Oeil pour oeil

I tried to watch this film once before and made it up to the second rape scene before leaving the room, believing I was seriously about to throw up. I finally forced myself to watch it all the way through recently, and I'm glad I did.

Jennifer Hill is a young, hip, free-spirited woman of the 70s, who leaves her home in New York City for a long vacation in Connecticut, where she plans to write her first novel. Jennifer soon attracts the attention of four lowlife scumbags as she sunbathes in her bikini. The semi-evolved thugs kidnap Jennifer, drag her into the woods, rape her, beat her, sodomize her, beat her some more, follow her home, rape her again, kick her when she's down, make fun of her manuscript, rip it to shreds, rape her with a bottle, beat her up one last time and leave her, bleeding and unconscious on the floor of her vacation home. Damn. They send the retarded Matthew back into the house with a knife and instructions to kill her, but Matthew can't bring himself to do it. He tells the guys that he has killed her, and they stupidly believe him and leave. But Jennifer is alive, and as she heals from her hideous wounds and recovers her strength, she plots revenge against her rapists.

Roger Ebert called this the worst film ever made and feminists damned it to hell for all eternity, but you know what? I'm a woman and I liked it. Jennifer is no weak, whimpering, helpless little victim. She tries her best to fight back. When threats and violence fail to work in her favor, she uses the only other weapon she has: sex. The men are all stereotypical slobs, disgusting pigs who are clearly already emasculated and use Jennifer as an outlet for their frustration and rage. The rapes have nothing to do with sex and are portrayed most realistically - they are ugly, brutal, violent, nasty and completely devoid of eroticism. The sodomy scene was the one scene that horrified me the most, as Jennifer emits the most bloodcurdling scream of pain ever heard. It is very difficult not to flinch from that sound. Jennifer's revenge is every bit as bloody and painful, and nowhere is it more sadistic than in the infamous "bloodbath" scene. These guys all get what's coming to them, and Jennifer makes sure that the punishment fits the crime, turning the men into the helpless, pleading victims and feeding their own sadism right back to them.

Okay, so not all of the plot points make sense, and not everyone is going to agree with Jennifer's decision to kill the men, but it's still a powerful film. It's told primarily from Jennifer's point of view but it never takes sides. It simply tells the story and lets you decide - is Jennifer an insane psycho-killer who ought to go to jail for her crimes, or is she an angel of vengeance delivering poetic justice?

Scaredy cats like me might prefer to watch this film with the audio commentary by Joe Bob Briggs turned on. Joe Bob provides a lot of interesting information about the making of this film, and also supplies some much needed comic relief throughout.

I am honestly kind of surprised by the lack of reviews in the 4-6 out of 10 range. To me, that's exactly the range this movie belongs in.

First of all, I'd heard of how controversial this film was since I was in high school (around the year 2000) but never quite had the urge to seek it out considering it was commonly described as being mostly just rape, I suppose. Finally, in 2019, I felt it was the right time - and, it lived up to it's legend, in the sense that the majority of the movie really was just one long, extended rape scene. 2/3 of the film basically revolves around that, I'd say. I definitely haven't seen that in any other movie, ever, which does give this film it's own identity. But, as one would assume, it's not pleasant. It's also not impressive in the sense of realism, or in any sort of artful manner. So, instead, you're just choosing to watch an hour of gritty, artless, trash film rape. Since this is the majority of the film, this is what loses it the most points. I seriously doubt I will ever watch it again.

I think the movie is a bit long for what it is. If it were hyper-realistic, the grueling pace would make more sense, but since the acting is schlocky, it would have made more sense to move things along quickly. I really think this film would have served a lot better as a 80-85 minute feature rather than a 100+ minute one. Those 15 minutes of cuts could make a world of difference.

The complete lack of soundtrack also gives the film a lot of it's own unique character. While a haunting score is generally one of my favorite elements of vintage horror, I ended up admiring this movie's complete lack of one. The sound of the motorboat coming really does become I Spit On Your Grave's "theme song", and it's pretty effective in that regard.

