Forced Entry (1973) User Reviews

Violence as literal porno

[haildevilman · 6/10 · 16 October 2006]

This is porno for people who hate themselves for liking porno.

The hardcore rapes basically left nothing to the imagination, like a more mainstream film would have. Even without the hardcore scenes, and even if it had 'name' actors, it would still be considered for mature audiences only. That is, if the Christian right didn't get it banned first.

Harry Reems was a better actor than you think. He just preferred doing films where he could 'do' the actresses.

Parts of this remind me of 'I Spit On Your Grave' or Joe Spinell's 'Maniac.' No violent revenge here however. But the psychological attacks, both in the film and on the viewer, were HEAVY.

It will be hard to watch, but watchable it is. Just be prepared.

Dirtier Harry!

[Coventry · 4/10 · 21 October 2006]

After many years and literally having seen hundreds of obscure, psychotronic and downright demented movies, I can only come to one conclusion: horror, and all its derivative sub forms, is a practically inexhaustible genre! Whenever you think you stumbled across THE absolute sickest or most politically incorrect gem ever, you can bet all your money there will still be other, far worse titles waiting to be discovered. For example, all the easily offended people who claimed that "Last House on the Left" and "I Spit on your Grave" are the most repulsive things ever captured on film are probably going to die from a massive heart-attack if they ever get to see this "Forced Entry". I would say this pile of early 70's exploitation smut is the ultimate experience in shock-cinema, but the truth is that I'm not sure anymore about making such statements! For all we know there's sicker horror flick out there, although that's really difficult to imagine. "Forced Entry" starts with a more or less interesting concept, as the camera zooms in on a newspaper article enlightening us about the Post-Vietnam Syndrome. It states that veterans who recently returned home from the war are likely to continue spotting the enemy everywhere they go. Gas station employee Harry Reems (his character is nameless) is such a mentally unstable vet. He stalks the women who passed by for gas, invades their homes and sadistically forces them to have all types of sex before mercilessly killing them. This routine is repeated three times (two and a half times, actually) throughout the movie and words can hardly describe how disgustingly explicit all this is shown. Oh yes, it's hardcore pornography of the vilest and most women-unfriendly kind, blend with low-budgeted shock-horror, so squeamish people should stay as far away from it as humanly possible. Also, to add some depth as well as for mere reason of padding, the film equally contains a lot of grim and disturbing Vietnam War footage, like relentless gunfights, misogyny and helpless children starving. Definitely not the type of cinema that makes you merry...

*** Spoilers **** The first female victim is a woman stupid enough to share her name and address with a stranger and Mr. Rapist-Killer pops up at her window some time later. At that moment, she's having sex with her partner and Harry just watches. That's just ten long minutes of random porno. You can't even refer to it as "sex", since the couple (of which the sleazy-looking guy is director Shaun Costello) is horridly disgusting to watch. It's more sensual to observe farm animals fornicate, I'm sure. And farm animals probably won't be as hairy as these two. When she's alone again, Harry nearly chokes her to death using his... what do you think? The oral-rape sequence is really hard to watch and seems to go on forever. The second victim only stopped by the gas station to ask for the way (she needs instructions to drive to her own house?) and looked like a really nice person! That made her suffering even more shocking. Then the last twenty minutes are really weird and confusing. Two girls, undoubtedly the worst actresses in the history of mankind, meet by the side of the road and promptly decide to become best friends. They do some drugs, try out some lesbian sex tricks and startle the vicious rapist-killer with their friendly hippie-spirit. Very odd, but why not? Recommended to the extremely sick puppies among us.

Deserving of its notoriety.

[BA_Harrison · 5/10 · 18 December 2014]

Every time I believe that I have discovered the ultimate in repugnant, vile and downright scuzzy film-making, something comes along to prove to me that there are always more contenders for the title—it's just a matter of finding them.

This time, it's Shaun Costello's Forced Entry that has made me feel like like a complete degenerate for watching it. This reprehensible slice of roughie sleaze stars Harry Reems as a disturbed Vietnam vet who gets his kicks from raping and killing women. Working as a gas pump attendant, the psycho selects victims from unsuspecting customers at his garage, deceives them into giving him their home address, and then pays them a little 'visit'.

After spying on victim number one indulging in a spot of (prolonged and rather dull) lovemaking with her man (played by Costello himself), our knife-wielding nutter breaks into her apartment and assaults her, before slitting her throat.

The next unlucky lady to cross Reems' path fares even worse: she is interrupted mid-shower at gun-point, brutally sodomised (all the while being verbally abused), and then repeatedly stabbed in the belly and chest.

The loopy killer meets his match, however, when he chooses a couple of stoned hippy lesbians to be victims three and four. Too wasted to find him intimidating they merely laugh at his threats. Finding this all too much to take, a confused Reems turns his gun on himself, and blows out his brains! A thoroughly distasteful fusion of explicit sex and extreme misogynistic violence, this is harsh viewing that is made even harder to stomach through the use of genuine Vietnam war footage, which is inter-cut during Reems' vicious attacks. As if scenes of rape and murder weren't harrowing enough on their own! When viewed as porn, Forced Entry is a failure: the non violent sex scenes are over-long and mundane (and robbed of much of their eroticism by constant cutting to Reems' leering maniac), and the rapes are completely abhorrent. But as an unforgettable exercise in pushing the boundaries, I guess it can be viewed as a success.

I'm not sure how to rate this one, so I'll give it a middling score of 5/10 (a bit of a cop-out, I know). Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to scrub my eyeballs!

