This movie is so bad it is almost beyond description. A story of Rape victims and revenge that is so hard to follow you are better off just watching the grass grow. Martin Landau, who plays a Judge in this movie, said that this movie was one of the most embarrassing movies in his film career. The action is non existent, the acting there is none, the story, is awful hard to follow. Do yourself a favor and if you see this movie anywhere, just close your eyes and forget it. This is not even worth a look for someone who is only interested in see naked women on screen. I can not think of a worse movie I have ever seen. Avoid this clunker at all costs.

Can't help thinking there's something elementary wrong with the title of this long and righteously forgotten late 80's exploitation romp… By naming your film (or protest group or whatever) "Women Against Rape", you're almost naturally assuming the majority of the female population is PRO rape. Yes, I know it's a stupid observation, but it occurred to me during the film. Besides, the film itself is pretty stupid as well, but what do you expect from a low budgeted B-flick that stars the lesser talented & unsuccessful brothers of two major Hollywood stars (Frank Stallone and Don Swayze) and George "Buck" Flower in yet another role as an old hillbilly pervert. The message of the film is rather noble. Both during the intro and end-credits, there are footnotes and statistics about the alarmingly high number of big city rape cases on one hand, and the frustratingly low amount of rapists being convicted for their crimes. Of course, a noble message doesn't necessarily guarantee a good film, especially not in case the scenario is extremely dull and clichéd and the acting performances are beyond horrible. Most of the film is just a showcasing of girls being raped by recurring perverts (a duo of rich young snobs with influential parents, a respectable businessman, a stalker and a serial rapist wearing a Halloween mask) and then subsequently joining the McCormick clinic. This is a place where women learn to defend themselves and find comfort among fellow victims. With the help of women activist attorney Helen Shaw, they found the protest group "W.A.R: Women Against Rape". Their intentions are initially purely juridical and peaceful, but since they don't receive police support and the raping cheerfully continue, the group quickly turns into a violent revenge squad. Another appropriate alternative title for W.A.R. could have been A.M.A.P standing for "All Men Are Pigs". With the exception of one cop, all men here are depicted as sleazy and chauvinist bastards that look down on women and disrespect the equal sex rules. The plot twists and dialogs are incredibly transparent and hackneyed ("My father the senator will get me out of jail"). Oh, please! In spite of the exploitative character, W.A.R. is surprisingly tame and cowardly in the sleaze and violence departments. There's hardly any nudity and even the retaliation of the women are pretty much bloodless! If you're hoping for vicious castrations or whatever, you'll feel very disappointed. The only reasonably entertaining moments are when the ladies head out to stigmatize alleged rapists with the giant letters RAPE on their asses. The majority of the "actresses" are painful to listen to, especially the rape victims Judy and Melinda. Martin Landau also briefly appears as a judge and father of the lead activist, but apparently he really regrets that.

I really don't understand the low ratings for this movie, when Hollywood puts out many more films that pretend to be better than this but are just too afraid to be as sleazy. I mean, did you really expect a good plot from this? C'mon, no one's aiming to be Citizen Kane here.Let's look at the cast. Frank Stallone, Don Swayze, Jerry Van Dyke...Sound familiar? This is a movie that doesn't claim or try to rise above the smut that it is. It's a movie where women are raped. The only way these women get justice in the film seems to be through violence. You can't do that in real life, so what message does it send? This is pornography for males. No more, no less.As for those looking for sex scenes, there are a couple short, nude scenes. The first two actresses can't act. The rape of the only one who can is only implied.

I found this movie on a shelf of one dollar bargain DVDs at the grocery store. Along with this, I also bought a DVD that came with two Bruce Lee movies. That was proof that some things that cost only a dollar really aren't all that bad. Unfortunately, the rape movie (that has so many different titles that I don't even know what to call it) completely changed my outlook on the one dollar bill forever. Never would I have guessed that a movie could be so bad that it actually made me want that one dollar I paid for it back. Normally a wasted dollar isn't that big of a deal, but I seriously feel like I was the one being cheated by having this garbage moved into my possession. The grocery store should have been paying me to take it off their hands, and not vice versa.IMDb's 1,000 word limit certainly isn't sufficient for listing every flaw this movie has, and it's not worth anybody's time to actually go through so much trouble, so I'll just be brief. The movie looks like it was shot with a camcorder (actually, it probably was). In fact, it has the production values of a home-made porno film. There's really nothing even remotely entertaining about it. In fact, it's basically just scenes of women getting raped, a bunch of talking, and people getting arrested. There's nothing else to it. That's why it's sitting in by garbage can right now.I'd like to be more thorough than that, but you really can't be with this sort of movie. In fact, I almost believe that this movie was made for the sole purpose of being a gag gift. If I were to watch Children of the Living Dead right now, I'd probably enjoy it quite a bit, since it's still several leagues ahead of this movie (and no, that wasn't a hyperbole).