Dulce venganza

I remember watching the original 1978 "I Spit on Your Grave" earlier this year and thinking that it packed one hell of a visceral punch while also carrying quite an angry proto-feminist slant. Yeah, it was obviously a low-budget exploitation horror picture with a strong feminist subtext, but it was both shocking and challenging on a deep emotional level - challenging everything you thought you knew about humanity, justice, violence, and revenge & retribution.

Anyone who watches the film with an open mind will indeed find a powerful and angry film, one that takes no prisoners, nor does it try to play it safe for the safety and comfort of the audience. It was meant to shock, horrify, and provoke strong reactions and discussions.

These are things that the original "I Spit on Your Grave" (originally titled "Day of the Woman") and its 2010 remake of the same name, directed by Steven R. Monroe, have in common.

While sharing the same set-up - about a beautiful young novelist from the city named Jennifer Hills (played by Sarah Butler here, Camille Keaton in the 1978 original) who retreats to the backwoods to write her latest novel and is assaulted by a gang of country lowlifes and later exacting brutal, bloody systematic revenge against them - the remake is still very much a very different film. (It's a much better-made film, with better acting, writing and directing, and has better special effects. It's less raw and rugged, but it's somehow slightly more enjoyable.)

For one, the original 1978 "I Spit on Your Grave" and its 2010 remake are very much products of their time; Meir Zarchi, who directed the original and was also involved in the production of this film, was reportedly inspired to make the film after his encounter with a young rape victim back in the '70s. As such, he made a film that while it had an extremely low budget and no-name performers (though Camille Keaton was the grand-daughter of Hollywood acting legend Buster Keaton), was nonetheless compelling, challenging, and shocking. (How shocking, you ask? Well, movie critic Roger Ebert gave the film no stars and has been behind efforts to have the film both banned and blacklisted.) The original film, made in the wake of women's liberation, was also slammed as feminist propaganda - allegedly because it features a lone female exacting vengeance on her all-male gang of attackers.

By comparison, Monroe's film doesn't carry the same visceral punch to the gut that Zarchi's original did. It was raw, brutal, and ugly; and it was also saying something about victims and their attackers. But because horror films have been getting increasingly gorier in the wake of the "Saw" and "Hostel" films and their like-minded imitators in the "torture porn" sub-genre of horror, the violence here is really not all that shocking. The original film got by on its raw intensity alone, an element of the original film that was helped immensely by its low budget, which gave it an almost-documentary-style feel to it. The one drawback, however, was the original Jennifer Hills's all-too-convenient transformation from victim to avenger in too short a time frame.

As such, the 2010 "I Spit on Your Grave" seems to more or less conform to these current torture-porn movie standards, with Sarah Butler's Jennifer Hills character torturing her attackers in elaborately gruesome ways before finally executing them altogether. The one benefit of this is that a much longer time frame passes before Jennifer gets her sweet revenge, which makes her actions and subsequent transformation from victim to victor a little bit more believable. On the other hand, though, she's given to making cheesy slasher movie-style one-liners as she tortures her former tormentors to death.

Overall, while "I Spit on Your Grave" is a better-made film and I enjoyed it more, I didn't get that same level of intensity from it that I got from the original "I Spit on Your Grave." Because it abides more by contemporary horror standards, it lessens the overall impact. It is still, however, a valiant remake that was not a complete waste of time (like most horror movie remakes).

6/10

For years, a remake of I Spit On Your Grave was virtually unthinkable, such was the moral majority's revulsion at the original's harrowing rape scenes and brutal acts of revenge (Roger Ebert called the film 'an expression of the most diseased and perverted darker human natures'). The 21st century, however, has not only seen horror movie-makers successfully pushing the boundaries of the genre further than ever before, but also remaking virtually every classic horror movie of the 70s and 80s in the process. With the equally controversial rape/revenge classic The Last House On the Left' getting the remake treatment in 2009, it was only a matter of time before 'I Spit' followed suit...

