उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

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.

The entire movie can be summed up into rape and death. There's not much more to it. I'm currently trying to watch all the horror classics. And I was hesitant on this one. Being a woman, and watching it, I had to look away for most of the rape scenes. They are extremely graphic with nudity. And very long. Just as you think its over, it keeps going.

The first quarter of the film is setting up the scene. The next two quarters of the movie is the never ending rape. And the last quarter is the revenge. It felt like they didn't spend enough time on the revenge killings. They were too quick. The movie does have a strong message in trying to dish out where the blame lies. Which felt strongly unneeded. There really is next to no acting skills or script in the film. And there's no music track.

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/

Of all the films that were implicated in the absurd and sickening tabloid-fueled "video nasties" witch-hunt in the UK, some were demonised more than others. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE joins a select few as being one of THE films cited for causing the most problems at the time. Certainly, the title and advertising campaign (in classic exploitation fashion) was garish and contentious, but unlike some other films that suffered the same fate (such as SS EXPERIMENT CAMP), Zarchi's film is extremely powerful and disturbing... not to mention widely misinterpreted.

I've read a large number of reviews of this film. A worryingly high percentage of them accuse this movie of somehow advocating rape, and being sexist and demeaning. That is the last thought that crosses my mind whilst watching this. The whole "rape/revenge" genre is one that is fraught with moral contradictions. In essence, films of this type ARE exploiting the subject of rape (and sadly, often presenting it in a sexually ambiguous way) but does this mean that they are not able to condemn the subject matter, or offer a powerful criticism of the behaviour of many men towards women? The same school of argument is used against critical film-making like CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST- can a film truly condemn what it exploits? I believe so, and I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a triumphant example of this, putting forward more powerful a message about violence of rape and the attitudes of some men towards it than any other movie I care to mention. However, it goes even deeper than this in this particular case. Zarchi doesn't praise the rapists- nor does he condemn them. Similarly he offers no moral judgment on the revenge that is carried out by the female protagonist. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE offers a truly subjective message in that it presents gritty reality and leaves the viewer to make up their mind on the matter.

Much is made of the fact that the rape scenes last for around forty minutes. It seems that a lot of critics think that by proxy, long scenes of violence equal pure exploitation. In this case, this is far from the truth. The scenes are horrific, grueling and ugly. There is no kind of glorification of rape here. The scenes are shot practically real-time which brings home the gritty and sickening nature of what is being displayed. Furthermore, a lot of the scenes are shot from the victim's perspective. The revolting sight of sweating, grunting men is absolutely anti-sexual and anti-erotic, which is of course EXACTLY what it should be in this context! Rape has little to do with sex, and a great deal more to do with violence and power. This is expressed superbly in the sequences in this film. Sanitising the scenes that are supposedly "exploitative" would trivialise the very serious issues at hand.

The men presented in I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE are nothing to emulate. Nothing is even said about the backgrounds of their characters- they are totally faceless within the context of the film (other than one long shot later on which shows one of the men with his family- merely proving him to be a liar and cheat as well as a rapist). The point here is that they don't even NEED character building- they represent the threat and actuality of sexual violence that women face every day. The final and most telling twist is that these men are then so gullible and arrogant that they could be seduced and murdered by the person they had attacked. If Ebert and all his sniveling comrades are really right about this film "promoting sexual violence", they must see something appealing in the behaviour of these men.

Despite what you might read elsewhere, I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a tightly constructed and well crafted piece of film-making containing some powerfully symbolic imagery. Scenes such as Keaton sitting broken and alone in her house after her attacks or her swimming costume limply floating in the river are extremely effective. There is also practically no music in the entire film. The viewer can almost feel the sense of isolation at every stage of the story- initially it is liberating but it quickly becomes frightening as events unfold. The simple cinematography reflects the isolated feel of the locations that frame this film.

Many horror films can be fairly accused of being misogynistic. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE takes these concepts of misogyny and totally turns them around. This film is EMPOWERING, and whilst it does have the cynical production of an exploitation feature, Zarchi took this and created a powerful, bitter and dynamic story with many issues being explored therein. It's great. Check it out if you haven't already, and if you've watched it before with the wrong approach to it, I demand you have another look. This is one of the pinnacles of the genre but sadly it is (in)famous for all the wrong reasons.

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")

A young woman (Camille Keaton) is spotted by a group of men while writing near a river. Not much later, things go from tranquil to nightmarish for her... where do you go after you reach the lowest possible point in your life?

The director's commentary with Mier Zarchi begins by revisiting the history and controversy over the film -- is it a story that is sick and makes woman out to be nothing more than a sexual object, or is it a feminist film where the "day of the woman" allows the victim to strike back?