On the plus side, Camille Keaton really does bring a lot to the role. This was a very brave performance on her part and the shift from battered victim to sly vengeance seeker is actually believable and satisfying. Though the final act wasn't enough to redeem the movie much as a whole, I did find the acts of vengeance to be quite satisfying and memorable in comparison to a lot of forgettable horror deaths throughout history. I also enjoyed the cinematography for the most part - as often stated, it has a very real element of amateurism and also voyeurism to it, which adds a lot to the gritty surrealism of it. All the distant, out-on-the-water shots really did create quite a bit of an out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere ambiance.

This is a controversial cult classic for a reason. If you're a fan of gore, exploitation, or movies that push things as far as they can go, then yes you should absolutely see this. If not, don't even think about it!

This is a hard flick to watch. When it was shown in theaters, people walked out after seeing certain scenes. Rape and castration are not everyone's cup of tea.

Revenge flicks are hot right now with The Brave One and Death Sentence. Of course, there is the Death Wish series that defined the genre. I originally saw this film after it came out on VHS. I've seen it many times, but that is a long story. I decided to revisit it after not seeing it for 17 years.

The rape scenes are brutal, especially the one on the rock. The revenge scenes are also harsh, but satisfying in a vengeance sort of way.

Arkansas native Camille Keaton, who is a grand-niece of Buster Keaton, gives a stirring performance as the victim. She even won a Best Actress award at the Catalonian International Film Festival. The rest of the cast only have this one film in their resume.

In summertime, the aspirant New Yorker writer Jennifer Hills (Camille Keaton) rents a lakeside cottage in the woods of the peaceful Park Hell Lane, Connecticut, to write her first novel during the vacation. A couple of days later, she is successively and brutally gang raped by three local bigoted rednecks and one retarded delivery boy from the supermarket. The humiliated and abused Jennifer does not report the sexual assault to the police and a couple of weeks later, she is physically recovered and has just plotted revenge against the rapists.

"Day of the Woman" is extremely realistic and violent; therefore the simple and scary story is absolutely credible. The unknown Camille Keaton has an amazing performance, especially in the impressive long sequence when she is repeatedly beaten and raped. However, this gore movie is only recommended for very specific audiences and prohibited to sensitive persons due to the savagery of most of the scenes. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Vingança de Jennifer" ("The Revenge of Jennifer")

Lets just forget the title "Day of the Woman", the alternate title for which this movie is much better known for; "I Spit on Your Grave" is a far better one and part of the reason why this has become a sort of a cult-classic over the years. It's a pretty repulsive and extreme movie in which a young woman gets gang-raped. The second part of the movie focuses on the woman, taking revenge on her rapists, Charlie Bronson style, that on its own right is also pretty extreme as well.

This movie features the longest rape scene out of movie history? I don't know but the entire first halve of the movie is basically about the woman getting raped by 4 different guys, multiple times, in various violent ways. It just never stops and just when you think its over it starts all over again for her. That is what mostly makes the rape within this movie shocking and disturbing. It's something pretty extreme for a movie to feature, even for an '70's exploitation flick.

Also the way the woman takes revenge upon her rapists is pretty extreme and mostly original as well. The movie its story basically features too extremes; rape and killing. It's combination might not be unique but the way it is being handled within this movie is. On top of it all, it works out well within the movie, much to my own surprise. I mean, the main story for this movie sounds pretty ludicrous but because of the two extremes within the movie, the movie balances out well. I especially liked the way the second halve of the movie worked out, in which the woman starts her revenge. I can't of course with a straight face claim that this is a brilliant movie or anything like that, it's far too amateur like made for that but it basically is great as an '70's exploitation flick, that is worthy of its cult status.

For yes, it's an obvious very cheap made movie, with poor production values. The sound sounds pretty messed up at times and the acting is just plain poor for 80% of the time. Especially Camille Keaton is no great natural acting talent and is the reason why she isn't active in the business anymore and has never broken through. She was married to the movie its director/writer/producer/editor Meir Zarchi at the time, which probably was the only reason why she got cast in the movie. Appearantly she also is the grand-niece of the brilliant Buster Keaton and I must say that she looks a bit like him.

A great movie for what it is.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/