Not a film to be taken lightly

[sirarthurstreebgreebling · 10 December 2000]

This has to be one of the most brutal films I have seen , regardless of the more well know films along this theme (House by the Edge of The Park , Last House on the Left) , "Forced Entry" by its low production values , obtuse direction that is meant to leave you wondering what the hell went on , and the most bizzare inclusion of hardcore scenes , that were the most unplesant I have seen in years. It stuck out as a little know and heavily derided work. I dont think it could be classed as a "Adult Film" (as in pornography) because you would have to be one sick individual to get aroused watching this. That is where a lot of the contraversy comes from , and I was amazed that it was included in the film , and it would have been better without the hardcore rape scenes. We get the idea of what is going on , but having 8 mins of him forcing a woman to give him oral sex and then cutting her throat (and we do get to see the money shot) , had dubious overtones. But then again the subject matter is not one that should be glossed over , rape is an evil crime and I have never seen it put across so well , if brutally as in this film. So I was in two minds about it, I did like and and thought that it went to places that film makers are rarely brave enough to go , but then on the other hand I could see people taking it the wrong way. But you should make up your own mind and see it .

The ultimate experience in filthy sickness on film

[Bogey Man · 1/10 · 1 June 2003]

Shaun Costello's (some akas for him include Amanda Barton, Warren Evans and Helmuth Richler) 1972 US hard core porn/horror film Forced Entry is among the most infamous and thoroughly mean spirited films ever made, albeit very rare and hard to get, dealing with the subject matter that is not suitable at all for purposes of entertainment, that is rape, as painfully realistic as possible and without any other meaning than the shock exploitation value. Rape can be just as graphic and horrible as in Forced Entry, French film maker master Gaspar Noé's 2002 masterpiece Irréversible being perhaps the strongest example with its anti violent themes, and it is only about how those scenes are used and why. Forced Entry goes shamefully wrong at every possible question.

A deeply disturbed Vietnam veteran working at a gas station called "Joe's Friendly Service" is played by an ex-porn star Harry Reems (as Tim Long) and he hates females. The opening credits tell that the veterans are left and returned to society with deep feeling of fear, rage, frustration and anger, all of which are definitely true, and that all they need is a victim and an enemy. The protagonist's enemies are the members of the opposite sex whom he sadistically and extremely brutally rapes and then kills. He speaks dirty things to them during the act, things like "you better start liking that, bi**h", and the film concentrates on these long scenes of sexual violence and misogynism. So that's the story of the film, going from the previous victim to the next one, he gets their addresses as they visit his gas station and after the day, he finds the houses and it starts again..

The film is very amateurish in most levels, there are meaningless camera zooms and movements everywhere, the microphone can be seen on the top of the screen, the acting is only occasionally convincing (mostly the rape victims are not always at all realistic, they may even have a neutral expression on their face!) and the film is just so plain dirty and smut filled as possible. Reems' character is pure evil and sadism and violence are his best friends, but far more convincing and also challenging performance of this kind can be found, for example, in William Lustig's Maniac (1980) with the late Joe Spinelli as the maniac. Also, the endings of these two films are pretty close to each other but again Lustig makes it really harrowing and uses his camera with talent, not to speak of the incredible Jay Chattaway composed soundtrack.

Forced Entry has plenty of more or less actual war atrocities footage to add to the shock value, and a premise of this kind could create a wonderful piece of cinema, with plenty of social criticism and thoughts about the "civilization" of our world and how it contrasts with the wars and other things we do to each other all the time. A great example of this is Buddy Giovinazzo's challenging Combat Shock (aka American Nightmare, 1986) which depicts the living hell of a Vietnam veteran as he tries to survive the dirty, drug filled and violent streets around him, with no work and no one to help him anywhere. Forced Entry uses plenty of the war images which are pretty harrowing, to say the least, but don't add anything to anything as the film doesn't have a theme and any kind of meaning other than to be among the most notorious examples of the hard core sex film market. Also the editing is very bad at times during these flashback scenes, too fast and irritating and probably finished with the other eye already in the schedule of the next sex film to be made.

The rape scenes themselves are very strong and pretty hard to watch. If I noticed myself watching a film like this more than once, I'd really stop and ask myself what the hell am I doing? The rape scenes leave nothing to the dirty imagination, they include mostly oral sex and all in extreme close ups with shocking and mean dialogue from which the rapist seems to excite even more. This is a plotless porn film with a story of some kind and the main concentration is on how it could be made as sick and disturbing as possible. The murders are very badly made but graphic enough to leave even worse taste in the mouth after the rapes have been finished. There are no strong or surviving female characters in the film, all either get raped and killed or then messed up by drugs and thus acting like idiots. Neither the male characters are too plenty in the film, but as the Reems protagonist is the dominating abuser all the time, it all leaves a very misogynistic taste in the mouth after all, and it is pretty impossible to come up with a justification of its existence for a film of this kind. It is ready to go as far as possible to deliver the ultimate shock-excitement experience, with no thoughts on what kind of things they are in fact depicting and dealing with.

Forced Entry is not a film, it is an attempt to make some money by temptating the sex film audience by its controversy and graphic content which all rapes a tool called film and cinema. This is easily the lowest and also most disgusting film I've seen, surpassing even the Japanese Guinea Pig series, with titles like Devil's Experiment (1985) and The Flowers of Flesh and Blood (1985), and it is just because the makers didn't care for anything and let our nature's most dangerous and vile instincts come active while "writing" and shooting their product. 1/10

Forced Entry

[a_baron · 2/10 · 23 July 2018]

I thought this film was a thriller but it soon because obvious it was something entirely different. I watched it anyway.

If you like watching people having sex, in particular if you like staring at a man's bare backside, there is something here for you. Best not to mention the other sex act she performs on him, or the camera angles, but as the man with the beard said, people who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.

The next scene is an oral rape.

As is the next one after the first woman is murdered.

The second woman is murdered.

Next we have a lesbian sex scene and an ending that while totally unpredictable proves there might be such a thing as justice even in a cinema that creates monstosities like this.

