I Spit on Your Grave 2

I saw the remake of "I Spit on your grave" and although some scenes were pretty tough to watch, overall it was a pretty good revenge film.

When I saw "I Spit on your grave 2" was out, I thought I would give it a go. I was surprised... the movie kept me gripped, intrigued and yes, although one or two scenes were pretty harrowing, I didn't feel they went on for as long as the original and remake.

If you liked the first one, in theory, you should like this one. Similar revenge focus with a couple of twists, decent acting and a pretty good story line. Not for the faint hearted but defiantly worth a watch in my opinion if you like your horrors / revenge movies.

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.

It's for sure not a movie for people with a weak stomach. Raping and torturing for 90 minutes. With the raping parts I always have difficulty to watch because you can identify yourself in the victim and the pain and terror she is in, but with the torturing I have absolutely no problem even if this is really gore sometimes. They just got it coming and deserve every second of the torture. I guess it's like that with all those gory torture movies now, the victim part is always diffcult to watch but the revenge part is at least as brutal if not more but you can manage to watch it because you want them to suffer as much as possible. I thought the movie was really well done. The actors are all good and the storyline is good as well. Not a movie for everybody that's for sure, but never forget it's just a movie...

An American wannabe model is raped, shipped to Europe and degraded until she escapes and plots her revenge.

Writers Thomas Fenton and Neil Elman offer a solid script, the claustrophobic NY apartment and then the European setting adds an air of danger for Katie's ordeals, it's pity the unsavoury Euro angle has be been done so many times already. In the vein of Hostel 2, Saw and following the format of the 1978's I Spit on Your Grave and its 2010 remake, director Steven R. Monroe's latest wincing film like its predecessor is nasty, arguably needless and borderline exploitation. Nevertheless, it feels more realistic than many of the films of its saturated genre and the cop and the priest play against expectations adding some surprise.

Jemma Dallender is first rate as Katie and gives a great performance but her character is not as liable as it's former lead Sarah Butler's Jennifer Hills. The supporting cast are all excellent notable are Mary Stockley, Joe Absolom who pulls off a good accent as Ivan and Valentine Pelka as Father Dimov.

It's a film of two halves, the first being the horrific abuse of Katie, the second revenge kills on her captors. Monroe's film looks good, it's slick with plenty of atmosphere, blood, great effects with the ominous lighting and locations heightened by Damian Bromley's photography. Corey A. Jackson's score also adds to the unnerving edgy scenes.

With the pro-woman, feminist, revenge angles already debated highlighted and explored with the 1978 version, this offering would have been a equal if not a better re-imagining than the 2010 remake but despite some great acting it's now left slightly redundant with even less to say.

Monroe's offering is commendable and as it is certainly not DVD fodder (like Hostel 3), it has cinema release execution and production values like his first instalment. Monroe needs a breakout movie but given the subject matter this just isn't it.

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.