Zarchi finally reveals the film's inspiration: in the early 1970s, he and his friend Alex Pfau (a protégé of Roman Polanski) witnessed a rape victim after the fact, her body naked, bloody and broken. They brought the young woman to the police, but allegedly the officer on duty was not very concerned. At this point the director realized that being questioned by the police is not the solution to the rape -- at least not yet -- but the continuation of it.

The film is certainly the most explicit up to the time it was made, and some might even say up until today. Those who do not know what to expect may be very shocked by this film if they see it uncut. Then again, even cut, it is a shocking film -- what would be a two minute scene in some films goes on over an hour here.

Mike Mayo praises the film to a point, but considers it "crude and single-minded" and suggests viewers check out Abel Ferrara's "Ms. 45". Indeed, the film has a pretty thin plot, but its point is clear, and even the attackers get fleshed out a bit in the second half.

What should we make of the church scene? Can you reconcile Christian beliefs with murder or revenge? That is not a question I choose to answer, but certainly a question raised by this film, whether intentionally or otherwise.

The film is a natural step from "Last House on the Left", actually upping the ante. And Camille Keaton has to be honored for such dark subject matter and tackling it head-on. This could have been a career killer, and perhaps it was, though it has sealed her place in cult film history.

There is also a 29-minute special feature called "The Values of Vengeance" which is insightful, though does not cover much the commentary does not. Of course, if you want to actually see Meir Zarchi's face, here is your chance. And you will hear a nice story about Wizard Video's shrewd business dealings.

You plan to spend the summer locked away, in a cabin in the woods is where you'll stay, start to write a piece of fiction, enjoy your time without restriction, what could possibly go wrong, get in the way? It's not too long before you're woken from your dream, as four assailants hunt you down and make you scream, raped and beaten left for dead, terror, fear, alarm and dread, but you will get recompense, and start to scheme.

A vicious and brutal piece of filmmaking that has the remarkable Camille Keaton excising a violent attack from her mind by replacing those memories with ones that are far more rewarding.

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.

I had heard that this was a controversial film, brutal, terrible, the worst film ever made, etc. Usually I stay away from slasher, violence for violence sake films and figured this was in that category, so I had no interest in it. Then I got a copy for free and thought, okay, let's see what this is all about. It was so laughable, reminding me of many of the pornos made back during that period (the 1970's). A simple, linear story with the details and dialog probably being "written" as they were shooting with their one (maybe two!) unsophisticated cameras. Not one talented individual in the bunch, direction, camera work, and the acting so badly over the top and ludicrous that you can't possibly take this movie even remotely seriously. It's a silly, campy film but you can tell that they were trying to sincerely do a real horror/revenge film, so I give them high marks for effort. It's the kind of shallow, vapid entertainment that the shallow, vapid high school boys used to enjoy over a few beers and bong hits in the drive-ins back when it was made. I could see how someone might list it as a guilty pleasure: it's rather mindless, primitive, and ridiculously clichéd enough to have the same guilty pleasure one would get from an off color joke. I found the movie so ho-hum that I realized the "controversy" was more absurd than the film itself. Were feminists really outraged by this moronic offering? Did Roger Ebert really call this "the worst film ever made"? (Wouldn't surprise me actually, he's recommended enough real dogs that I think he's become, or always has been, an out of touch ivory tower cinephile who overvalues his own opinions and the general b.s. of the movie world.) It's not realistic in the least bit, so how can you be offended? It's a little like watching "South Park" and thinking that the characters are evil children. They're cartoons, people, a parody, satire, even farce if you will, but hardly reality. I place this silly film in that same category. If what people are offended by are the IDEAS behind the film: brutal rape, wanton revenge then I think what they're really talking about is a desire to enforce their own brand of censorship. True, violence and rape are unpleasant and nothing I care to indulge as entertainment, nor do I watch so-called "normal" television shows that preach a much subtler form of barbaric brutality, often touted and socially accepted as wholesome entertainment, even comedy. But I do not believe they should be censored. Censoring does not stop people from thinking, believing and acting in any specific way. I don't enjoy watching these movies and shows, I don't particularly like them, I think they're a sad indicator of what brutes most people really are despite our facades of civilizations, but if I don't like them I TURN THEM OFF. Very simple. If you want to get angry, get angry at the real brutality that goes on a constant basis virtually everywhere in this hard world. But getting upset over this nonsense? Come on, get real.

In reading the reviews, I think it best to dispense with the plot summation. I feel compelled to comment due to how, time and time again, those driven to comment on this lurid, artless film keep missing a huge, glaring point- this film, when it gets down to it, is really more soft-core fetish porn than a film about righteous revenge. 'Day of the Woman' has got to be the cheapest, most cruelly hypocritical tagline ever.

