Positive I.D. (1986)

I love this movie so much

Why so much hype?

A lot of fun.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

This is the case of a script that unfortunately leads to an "unbelievable" conclusion. Getting there is not much fun either, as the film plays like a minimal information puzzle. There are zero sympathetic characters, especially the unbearably wimpy husband. Since we never see the rape, which is motivation for the entire contrived plot, our housewife's revenge plan really is trivialized right from the git-go. The rapist himself is never even shown, until the moment of his demise. The entire production hinges on improbable events that simply cannot be swallowed as fact. So, what you have is a tedious build up to a conclusion that is not believable, and a movie that is not recommended. - MERK

Everything we know about "B movies" - lesser-known cast, low-budget, a made-on-the-cheap look and feel - is present, but we'll call this one a "B+" movie because it all works so well here. House wife Julie Kenner cannot function on any level; her cooking is a disaster, she can't face a party without panicking, she has a tenuous relationship with her 2 children and an even more tenuous one with her husband, with whom she hasn't had sex in a year. We have no idea what's wrong with her and wonder why her husband hasn't left her. Sure, she's beautiful and we are left to surmise this family was close once and could be again if the husband can just help Julie recover from whatever she's suffering from. She seems oblivious to everything except TV news broadcasts about identity theft, about the rape she suffered the previous year and about how the rapist is getting off with almost no jail time. Now that we know what's been bothering her we're wondering why she's forged a new identity, gotten herself a gun, rented an abysmal little apartment near a seedy little bar, taken up wearing a disguise and become a regular in said seedy little bar. Julie, who's been ice cold since this movie started, boffs the bartender one night then back at the bar pulls her piece out and shoots a young man dead - the man who raped her. She briefly returns to her family sans disguise then dons another one as she heads out alone on a bus as the closing credits roll.The way this tale unfolds, only giving us a little part of Julie at a time, is unique and tension builds so gradually we hardly realize it until we've been sucked in. Our dysfunctional heroine starts out uptight and introverted like a folded-up accordion, then starts to come alive as she turns into a walking mystery then a stalker and finally an avenger, as she murders the rapist who ruined her life and who society has refused to punish.This unusual story piques our interest, though the plot feels contrived and there are serious logical gaps, like how did Julie, once she took up her gun, disguise, apartment and new life as barfly, know the rapist would come to this bar? Another problem is the "bartender," who is actually an undercover police lieutenant. Why a police Lt. would be working full-time in this bar (don't sergeants and other lower-level officers do this undercover grunt work?) is never explained. Furthermore, Julie seems clairvoyant, as she used the cop/bartender, apparently knowing he'd let her commit murder right in front of him without even arresting her. Then there is that puzzling last scene, with Julie donning yet another disguise and taking off for God-knows-where on a bus all alone. All I can say is her poor husband! I've never seen a guy take so much crap from a wife, all the time supporting her to the hilt and all for nothing, as she seems to abandon her family at the end. Why did she leave like this, presumably without a word? Was she afraid that the police would eventually piece it all together and come looking for her? The logical gaps aside, this is an arresting (no pun intended) and riveting little flick. I found it in the bargain bin of a local video store almost 20 years ago and will no doubt watch it again some time.

Although this feels like a low-budget TV movie that you might find on a cable channel late at night, it is far more compelling and realistic than its adherence to that much maligned formula suggests. In fact, it is everything a TV movie is not: gritty, urban, slow-paced but suspenseful, engrossing yet unsentimental.The actors, mostly unknowns, do a fine job, especially Stephanie Rascoe as the misunderstood housewife heroine who takes the law and her own identity into places she never thought possible.Interstingly enough, the most compelling aspect of the film is the theme of identity. As a housewives, Rascoe's character is often seen engulfed by domestic chores, unable to get over her brutal attack. However, as her assumed identity, she becomes somebody else - a modern day femme fatale type that sits uneasily with the portrayal of simmering domestic inertia previously shown in the film. The ending is still shocking today and one of the most dramatic films you are likely to see. A minor gem.

This film's extremely low budget is evident onscreen, from the home-movie look of some scenes to the obvious inexperience of most of the cast. For what it's worth, however, auteur Andy Anderson did a lot with what little he had. Lead actress Stephanie Rascoe gives a strong performance; it comes as something of a surprise as one watches because she's not a typical movie star. She seems more like someone you'd meet at a PTA meeting, so it's that much more dramatic to see her enduring a brutal rape and then constructing a new identity in order to exact revenge. The rest of the cast is mostly one-timers and unknowns, though Steve Fromholtz had some renown as a folk singer and Laura (Lauren) Lane later became famous on "Hunter" and "The Nanny." It's the plot that's most interesting here, though it should be noted that it's much more difficult to assume a false identity nowadays, at least partially because of films like this one.