this could have been a classic. As is, it is a waste of three tremendous performances.

Extreme!

[jamiecostelo58 · 8/10 · 14 January 2005]

Farrah Fawcett is terrific in this 1986 drama, where she plays Marjorie, a woman who manages to escape the clutches of a would-be rapist. Well done to Farrah for being a Golden Globe 'Best Actress' nominee.

When her rapist Joe (played in a rather frightening and intense fashion by Farrah's co-star James Russo) enters her home - (which she shares with her two roommates who are conveniently out) - Marjorie has to play along with Joe's frightening demands, before the tables are finally turned and Marjorie gets the upper hand. It does make for some disturbing and shocking scenes.

Both Fawcett and Russo had played these characters on the New York stage prior to this film adaptation, and both actors show their ability in carrying out emotionally charged scenes with admirable tenacity. Alongside her work in the 1984 film The Burning Bed, Extremities shows that Fawcett can push out the boundaries and show us her skills as a serious actress and not just be remembered as a "lightweight" Charlie's Angel. 8/10

awful film that insults your intelligence

[glddraco666 · 3/10 · 2 January 2011]

I gave this movie three stars instead of one for the acting but even so I feel I am being way too generous. One thing that bugged me continuously throughout the movie was how unrealistic the entire movie was. At no point was I convinced that any of this was even remotely possible let alone feasible. It seemed to me as a matter of fact that it had just a bunch of preaching and other meaningless political drivel.

Maybe back in the 80s when this film was made the film maker may have wanted to make a statement about rape and how the victims need to fight back. I agree but within the law not outside of it because if you don't that makes you no better than your attacker. Whats more am I supposed to believe that she'd actually get away with what she did to him? He may get put away but I'm inclined to doubt that but rather she would be the one spending massive time behind bars especially if she murdered him.

Whats more nothing she forced him to say would ever be allowed to be used in the court of law. Add insult to injury he could sue her for any physical and emotional damages that she inflicted upon him. I understand that some may be outraged by what I'm writing her but this is a simple fact.

At the end this movie actually left me feeling sorry for the rapist which I sincerely doubt was the intention of the director.