The war scenes and dead bodies displayed in a constant flashback don't help. Pity the soundtrack wasn't expanded.

Sleazy sex on a low budget

[The_Void · 7/10 · 31 October 2006]

Forced Entry has quite a reputation for being an extremely nasty shocker, and indeed; the reputation isn't unfounded as Shaun Costello's film doesn't hold back and the rape scenes are as gritty as the film's production values. The film makes rape its primary topic, and does this through the story of a disgruntled Vietnam veteran who makes it his business to slice and dice his way through various women in the city. The tagline proclaims 'He was taught to kill. Rape was his own idea!', which gives you an idea of the sort of things this film is preaching. There's a message about the horrors of war buried deep under the rape and torture sequences, and this comes to light by way of director Shaun Costello cutting the rape scenes with various images from the Vietnam conflict. We never really get to know exactly why the killer (hell, we don't even know his name!) has decided to take his anger out on the female population, but the way that the female cast is presented doesn't leave much to the imagination, and it's not hard to see why, as the tagline says, he got the idea to start raping them...

Forced Entry was shot on an extremely low budget, and indeed the picture quality isn't exactly good. However, like so many of these films; this really does do the overall piece a big favour as the sleazy atmosphere is made all the more gritty thanks the to dirty cinematography. The lead role is taken by prolific porn star Harry Reems, who went on to make The Devil in Miss Jones and the sleazy Giallo 'So Sweet, So Dead' not long after this film. Reems' performance isn't exactly stunning, but he certainly gives his 'character' believability and a good atmosphere as he stalks, rapes and humiliates his victims. As you would expect, there is a lot of sex in this movie and it's all very down and dirty, but cold thanks to the way that it's filmed. I suppose it's to the director's credit that the sex scenes ardent erotic considering the context and this also serves in making the film all the more shocking as it merely shows the sex without much reasoning behind it. Overall, Forced Entry certainly wont be to everyone's tastes; but if's dirty sex films you're after, this is a must see.

Pathetic

[grybop · 2/10 · 16 July 2011]

Cheap excuse of a film about a deranged Vietnam veteran who's also a rapist in his free time.

Shocking? To a nun maybe. Sexual? The juxtaposed images of the Vietnam war over the "rape" scenes make for a really weird viewing experience. The unnatural acting, the awful editing and the non-existent direction can never let you take what's happening on screen seriously. One reviewer noted that one of the victims was sodomized, which is not even true. The rapist claims to do so, but we only see him use the "front entrance", to put it mildly. The victims can't always conceal their enjoyment either.

Harry Reems is probably a better actor than one might think and he's the only reason I'm not giving this 1 star. Only for fans of obscure sexploitation.

Porno Shock

[Nodriesrespect · 7/10 · 21 January 2006]

This notorious early roughie, though credited to one "Helmuth Richler", was indeed directed by our old friend Shaun Costello (aka Russ Carlson and at least half a dozen more noms de porn) who adopted this one time only (?) pseudonym on both sides of the camera. Though the long sideburns and tinted glasses prove distracting, his voice should be instantly recognizable to those familiar with his later quickies. He plays the character of David, boyfriend of the first victim (Jutta David, also in Danny Stone's 1973 cult fave HIGH RISE) and the only male performer except for Harry Reems who plays the deranged anti-hero Joe. Make that VERY anti, by the way !

A pre-credit newspaper article commenting on the syndrome commonly suffered by shell-shocked Vietnam veterans unable to re-adapt to everyday life after the war and therefore susceptible to battling imaginary enemies lends an air of seriousness if not quite respectability to the sordid saga viewers are about to endure. Haunted by B&W newsreel footage with a heavy predilection towards mangled corpses and various forms of disfigurement, gas station attendant Joe (who's never referred to by name but he runs a place called "Joe's Friendly Service") spouts his interminable interior monologue about how much he hates women in general and the uppity, sexually liberated ones in their big cars stopping by for gas or directions in particular. Getting their address from their credit cards, he stalks and spies on his victims before submitting them to his pent-up rage, ending in bloody murder. Joe's misogyny seems to stem from his being ambushed by female soldiers in 'Nam (or so the stock footage would have us believe) and perhaps symbolically none of the women in this movie are given character names, signifying that to him they're less than human. His MO consists of bursting into the woman's apartment, demanding oral gratification at gun or knife point and then berating them for not being any good at it ("I'm not enjoying this one bit"), thereby justifying their subsequent "punishment".

Victim # 2 is played by top-billed Laura Cannon, described by her male co-star in his 1975 autobiography (wittily entitled HERE COMES HARRY REEMS !) as a snooty Jewish American princess with a predilection for anal intercourse who had her heart set on adult movie super-stardom. Though she got off to a strong start with this one and the previous year's popular sex & horror combo DARK DREAMS, she would rapidly disappear from view. Porn fans expecting to get a thrill from the lady's extensive back-door activity here should be forewarned that the scene is in no way played for turn-on value, fortunately given the circumstances. It's rape all the way to the girl's gruesome demise. A couple of spaced out hippie chicks (Ruby Runhouse & Nina Fawcett) unwittingly turn the tables on Joe as he rudely interrupts their blissful lesbo love fest. High on sex and various mind-blowing substances, the women burst into laughter at the guy's sadistic taunts and willingly offer him their bountiful bodies. The girls' compliance proves to be too much for Joe and, rather than submit to their sexual assault, he turns the gun on himself.

