I Spit on Your Grave

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

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

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.

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.

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!).