Directed by Steven R. Monroe, who must possess a set of brass balls the size of Jupiter to tackle such a project, and starring the equally courageous actress Sarah Butler, whose demanding role requires her to get naked from the waist down in order to suffer her gruelling on-screen ordeal, I Spit On Your Grave (2010) is an intense, raw and uncompromising experience that goes all out to surpass the nastiness of the original, and which often succeeds in doing so.

Certainly, as far as the bloodthirsty acts of revenge are concerned, this version is much harsher: with a shed full of wickedly sharp tools and corrosive substances at her disposal, Butler's character, novelist Jennifer Hills, can get very creative in order to get even, and once she lays her hands on a shotgun... well, you'll have to watch to find out, but take it from me, it ain't pleasant!!! This effective remake also benefits from a thoughtful, well written script that expands on the original's basic story, adding a cool new character in the form of a scurrilous hick sheriff, whilst doing away with some of the original's more questionable aspects, most notably Jennifer's seduction of her attackers.

I rate 'I Spit On Your Grave' (2010) a very respectable 8/10, which is the same as I gave the 1978 version; that said, if I HAD to choose between the two, I would go for the original, because of its genuinely gritty 70s vibe, its more harrowing rape sequence (Camille Keaton's torment goes on for what seems like an eternity), but most of all for simply being such an iconic piece of exploitation cinema (oh, and the full colour 1978 poster is better too!).

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

The movie is about a writer that goes on a little break in a cabin to do some writing. While she is there she get's brutally raped, beaten and left for dead by a group of local lads. What they don't realise, is she survived and comes back for revenge.

I know it sounds like a typical horror movie, and in many ways it is, but this film is really horrible.

I have seen the original movie... in fact I have the uncut version of DVD... it is a sick film that I actually feel uncomfortable watching. I like it a lot... it is well made and very gritty. But the rape scenes were horrible to watch.

So... 32 years later, Hollywood decides to remake this, just like every classic movie. Was I expecting to like the remake? No. Did I like it? Yes. It was actually surprising good.

The rape scenes were again very uncomfortable to watch. It was not as awkward to watch as the original, but it was still horrible enough to make me believe the girl was really going through hell.

The acting was very good throughout the movie. I believed everything I watched. The gang of rapists were really believable in their roles that you actually hate them. Jeff Branson was great as the leader. He was so horrible. I wanted him to die so badly. Other cast members were Andrew Howard, Daniel Franzese, Rodney Eastman and Chad Lindberg. They all did a good job. But the main character and the star of the film was definitely Sarah Butler. Sarah played the victim, and she does a fantastic job. I felt so bad for her. I hope she gets a lot more work in the future.

Mostly this was a complete remake of the original. There were a few changes though, but not many. There were a couple of extra characters added, one of which was the sheriff. The other big change from the original was her revenge. The killings were much more inventive this time around.

The original didn't have much of a budget, and that is what gave it the feel it had. The gritty, realistic, scary feel. The remake had a budget and you could clearly see that. That is why this film felt like a typical horror.

Finally, this film has a lot of predictability about it. There were a few twists in the film, but I saw them coming a mile off.

All in all, this has to be one of the better remakes I have seen. I enjoyed it and will be watching I Spit on Your Grave 2 soon... but I don't hold out much hope on that one. I will give this film 7 out of 10.

"She's just an innocent girl!"

"So was I!"

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ordinary-Person-Movie- Reviews/456572047728204?ref=hl

If ever there was a candidate for banning a film it's this. It's not giving anything away to reveal that there's a rape scene in this film but be warned it puts anything you saw in "Last House on the Left" the remake to shame. Graphic doesn't even begin to describe what the audience are subjected to by the voyeuristic intentions of director Stephen Monroe as he puts the audience in the front row seat for almost two hours of pure abuse.

But this is a good thing. Surely rape is visceral, brutal and sadistic and this film embodies all these elements. And once the reported revenge begins it's even more brutal than anything done to her.

Superb and bold performance from Sarah Butler in a role that is probably considered by most to be career suicide. When her character takes revenge it truly is the stuff that nightmares are made of and some scenes made me cringe for at least an hour afterwards.

Watch this one at your peril.This is highly recommended only for those who sit through a showing of cannibal holocaust without vomiting. Strong stuff indeed.One of the few examples of a remake vastly improving on 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