Convincingly grimy in every single frame, this flick makes for a harrowing experience which must've rattled adult audiences' cages back when this played theatrically. It's hard to imagine anyone getting aroused over the unflinchingly depicted violations and even the bookend consensual encounters (the Jutta David-Shaun Costello scene and the lesbian number) are bereft of their erotic potential by constantly cutting back and forth to Reems spying on them. Such stark denouncement of the turn-on, crucial to the genre, may either seem like the makers shooting themselves in the foot by turning their backs on the entire raison d'être of pornography or an actual attempt to make viewers think about the correlation between cinematic sex and violence and the inherent danger thereof. Was this a film ahead of its time then ? Could be.

The biggest surprise remains leading man Harry Reems however. Billed as "Tim Long" (a pseudonym he frequently used before DEEP THROAT made him familiar even to those who would never have set foot inside a porno palace), he makes for an all too convincing madman in the Jamie Gillis mode. He would of course become best known for his many goofy, inoffensive turns that followed in the wake of THROAT's zany doctor character, making his menacing performance here all the more impressive. By his own admission, FORCED ENTRY was the one movie he regretted doing, apparently having signed on before reading a script. His reticence barely shows through. You may hate both this film and its main character, but you're not bloody likely to forget either. Ever !

Uneven Blend of Horror and Porn

[Falconeer · 4/10 · 7 January 2021]

Having seen a number of the 70's "roughie" porn films, I believe "Forced Entry" to be a failure, in spite of it's disturbing subject matter. It's a film that could have been a genre classic, but was ruined by the ugly and boring sex scenes. A porn film that contains poorly conceived sex scenes can't be very good. Adult film Icon Harry Reems stated that "Forced Entry" was the only film he regretted making, for good reason. Had the director focused more on the psychological aspects of the story, and devoted less time to the tired, drawn out sex scenes, this would have worked. Reems starred in another roughie around this time, called "Sex Wish," and it is a million times better than "Forced Entry." The more fleshed out story, and the sex scenes, although vile,were still erotic or appealing on some level, and for this genre, that is detrimental to the film's success. Other films of this genre achieve that balance of shock value and art; creating something that is disturbing, but also well made. "Forced Entry" is just gross-out gimmicks, and the mind of anyone concerned at all with artistic quality, will begin to wander, and lose interest. Harry Reems worked with actress Laura Cannon in other movies, like the artistic "Dark Dreams," and the superb "Fleshpot On 42nd Street," and they were so enjoyable to watch. It was a bit sad to see these two in such a low brow production. This movie has one quality; Harry Reems portrayal of the Vietnam Vet, who is suffering from extreme PTSD...he's great, in an otherwise lackluster production. For those looking for extreme 70's era porn that is actually "good," rather than just shocking, check out Zebedy Colt's "Unwilling Lovers," a film that truly gets under the skin, due to intelligent writing and a director who cared about the quality of his work. Also see "Sex Wish," a film that is infinitely better than "Forced Entry.." No good movie will be a "chore to sit through..." no matter how rough it is.

Sadistic nightmare!

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 8/10 · 30 May 2001]

"Forced Entry" is a very low budget hard core rape/porn/horror which contains some of the nastiest and ugliest rape scenes ever filmed.Truly the rapes are filmed in hard core and are very uncompromising.In the film,the rapist played convincingly by Harry Reems makes the first victim to give him a blow job telling her that he won't torture her to death,too badly if she does as he says-she'll die anyway,but if she messes with him she'll suffer.He cuts her throat-the second victim is dragged from a shower to a bedroom,thrown on the bed and forced to give a blow job with a gun against her head.He then rapes her from behind and tells her "I didn't enjoy that..." and starts cutting her body with a knife and then stabs her in the breast.This murder scene is really nasty and cruel-not for the faint of heart.The dialogue is the worst aspect of the film:what he says is really dirty and unbelievable for example:"Is it starting to bleed in there a little hun?You don't know what bleedin' is do you,I'll show you some,I'm gonna' show you a lot of bleedin'!".Anyway,this film is extremely brutal and vulgar,I was really shocked and disturbed when I first saw this.Nothing is left to imagination,everything is shown in unflinching detail.I can't believe the fuss being made over "I Spit on Your Grave" when this film exists.Meir Zarchi's infamous video nasty is really tame in comparison to this one.Not a film for all tastes,but it pulls no punches with its sheer nastiness.Check it out,if you can handle it.

Decent but flawed roughie classick

[Bloodwank · 6/10 · 22 August 2011]

Forced Entry comes these days with some weight of historical significance, above and beyond its own content. One of the earlier of "Vietnam vet goes crazy" flicks (though I recall Oddo and maybe others came first this was among the first to make a big impression) as well as being the film that really "broke" the 70's roughie genre (yes, I know Sex Psycho was first), its worth a watch on grounds of importance alone. But is it a good film in its own right? Well, yes and no. The best thing about it is its sheer grime. Crude, repetitive and utterly devoid of social merit the very sight of it slathers moist and grim across the eyes, by the end one watches the film as if through some sheen of noisome condensation. Speaking of noisome sheens, at one point the hero of this one spunks direct to the camera lens, always a sign of taste and class. Our hero, while we're on the subject is rather nicely portrayed by Harry Reems, he isn't as frightening as the role calls for but is finely compelling in a swarthy, intensely seedy kinda way, and makes good use of his lewd and hateful dialogue. The various rape scenes are suitably mean spirited, though I must say they could have been a lot rougher for my tastes, or hotter. By and large I'm of the opinion that cinematic rape should either be savagely violent, cruelly eroticised or both, but here they consist of pretty generic non consensual in out in out action, the dialogue makes them quite fun but there's little energy or style to hand and watching long close ups of a guys pounding member or bouncing nut-sac gets kinda dull after a while. Still, the important thing is that they're there, even though I wasn't that personally impressed the sheer affront to most peoples taste still makes it a winner to me. After all, most people suck (and not in the good way). The Vietnam connexion is fun as well, our crazy veteran suffers from constant flashbacks without rhyme or reason, the editing serving to almost promote a sense of hunted horror, it adds an interesting flavour to the mix and is particularly amusing at one point in which the film cuts from jism pooling topside of a broads buttcrack to dead Vietnamese children and back again. Actually this could be seen as a meaningful juxtaposition of of wasted lives but I laughed instead. I did wonder about the realism though. Why would a disturbed veteran, tormented by memory, oppressed by enemies even in peace, go out on a rape spree as opposed to just a general killing spree? If he saw enemies everywhere, why would he only search out chicks to kill? I could understand if the chicks were really hot or aggressive or something but for the most part they're just kinda rogue. He does hate hippies (doesn't everyone?) but I'm still not sure that excuses his single-mindedness. I guess this film is probably smarter than me, which isn't too much of a surprise. Anyhoo, this isn't a great film by any stretch but its still a must see for sleazoids. So if you haven't yet, you know, go track it down sucker.

