I Spit on Your Grave

Remakes are a dime a dozen these days but when you go through your old DVD or video collection and you come across the 1978 original I Spit On Your Grave you cant help but think "not a chance they will remake this". But remake it they have and the storyline is a mirror image of the original but for some reason this new version doesn't seem to be as nasty as the original. The reasons for this might have to do with the fact that the actors can actually act, its shot in a cleaner, more professional manner and maybe most importantly of all : we are just not that shocked by anything anymore. With more and more films pushing the boundaries of violence and gore, this just doesn't offend as much as the original did in its day. Having said that its still a tough watch and anybody not familiar with the original and not a fan of this genre will find its extended torture and intimidation scenes very difficult to stomach, but with a title like I Spit On Your Grave this movie will only attract a certain type of viewer.

I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

** (out of 4)

One could argue that the original film is one of the most notorious movies ever made so it's impossible for this sequel to stir up the same type of outcry from various members of the public. The story in this remake is pretty much the same as a female writer from the big city (Sarah Butler) travels to the country where she plans to finish a book but she's eventually raped by five men (one more than the original) and then seeks her revenge. I'm sure anyone walking into a movie called I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is going to be aware of the original movie and I'm going to guess that your feelings on the original will have an impact on your feelings towards the remake. If you found the original to be a poor movie then I think you're going to enjoy the remake a tad bit more because it's certainly more polished, has better production values and some of the performances are better as well. Personally, I've always found the original film to be underrated band while it was rather brutal and untasteful I thought it had a level of authenticity that really made it stand out from countless other rape/revenge flicks. Sure, the acting wasn't excellent and there were a lot of questionable points but I think overall the film has an authentic look and feel to it and that's what makes it seem so real and brutally honest. A lot of that is missing from this remake because I think it would be safe to say that what we get here is a lot cleaner and not nearly as offensive. For example, the rape scene is still rather brutal but it's not nearly as bad as what we saw in the original and it doesn't go on nearly as long. I think that's going to be a good thing for most people. Where the film does go more extreme is when it comes to the revenge aspect because the death's are extremely violent and over the top. I certainly won't ruin them but I will say the most famous death from the original is re-imagined here and the others are just as memorable and they don't pull any punches. The death scenes are more in line with what you'd see in SAW so some might question how she was able to pull everything off, although I do think they have them set up a certain way so that people can look at the female victim in a different way. Performances were good for the most part with Butler doing a nice job in the role of Sarah but I think the screenplay does her more justice early in the film and during the attacks. When she goes to seek her revenge the screenplay makes the wrong decision of having her talk and some of the stuff said was just lame. Chad Lindberg, Daniel Franzese, Tracey Walter, Rodney Eastman and Andrew Howard play the rapist and all of them do nice jobs with their parts. Fans of the original film are going to notice a couple nods to that film, which were a nice touch and I do think the film threw in a few twists and turns to throw off those familiar with the earlier movie including an extra bit that puts a twist in the rape sequence. I thought the director also milked up the drama of most people knowing what was going to happen by building some tension as we wait for the eventual rape to happen. Overall, I think this remake is a decent enough of an attempt but in the end it just doesn't contain some of the magic of the original movie. A couple of the death scenes are more effective but on the whole I'd recommend it to those who can handle such films but I'd still stick with the original.

It's not often that I'll favourably compare a remake to the original, but in this instance, I must. I thought the original was a pretty bad film, undoubtedly shocking, and deserving of its infamous name, but the remake I feel captures the essence of the revenge, and desperation of the victim to get her own back.

It is of course shocking, and at times is quite sickening to watch, there were plenty of moments when I had to look away, but you can't help but feel a sense of justice as the tables get turned.

Very nicely produced, and well acted. A remake I know, but worthy of being deemed something of a horror classic, one to give you a fear of Ravens for life. 8/10

Never seen the original so wont compare to that, but I just loved the awesome revenge. Dont do bad things and bad things wont happen to you :-)

'I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE' (2010): Four Stars (Out of Five)

Modern remake of one of the most controversial films of all time 'DAY OF THE WOMAN' (which was it's original limited release title in 1978, it was later retitled 'I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE' to capitalize on it's notoriety when it was given a major release in 1980). The film and it's 1978 predecessor both deal with rape, savage torture and murder. Both films have been highly criticized because of this with critics like Roger Ebert giving both films a zero star rating and calling the original a "vile bag of garbage". Almost an equal number of supporters (of the original film), including high profile critics, have raised their voices in defense of the film as well, with many labeling it a misunderstood masterpiece. Opposers of the film claim that it's man hating (with reports of some men walking out of the theater in disgust at both films) and some also accuse the film of glorifying violence against women (for it's violent rape scenes). Defenders of the films claim the movies are 'pro women' feminism and cathartic. People have been debating these issues for thirty two years and they'll probably go on debating them for longer than that and that's a good thing. If a movie causes that much discussion you have to give it some respect just for that.

Both films tell the story of a writer named Jennifer Hills (played by Sarah Butler in the new film and Camille Keaton in the original, Keaton is the grand-niece of Buster Keaton and won a Best Actress award for the role at the 1978 Catalonian International Film Festival) who heads to a cabin in the woods to work on her next novel. Once there she attracts a lot of attention from some hooligan hippies which eventually escalates in them braking into the cabin, raping her repeatedly and leaving her for dead. She unknowingly survives the viscous attacks and seeks out brutally sadistic revenge on all of the men involved, including a mentally handicap young man who was coerced into involvement by his buddies.

The remake was directed by Steven R. Monroe and written by Stuart Morse. The writer and director of the original film, Meir Zarchi, served as an executive producer on the film. Zarchi has said that he was inspired to make the original film after coming across a young rape victim in New York and escorting her to the police (which he says was the wrong decision considering how incompetent they were in the matter) and later the hospital for assistance. He defends the violence of the film as being completely necessary and rejects any criticisms that it is exploitative.

As far as the remake compares to the original film it's technically far superior on every level; it's better filmed, acted, written and directed (the original film had to manage with a much smaller budget though). The new film also shortens the rape scenes, in comparison to the much more explicit original, and relies more on psychologically implied imagery (which I think was a smarter decision). It also elaborates and extends the violent revenge scenes with much more creative deaths (much like many popular horror films). Where as the first half is more realistic and believable the second half branches much more into 'grindhouse' style revenge fantasy. While the film is much better than the original in all those ways it'll never be as remembered and cherished as a cult classic by fans.

I personally don't agree with the film's critics or it's supporters. I don't think you're supposed to necessarily agree with the heroine's actions or condone them and I definitely don't think you're intended to agree with the assailants' actions (that's a ridiculous argument). I think the film raises a lot of thoughts (most of them unpleasant) and discussion which like I said is something the films deserve credit for. A movie should never be judged by the actions of the characters within it, so however disgusting and disturbing they are (and in these films they're atrocious) it doesn't mean that they're bad films. I think both films are well made to a certain extent and effective at what they attempt to do. They're definitely not for everyone and very hard to watch but they're also memorable and dialogue inducing.

Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgaAYiwY0g0