Deadly Daphne's Revenge (1987)

**_How easily “good times” can degenerate into living hell, if you’re not wise_** 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