not for the faint hearted

[trashgang · 5/10 · 9 September 2009]

This is what we call a "roughie". Those kind of movies were made in the 70's and combined XXX with horror. Mostly done in a low budget style to be shown at 42nd street. But this one is something special. Most of those roughies are lost and will never come out on DVD, but luckily some survived in the underground scene and appeared on VHS or later on bootleg DVD's. This one is now out officially on DVD. It's more then 20 years old and still it gets you by the throat. Then it was made as a statement against the war in Vietnam. Most were heroes when they left but when they came back they were drug addicts and 'no more heroes' for them. We all know what happened to most of them. Anyway, the hippies were against the war so most soldiers that came back were against the hippie culture. Knowing that you can start to watch this sickie. Why this movie is sickening is the fact that while he's raping in a humiliated way some editing is done with real footage of the Vietnam war. The score too is coming from Vietnam. Again the way he treats the women is really disgusting. They have to perform on him with a knife on their neck or at gunpoint. You won't enjoy the sex. When he kills his victims it's in a, for a XXX, gory way, realistic. Things go wrong when he met two lesbian hippies. the words coming from his mouth are repeated again and again by editing. Really, a most have if you aren't offended by cum shots and killings.

The King of the "Roughies".

[chuck-219 · 9 June 2007]

I'd always read and heard that this one was the king of the "roughies" and I was not disappointed. It was obviously shot on a low budget, but it had some very effective edits and cuts (not to mention some all out sadistic madness). I'll try to keep the spoilers to a minimum.

Plot summary: A Vietnam veteran working at a gas station (and dig that first customer's payment amount) cons addresses out of young lady customers with a credit card machine scam. He then hunts them down to their domiciles and commits a few less than desirable actions for a first (and only) date.

The famous Harry Reems (the blue ribbon diagnosing doctor from "Deep Throat") plays our stalker and takes creepiness to new levels. He lives in a constant state of flashback (or the director only added them for the basis of his insanity) and they correlate well with the action on the screen. One weak point was the rather hairy, toadlike Shaun Costello (the director) who proceeds to make lengthy love to our heroe's first victim. Yes, I call the stalker our hero since we'd like nothing more now than for the boyfriend's hairy bun pushups to stop (especially in close-up). Thank god it finally ends and we can get on with the matter at hand. Without going into detail (since I'd be deleted) our stalker forces some "love talk" fellatio on the hapless victim at knifepoint. His words to her are actually none too loving in their description of her eventual fate. Needless to say that this will continue again, albeit a little differently next time, but retaining all the brutality and more.

The mix of Asian sounding gongs and music into the soundtrack was well done as the director had later admitted to being a master at copying and sampling in another film (see the "Water Power" IMDb write-up). The brutality scenes are real looking and the sex is hardcore. The ending was not unexpected, but interestingly done.

If my review doesn't already spell it out, this is not for the squeamish. "Roughie" does not mean a bad girl spanking here (though I've got nothing against that, you know). This one offers hardcore sex (soft, "roughie" and even some lesbo knee knocking) and very gruesome scenes of depravity.

Personally, I thought it was very well done, but I don't know if I could watch it again (since I could replay a great number of scenes in my head at will now).

dissatisfying 70's roughie

[dworldeater · 5/10 · 23 April 2012]

I sought this movie out after reading some of the user reviews on here. I was somewhat disappointed in this title as a fan of down and dirty 70's grindhouse cinema . This porn / horror crossover film barely delivers the goods for either genre. Granted, this film was made for little money . A little more character development would have went a long way. For it's time I suppose this was shocking , but I have seen a lot more vicious stuff. They probably could have cast more attractive females to get naked ( and raped) also . The DVD transfer is the worst I have ever seen. I either need a shrink or some of the other people reviewing this movie on here are wimps. I feel this is not brutal enough ( or good enough ) to shock anyone.

80 minutes of my life wasted.

[ztrvz · 1/10 · 18 September 2004]

this film attempts to be disturbing, but fails quite miserably. it is nothing but poorly acted hardcore pornography with low budget murders and no engaging story whatsoever. the actor's portrayal of the rapist is unconvincing and his graphic flashbacks to Vietnam do little to introduce you to the inner workings of his mind. lines like 'suck my prick' are almost laughably pathetic.

this film wasn't engaging enough to disturb me. it's certainly one of the more boring movies i've seen. however, it might be appealing to psychopathic serial killers. 80 minutes of my life that i'll never get back...

Unless you're a deranged weirdo, avoid.

[Adam-6 · 1/10 · 9 December 1999]

I have seen plenty of bad movies in my time. This is possibly the worst. Basically a crazy Vietnam Veteran meets women, stalks them, rapes them, then kills them.

Still, it comes across as a very realistic portrayal of a nut-case! The characters are not at all developed. The ending is an absolute mystery. Basically the film comes across as a mess, the same state as the main character.

