I Spit on Your Grave 2

When you read the title I spit on your Grave 2, you do kind of think of some knock off sequel. I never saw the original but did see the remake of the original. I can remember the general gist of that movie however methinks it was not as uncomfortable as its sequel. The movie starts off relatively generic however there is an air of reasonable quality about the production which continues throughout, plus it's not entirely predictable, at least until the third and final act. All the actors perform well enough with the material they're given and only one plot point irks me. The movie is a gory revenge movie and therein lies the basics of the story. What ISOYG 2 does differently lies in the pretty graphic depiction on its events and you really feel so sorry for the lead actress that your almost cheering when she exacts her revenge. Some viewers may find this quite uncomfortable, you'd really need to have seen movies somewhat like this before. The strongest point however without a doubt in the film is the lead actress Jemma Dallender who really steers this film with a very strong performance and without whom this movie would certainly be a lesser work. An above average horror sequel not for the faint hearted.

I Spit on Your Grave II (2013) is a movie that I recently watched on Amazon Prime. The storyline follows an aspiring model who takes a photoshoot opportunity that becomes more than she bargained for. She decides to quit the shoot and go home. Unfortunately for her the photographers find her house, rape and kidnap her and continue to rape and torture her after the kidnapping. The model seeks opportunities to escape these heinous acts, gain revenge and return home...

This movie is directed by Steven R. Monroe (I Spit on Your Grave, 2010) and stars Jemma Dallender (Daddy's Girl), Joe Absolom (Doc Martin), Valentine Pelka (The Pianist) and Mary Stockley (V for Vendetta).

This is a very uneven movie that tries a bit too hard. I will say the film is well shot and has some worthwhile cinematography. There's some scenes that were too much, and some that definitely didn't feel realistic (the recapture). But there's some really well done scenes too. The taser and stabbing sequence was good. There's a change of venue scenario that was fun. There's also a revenge bathroom scene that felt unrealistic but was gross and I didn't see coming. The ending sequence with the mouth kill was good too.

This movie isn't particularly good, but it's worth a watch. I would score this a 6/10 and recommend seeing it once.

Many Horror films often like to shroud themselves in mystery, both in the film itself (in regards to plot and story) and around it (cast, crew and such). This leads to many unsolved questions... Why did the eerie and disturbing Fred Kruger become Freddie the comedian in the 2nd film? Why did we have to wait all these years for 20 Days of Night to show us an actually frightening vampire? Why is cheap gore even considered Horror? And many more. To this list I can now add "why the heck would anyone want to make a sequel after the remake of I Spit on Your Grave, which was simply the perfect revenge film?"

I Spit on Your Grave 2 had no chance. It was doomed to be a let down after the first film. I find it virtually impossible to review this film objectively due to my utter admiration to the first film, since the sequel is lacking and wanting in every single aspect. Jemma Dallender is not a bad actress, her acting is simply annoying. Her exaggerated sobs ruined any and all chance of sympathy, especially after the excellent work done by Sarah Butler in the original. The story and plot are nothing more than a tribute to the first film, with the script feeling like it's been written by a high school student doing their homework assignment of "re-write a script while offering absolutely nothing new". Even the punishments and tortures extracted by the victim-turned-huntress are nothing more than a tribute, and are far less powerful, artistic and impacting. Seriously... Why?

Having said all that, it wouldn't be fair to say I didn't enjoy the film. Seeing monsters punished by the one whose life they tried to destroy always feels good, even if not as good as during the first film. The acting by the list of antagonists was not half bad, and I should specifically commend on Peter Silverleaf's character, which was an excellent addition and perhaps the only innovation compared to the first film. Also, in this film we finally see some police involvement, offering both a well deserved criticism to the manner in which authorities handle rape cases and treat the victims, and a different ending. In regards to the ending, it did add some necessary value to the plot and the overall predicament.

All in all, the more you enjoyed the first film, the less you are likely to enjoy this one. However, if like me you enjoy watching evil people suffer, and are looking for a slight addition to the overall story - I would definitely recommend this film. I guess succeeding in being not bad when having no chance of being equally good to begin with is somewhat impressive. I'm glad I watched this, but I would in no way object to the decision to skip it and move on to the 3rd, which is actually a sequel and far better.

For his 2010 remake of Meir Zarchi's 70s rape/revenge classic I Spit On Your Grave, director Steven R.Monroe's aim was clearly to surpass the original movie in terms of nastiness; many might argue that he succeeded. For this sequel, he attempts to outdo his own remake, but in doing so, frequently verges on parody, the excessive sadism and violence perpetrated by ridiculous eastern European, Hostel-style stereotypes, and the plot taking several preposterous turns in order to prolong its protagonist's unimaginable suffering.

Monroe also makes the mistake of concentrating far more on the rape than on the revenge, with the latter half of the film feeling very rushed and consequently less satisfying, the sense of disappointment exacerbated by the lame manner in which several of the villains meet their fate (only Ivan's 'balls in a clamp' treatment seems truly befitting of his heinous crime).

From a technical point of view, Monroe's film is very impressive, with slick direction and editing, decent make-up effects work, and a bold and convincing central performance by Jemma Dallender—making it even more of a shame that in trying so hard to shock, the film fails to work in other departments.

This was waaaay better than the first. Kinda slow for awhile but had more...spunk? The chick in the first movie was mostly dazed throughout everything until the end and before everything happened. This chick was alive and kicking throughout the whole movie. They added a twist and a completely new environment and they made it better in the sense that this was more of a revenge movie than the first where the first was pretty much just a rape movie because of how much they prolonged that damn moment. This movie is still disturbing with what happens to the chick BUT they didn't drag out the rape scene as long as the first. They actually shortened it by a lot, but it wasn't all one...long scene. It was like three where they showed the first one but was really short, second one only lasted seconds and the third wasn't even shown. This was more of a movie than the first, it didn't just feel like hardcore porn with barely any gore at the end. This felt like a real movie with pretty awesome revenge in it. This was a revenge movie with some rape, it can be disturbing to a lot of people but this wasn't like the first movie where the first movie felt like a rape movie with some revenge, this movie is a revenge movie with some rape.