The cover art on the video ought to be the first tip off- a woman, scantily clad in something torn and tight-fitting, scratched up and filthy, clutching a machete in her grubby, ravaged hand. But this woman has no face, not even a head, nor is there any man, her presumed rapist who's about to get it, present. The focal point in the picture is her mostly bare back, perky buns and taught thighs, not the woman herself, nor her experience, but her physical, sexual image. How now is that not extreme objectification, when the ravaged body, free from any personality, any human face, is blatantly eroticized- when THIS is the film's visual selling point? This is the absolute farthest thing from empowerment I can think of.

In the ensuing- and flimsy- story that follows- precious little time is spent on character development. All we are allowed to know about Jenny is that she is a New York writer who enjoys the great outdoors. Right away we get treated to a full-frontal and fully gratuitous nude scene, and it isn't very long afterward that the gang rape actually occurs. The rape itself is grueling, graphic, and painfully, unnecessarily long- it is this scene, not the killings, that are the climax of the film, indeed almost the whole point. After Jenny, left to die, manages to get it together, recuperate, and exact her revenge upon the scum that did this to her, it's all pretty dull from there on, actually. There is no effort on the director's part to build up any suspense, and the killings themselves are far less graphic and gory than the rapes, less detailed, and surprisingly occupy much less screen time than you expect. Revenge may be a dish best served cold, but Jenny delivers death with no relish, no triumph, no hesitation, or anguish- not one tenth of the emotional energy present during her violent gang-rapes, not even buy the guys getting whacked. Jenny could be knitting a sweater, for all the emotional expression in either her face or voice. Really, these were some of the most boring slayings I've ever seen in a horror film.

In the end, it's all about the rape, and you find yourself left with the feeling that this film is actually geared toward men who secretly find the visual image of rape kind of hot, and eases the guilt by letting the lady have her revenge, so they can pretend that's actually what they came for. It was what I, for one, came for, and was sorely disappointed. I can't think of one redeeming thing to say about this poorly acted, visually unappealing, lurid piece of celluloid. In fact, that probably IS the nicest thing I could have said about it.

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a straightforward rape/revenge drama with the tone of a documentary.

The coverage is plain, there is no music, there are no "stars", there are no concessions to a mainstream audience.

The exploitation film audience may be served, although the rape sequences are neither dynamic nor stylish.

Camille Keaton (Buster's granddaughter), a writer, drives to the country to stay at her house on the river. Local losers stalk her and rape her and rape her again.

The rest of the film details the victim's bloody revenge.

Labeled rubbish by the ignorant, this is very restrained exploitation that is often perversely effective and confronting.

The rape sequences are nasty and ugly, not enhanced by camera moves, rich sound effects or lurid angles.

On the other hand, the revenge sequences are more cinematically manipulative and poorly executed.

An intriguing document of merit.

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!

These comments are based on watching International Trading (UK) Ltd DVD certified in 2001; this version has major edits to the more disturbing scenes; the 'alternate versions' section gives a more complete description of the cuts.

This film tells to story of Jennifer Hills; a New York writer of short stories who has decided to spend the summer in the Connecticut countryside writing her first novel. Here she attracts the attention of four young men; the attendant at the gas station, two of his unemployed friends and Matthew, the somewhat simple deliveryman from the local shop. Later they take a boat to her house and she is brutally raped. This happens three times; on the river bank, in the woods and finally back in her house. Not wanting to leave a witness they send Matthew back into her house to kill her but he can't do it. He just tells them he has. Two weeks later they are concerned as the murder has yet to be reported; soon after they learn that Matthew lied. In this time Jennifer has recovered and now she is ready to get her bloody revenge on the four men.

Normally I'm not a fan of censorship but having read some other reviews I'm not sorry that the version I saw was cut; the rape scenes were disturbing enough even with substantial cuts. The story may be basic but it is effective. There may be little in the way of character development, especially for the men but I suspect that was deliberate... it makes everything seem more matter of fact. This feeling is increased by the almost total lack of music. While there isn't much to enjoy during the gruelling rape scenes they do make it easy to sympathise with Jennifer as she extracts her revenge. The revenge section may be more enjoyable but it still has its very disturbing moments; notably the sound of one of the men calling out for his mother after Jennifer deals with him in a way that will have most male viewers crossing their legs and wincing! The acting isn't great but it is okay for a low budget film of this type; Camille Keaton's performance as Jennifer is certainly the best. The story does contain plenty of plot holes that left me wondering if Matthew wasn't the only simpleton in the group! Overall this is a hard film to recommend but if you are a connoisseur of controversial films you will want to see it.