As for an adult film, there are far too many flash-backs & fighting scenes to cut it in this category.

You have been warned. Unless you're a deranged weirdo, avoid.

indelible, inexcusable, intriguing

[jaibo · 7/10 · 17 February 2009]

You won't find many more disreputable and offensive films than this publicly available. Shaun Costello's debut feature, after a short career making pornographic loops, was shot over two days on 16mm, a shoot recalled by Costello in his notes to the After Hours Cinema DVD release of the film. He doesn't seem to have had any particular political or psychological agenda in making the film, freely admitting that the obscenity laws at the time asked that a film with pornographic content have some sort of "redeeming social value" to be legal. This spurred Costello on to not merely produce a porno feature with some nod (the vaguest nod) towards narrative but to make his lead character a deranged Vietnam veteran who, still haunted by his experiences fighting in 'Nam, decides to wage a one man war of rape and murder against the women of New York. Other viewers have pointed out some similarities in theme and content to Scorsese's Taxi Driver, but this film makes the more mainstream one look like a veritable Disneyland of anodyne fun compared to what Costello serves up, steaming, to his audience.

Harry Reems, the Deep Throat star with the ugliest dick in the business, plays the vet, working at an oil pump and using women's credit card transactions to obtain from them their addresses. He stalks one home, and leers in on her from the fire escape as she makes love to her chubby boyfriend, played by director Costello. The ensuing sequence suggests something about pornography, voyeurism and viewership, and it ain't pretty. The bodies on display are out-of-shape and pasty, and the most desperate of dirty old men would surely fail to find anything erotic here. Reems then stalks along to a lone woman's apartment, and orally rapes her whilst verbally abusing her, saying "you think you're a gook? You're no better than a gook in 'Nam." All the while, this prolonged attack is intercut with stock footage from the Vietnamese conflict, and the sequence ends with a Reems money shot all over her face and then him slitting her throat. But worse is to come, as the next woman he attacks is anally raped (he complains that she's got "sh*t" on his pecker) then stabbed. An interlude in which we meet to drug-addled idiot lesbian hippy chicks (whose flabby bodies we see in some lurid girl-on-girl action) is followed by Reems stalking them and threatening them with gun and knife. These girls get the better of Harry, though, as all they can do at his promising to kill them is laugh like drains. This drives him to suicidal despair and he blows his brains out. The film is bookended by a couple of police mulling over his corpse.

The endless scenes of hardcore humiliation, rape and murder put this film beyond the pale of all but the most steely viewer. The second attack is particularly repellent, and the only positive one can say about it is that Laura Cannon performs her terror and distress with the utmost conviction (Reems is pretty poor throughout). There isn't much argument that the film has anything constructive or intelligent to say about Vietnam, sex, violence against women or the America of the time, yet its mixture of violent episodes intercut with real footage from 'Nam make it an "assault on the sensorium" (to use Kenneth Anger's phrase) which is both memorable and indelible. Forced Entry is some kind of horrible time capsule; no one would ever be able to make a film like this now, as its aesthetic, concerns, economics and demands on the performers make it something that would be unachievable, but which makes perfect sense in the context of the time and place it was made. Pretty disgusting stuff, but worth seeing once for anyone interested in how far cinema can go.

Forced Entry

[Scarecrow-88 · 7/10 · 25 March 2009]

At Joe's Friendly Service gas station is an attendant who was traumatically scarred from the Vietnam war, enacting his rage and anger on unfortunate female victims who come across his place of employment, the directions to their home scribbled on paper with him using an excuse regarding the credit card machine's not working properly. Following the address written down, this man(Harry Reems in a chilling performance), seething with disgust towards all manners of women, will wait for the right opportune time to force his way into their apartments, either with a gun or knife as a weapon, making his desired targets commit whatever sexual acts he so chooses, threatening death. We follow three particular cases where Harry Reems(..whose name is absent, which really doesn't matter, for he's simply a forgotten casualty of a war that left so many soldiers without an identity or place)follows his prey upon meeting them at the gas station where he works, watching until each female victim is at their most vulnerable(..mostly when they're naked and alone), seizing upon them, offering little hope for their survival. The first victim(Jutta David)has a knife to her throat and must provide lengthly oral sex to Reems as he mouths off hideous insults, degrading her in every possible fashion. At the finish, he removes a curved blade from an art piece on her wall, slicing the poor girl's throat. The second victim(Laura Cannon)just stops by asking for directions to her home, lost within a large city, not knowing that giving her address to Reems signs her death warrant. He catches her in the moment of a very satisfying shower, frightening her obviously, before grabbing the girl, tossing her on the bed, forcing her to commit oral sex, before penetrating her from behind. This is particularly devastating because Reems embellishes in the pain he's causing the girl as she cries and whimpers. What makes Reems' actions so horrifying is the way he uses words to disgrace his victims while forcing them to do embarrassing sexual acts. After Reems is through with victim # two, he stabs her multiple times, burying the knife deep, with unflinching cruelty. This maniac thrives on their misery, enjoying the control and command he has..the war left him an unbearable fiend, wallowing in psychosis. The next selected victims are a couple of dope-smoking hippies, high as a kite, a representation of those who scorned/shamed him upon return. Unlike the other two instances, however, he doesn't have control because these girls do not fear him. They are oblivious to his warnings of serious death, and even offer to pleasure him..this, coupled with the non-stop barrage of Vietnam memories bombarding his mind and soul, cause a psychological break that ends in him quieting the torment haunting him once and for all.

Now, I gave this a glorified synopsis regarding what Vietnam does to the men who fought in it, returning to find themselves just as much a victim as those who died there, but FORCED ENTRY is above all a vile, sickening portrait of a madman fulfilling his grotesque desires, forcing his prey to participate in pleasing his destructive, misogynistic ego. The oral sex scenes are long as the women must obey Reems' command, listening to his commentary on how their "performance" is. The first two sexual attacks are arduous exercises which will only please those who enjoy seeing women demeaned and mistreated. There is an opening sex scene between Jutta David, the first victim, and her lover(..the director of this film)as Reems watches from outside the window, and a lesbian encounter between the two hippie girls(..Reems, his teeth clinched tight, watching with a mixture of revulsion and desire)that differ from the two forced rapes. The film-making style cooperates with the sleazy subject matter and the ugly, raw nature for which FORCED ENTRY operates is appropriate. While I wouldn't recommend this to anyone I know personally, I do believe director Shaun Costello achieves what he set out to accomplish..the film is teeming with a progressive amount of suffering and hostility, and the war footage interspersed within the actions of Reems pack a wallop, I felt. It's rare that you see a sex film with such animosity, with a central character so entirely twisted and cruel, presented in such an unapologetic way. The camera goes in all places, shooting sexual acts from all angles associated in hardcore pornography. Reems is unforgettable. New York City, in this film, is presented as a very appalling, filthy trash heap, just the right setting for the lead character and his despicable activities.

Twisted Rape/Slasher XXX-"Rougie"...

[EVOL666 · 8/10 · 3 May 2006]

Here is a prime example of why I respect 70's film-making. Although I can't say that I necessarily "enjoyed" FORCED ENTRY - I have to give it credit for its sheer "shock value" and boundary-pushing audacity. Those that think that hack films like AUGUST UNDERGROUND or SLAUGHTERED VOMIT DOLLS is the nastiest thing out there should really make a foray into the world of sadistic 70's/80's porn. These films show that they were doing things far more graphic, subversive, nasty, and ground-breaking thirty years ago...and not much has topped them since...

FORCED ENTRY is a strange installment in "classic" porn history. Playing out much more like a psycho/slasher film that takes itself quite seriously - but with unarousing hardcore sex thrown into the mix as the anti-hero of the film rapes and slashes his way through several victims. This sort of material is DEFINITELY not going to be for everyone, so you are duly warned...

Harry Reems plays a shell-shocked 'Nam-vet who uses his position as a pump-jockey (at the ironically named "Joe's Friendly Service") to scope out possible victims for his exploits. Reems (I don't recall him ever having a character-name in the film...) is frequently assaulted by flashbacks of the war, which are cut into the film via actual war stock-footage and sound FX. Obviously, our pal Harry hasn't adjusted too well to being back in the real-world, and only finds temporary "release" from these visions by stalking, raping, and stabbing women. There are 3 such scenes in the film - the first having Reems break into the house of a woman he met at the gas station, who he proceeds to humiliate at knife-point while getting a forced blow-job. After promising not to hurt her if she does a good job - he cuts her throat after he blows his load on her face. Guess he wasn't too fond of her "skills". Next up is another young lady that was a gas-station patron - who Harry yanks out of her shower and forcibly rapes at gun-point while spouting all kinds of nasty-talk at her. In the end, she is dispatched too by a stomach and titty stabbing. Finally, Harry meets his match when he goes up against two drugged out lesbo hippy chicks - who are so whacked out on something, that they try to "take advantage" of Harry when he comes in to rape them. This causes Harry to "short-circuit" - and ultimately spells the end of his rape and murder spree...

First off - FORCED ENTRY is filmed very matter-of-factly and can be considered quite "shocking" in it's starkness. The scenes of Harry raping women while the film is edited with scenes of war-footage and machine-gun and explosion sound FX can prove to be harrowing. That said - I didn't find the film quite as "rough" as others seem to. To be quite honest (at the risk of sounding like a sick-o...) rape-style films don't get to me the way that they seem to bother others. This is not because I in any way, shape, or form condone the act - it's that I can't relate to it from either side. I can't imagine being forced to have unwanted sexual relations against my will - nor can I really imagine violently forcing myself on an unwilling woman. I also don't personally know any rape-victims (or if I do - I've never been told...) so although I know this type of thing does happen in real-life, I have no personal experience to draw from, therefore viewing the situations in much the same way that I view an on-screen murder in a horror film - as not being "reality". I personally still find THE TAMING OF REBECCA to be the "roughest" of the XXX-roughies (that I've seen so far), with sickeningly graphic and demented depictions of simulated pedophilia and twisted sex-acts that in my opinion surpass anything shown in FORCED ENTRY. Still - FORCED ENTRY is not for the average viewer. The porn/rape aspects are graphic and unarousing, and the film itself overall is pretty bleak and dreary. Much like watching a sex-filled version of COMBAT SHOCK - minus the mutated baby. Those that dig or can handle dark and extreme films will probably want to check this out. Think MANIAC with a lower budget, worse acting (though Reems is quite believable) and hardcore rape scenes. 8.5/10

Mostly effective seminal work of hardcore, on-screen misogyny.

[fertilecelluloid · 8/10 · 9 July 2005]

This is a fascinating porn/psycho-thriller hybrid compromised by the demands of its respective genre -- in short, the sex scenes are so uninteresting and protracted that they distract from the premise. Still, it's a trip well worth taking.

Harry Reems, a troubled Vietnam vet, works as a gas station attendant who stalks his customers after procuring their addresses. The film is broken down into three stalk and rape sequences; two end bloodily.

For porno fans, there isn't much to like. For fans of on-screen terror, the second stalking sequence is the strongest. In the pivotal moment, Reems cuts and stabs the breasts and belly of a woman and gives her a long goodbye kiss as she expires. It's starkly and realistically shot and has a dark erotic tension that echoes the stuff of lurid tabloid journalism. "I'll show you bleeding," Reems mutters as he rapes his victim prior to her demise.