This film begins with a writer from New York City by the name of "Jennifer Hills" (Camille Keaton) deciding to spend some quiet time in the country to work on a new novel. At first, everything is going smoothly, and she seems to be on good terms with the people in the small town not too far from her cabin on the river. Everything is peaceful and quiet. Then one day, while canoeing on the river, she comes across some young men in a boat with an outboard motor who begin to make a nuisance of themselves. One thing leads to another, and they soon drag her canoe to the shore where they then proceed to brutalize and rape her. To make matters even worse, within a day or two they show up at her cabin and savagely beat and rape her again. This time, however, rather than taking the chance of her reporting them to the police, one of the men named "Matthew Duncan" (Richard Pace) is selected to kill her while the rest of them wait outside. Not wanting to anger his colleagues, he initially agrees but, once inside the cabin has a change of heart and, rather than killing her, smears some of the blood from her body onto his knife and then presents it to the rest of the group to satisfy their concerns. What they don't realize, however, is that Jennifer has no intention of reporting them to the police--and they will soon discover why. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this is an extremely graphic film which some people might find rather disturbing. So, be prepared as this is not a movie for the squeamish. On a completely different note, although this film features a number of action scenes, none of those related to the revenge aspect were very credible. Likewise, other than Camille Keaton, and possibly Eron Tabor (as "Johnny Stillman") none of the other actors really stood out. But that's just my opinion. At any rate, although I certainly don't consider this to be a good movie by any means, it does stand out as being one of the one of the most memorable rape & revenge movies ever produced, and I have rated it accordingly. Average.

I love horror films, and I'm not squeamish. But this movie I can't imagine anyone enjoying unless they get some slight thrill from watching a woman being raped, whether or not they want to admit it. It's like a very violent porno. And the revenge sequences didn't make me feel any better about it...at that point it seemed more like what I might imagine a snuff film is like...and I don't want to see one of those either! Its violence is too...voyeuristic.

It just left a very bad taste in my mouth. And for some reason it's in the drama section at the local video store, it should be in the horror one.

I Spit on Your Grave is a film that will never be accepted as a serious piece of film-making. This is thanks in part to the gratuitous rape and murder scenes, which don't exactly hold back the shocks; and it's also due to the time in which it was made. These days, as proved by the likes of 'Irreversible', films tackling rape in a shocking and disgusting way are more readily accepted, and even gain a strong reaction from many critics. This film was unfortunately (albeit for good reason) caught up in the 'video nasty debate' in the early eighties, and as such it's reputation has been diminished to such an extent that the likes of Roger Ebert have labelled it 'the worst film ever made' (even though The Blair Witch Project is the worst film ever made) and it's reaction in general tends to be of the bad variety. For some reason, we have found ourselves in a world where it's more than acceptable to give praise to 'A class' rape themed dramas such as Irreversible, but woe betide thee who labels this as a good film. Well, woe betides me then.

For a 'video nasty', I Spit on Your Grave has surprisingly good production values. While the acting often lets it down, the cinematography and even the script are more than decent and this helps the film in it's bid to get the praise it deserves. The story, which follows a New York writer who moves to a backwater part of the USA to work on her new novel, shortly before being horribly raped and beaten, is just a plot device for the more important elements of the plot. The main theme on display seems to be a comment on the male sexual ego and the way that women can have power over them. The film plays out like a revenge thriller, with the protagonist getting her own back on the men who raped her. This disrupts the main argument against this film; namely, that it's misogynistic, as much of the violence in the movie is actually directed against men. Of course, the rape scenes are the main crux of the film; but most of the gore comes later. Don't get me wrong, this is hardly an uplifting feminist drama; but it's not the worst film ever made either. Content caution though; it gets a bit extreme. A certain scene in a bathroom takes the prize for being one of the sickest sequences ever to grace the silver screen.

Apart from the fact that it is a controversial movie I can't imagine any other reason anyone would want to see this movie. The plot is almost non-existent. A woman is brutally and graphically raped and degraded for thirty minutes - then she kills the rapists. THE END.

Some people defend this horribly misogynistic movie by inverting reality and claiming it is a feminist film. It just isn't so. The revolting and seemingly endless rape sequence is brutal, graphic, long. The revenge murders are predictable and not graphic (ie, not gory in the tradition of slasher or giallo horror films).

Clearly the sole reason this film was made was to make money from mentally ill individuals who enjoying watching a woman being raped, beaten, degraded.

Is this film the cause of sexism? No, of course not. Is it in bad taste? Obviously. But WHY watch something which is highly unpleasant AND lacks any artistic or technical merit? Likely banning or crusading against these type of film only makes them more appealing to those who oppose censorship and seek out things which are transgressive. I also oppose censorship and enjoy transgressive cinema. But if you read other comments you will see that people who have sought this movie out for those reasons did not enjoy the experience and felt they had wasted their time and money. I would suggest you not make the same mistake.