In the final outrage, Reems breaks into the apartment of two bisexual drifters who are indifferent to his vile intentions and, as a result, rob him of his power. Reems, rendered impotent, takes his own life.

The film is experimental in tone and cut like a real movie as opposed to a porn flick. Highly effective Vietnam War newsreel footage is constantly intercut with the stalking and molesting sequences and combat sound effects are blended with great success into the mix.

Technically, the film isn't anything to write home about and the first throat-slitting sequence is amateurishly staged, but director Shaun Costello (Warren Evans) deserves praise for an uncompromising, sometimes brutal vision.

Incendiary cinema such as this has few contemporary stepchildren, even in the porno genre. Reems' use of extreme verbal abuse invites comparison with the misogynistic treatment of the fair sex(verbal and physical) by porn outlaw Max Hardcore; director Khan Tusion's recent ROUGH SEX 2 and HELLFIRE SEX are resonating nephews of Costello's work; and titles such as Lizzie Borden's FORCED ENTRY, Rob Black's putrid oeuvre, MASON'S DIRTY TRIXXX 2, the vile RAPE FILES series, and Rocco Siffredi's Euro output owe a debt (consciously or unconsciously) to this flawed but seminal work of hardcore, on-screen misogyny.

A notoriously nasty 70's roughie porno classic that definitely lives up to its killer reputation

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 14 October 2007]

Widely considered one of the meanest, most vicious and disturbing roughie porno features to ooze across celluloid in the splendidly sleazy 70's, Shaun Costello's "Forced Entry" sure ain't a pretty picture. Legendary hardcore star Harry Reems gives a frightfully intense and convincing performance as a dangerous deranged Vietnam veteran who works at a gas station. Reems embarks on a ferocious misogynistic rape and murdering spree, breaking into his female victims' houses and having his rotten wicked carnal way with them prior to killing the unlucky ladies in cold blood. Reems makes his first victim (tasty full-figured brunette Jutta David) perform fellatio on him and then slits her throat. His second victim (well played by the lovely Laura Cannon of "Fleshpot on 42nd Street" fame) doesn't fare any better: Harry savagely sodomizes her and proceeds to repeatedly stab her in the chest after he's finished. This particular sequence is positively brutal and hence extremely hard to watch. But Reems finally meets his match in an irritating pair of giggly stoner hippie chicks who are too wasted on drugs to find poor Harry even remotely threatening.

Director Costello rubs the viewer's nose in an unflinchingly graphic and sordid avalanche of raunchy sex and raw violence. Costello further throws the viewer off balance with his stark, stripped-down style, inspired use of unnerving sound (helicopter and machine gun noises blare away throughout along with plenty of bizarre chanting and full-bore profanity), authentically grubby New York City location shooting, genuine black and white documentary footage of ghastly Vietnam war atrocities, and a few nice touches of bleak irony (Reems wears a baseball cap with the American flag on it and works at a gas station called "Joe's Friendly Service"). (Costello also pops up in the movie as some guy who does just what you think with Harry's first victim.) Jayson Black's rough, scratchy 16mm cinematography adds substantially to the brooding, fetid, overwhelmingly seamy scuzzshow atmosphere. Ruby Runhouse and Nina Fawcett are both simply dreadful as the dippy hippie chicks, but fortunately compensate for their awful acting with a hot lesbian sex scene. That criticism aside, this fiercely ugly and unsettling knockout packs one hell of a strong and lingering gut punch.

Not a Masterpiece but Certainly Different

[Michael_Elliott · 2 March 2010]

Forced Entry (1973)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Notorious hardcore movie attempted to mix real life drama with sex and graphic rape scenes. Harry Reems plays a gas station clerk who has just returned from Vietnam, which has left him mentally unstable. He gets various women's addresses from his job, follows them home only to rape and kill them. There's really not too much else to say about an actual plot and I'm really not sure where to stand on this movie. Having read about it for years I guess I was expecting something more brutal than what I actually got. I think, for the most part, this is just a porno movie that tried doing something more than just your average porn, which was something every porn was doing around this time. The fact that they tried to tell a "real" story of a troubled Vietnam vet was an interesting gimmick but I'm really not sure it helped the film any. To me, this is still just a porn movie and I think for the most part the film tries to play erotic just as much as it does disturbing. There are a couple sex scenes that are clearly meant for the erotic nature and then we get Reems breaking in on the women for the rape sequences. I found the violence in a few of the scenes, especially the second woman, to be a lot more disturbing than the rape scenes. I was surprised to see how realistic the murder sequence was as it almost looked too real. I think many could debate what the film was really trying to go for but the film-making is rather lousy and this here takes away a lot of its more dramatic impact. I can't say I was really disturbed by this film. Future films like I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and MANIAC dealt with ugly subjects, minus the hardcore footage, and to me were much more disturbing. I think many expect this to be more graphic with the hardcore scenes, which is pretty much a given in terms of sexuality but the dramatic side that they were going for is lost due to some bad editing and just overall below average film-making. I did like some of the camera shots that got us "close" to the action but that's about it. As a porno movie this is a mixed bag. As a drama it's a failure. On the level of plain weirdness and depraved film-making it somewhat works as there certainly aren't too many films out there like it.

An excellent horror porn film

[KevinB12 · 10/10 · 15 August 2009]

That movie has got to be the most shocking and disturbing film involving porn. Even though this movie is excellent, it is like a classic 70's version of Baise-Moi.

Although the movie Blood Feast was the first graphic gory violent film of the 1960's, Forced Entry is the first horror hardcore movie of the 1970's.

Some people may approve the movie and others may not approve of the movie. But I assure you that I do approve of that movie.

Even though this movie was made before the movie I Spit On Your Grave was made in 1978. If this movie is more shocking than I Spit On Your Grave, Blood Feast, and Color Me Blood Red, then it must be.