I Spit on Your Grave

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

It's very popular to "hate" the nowadays trend of horror movie remakes, but you always have to bear two things in mind. 1) If we would collectively stop watching them, Hollywood wouldn't make them anymore and 2) there exist some remakes that are truly worth watching even though they still can't hold a candle to the original. Steven R. Monroe's update of the one of the most notorious cult movies ever made is such a remake. Meir Zarchi's original is a bona fide cult monument. You either love or hate it, but you can't deny it's a powerfully shocking and unforgettable film. The remake is perhaps not as memorable, but it definitely does contain a few sequences that are extremely brutal and hard to digest. Especially in comparison to the remake of that other notorious 70's classic – "Last House on the Left", which is rather soft and intended for wider audiences – this film is exclusively meant for experienced horror fanatics with a strong stomach and nerves of steel. The plot is commonly known, I presume. Jennifer, a young writer in search of inspiration for her second novel, withdraws herself to a remote cabin in the Louisianan backwoods area. Upon her arrival, she immediately draws the attention of the local "tough" guys working at the gas station as well as from the mentally handicapped handyman Matthew. Few days later, Jennifer gets humiliated and brutally gang-raped by the four men and even a local authority figure. What follows is her hardcore-to-the-bone vengeance, clearly executed with a deep hatred and zero morality whatsoever. The "I spit on your Grave" remake blends the raw atmosphere of the original with the more modern horror trend of torture-porn. The revenge that Sarah has prepared for her assailants are carefully planned and imaginative death traps to assure a maximum of agony. Some of the death sequences, like for example the acid bathtub or the eye-picking, would even make the Jigsaw killer of "Saw" jealous. Sarah Butler makes a strong impression in her role as not-so-vulnerable young girl and it's definitely a courageous performance. I hope she'll still find other roles without forever being known as the "I Spit on your Grave" girl. The rapists, on the other hand, are not as repulsive as they ought to be. Their performances aren't too memorable either, with the exception of Andrew Howard as the rotten sheriff. His whole character is a nice addition to Zarchi's original script, as a matter of fact.

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!).

Never seen the original so wont compare to that, but I just loved the awesome revenge. Dont do bad things and bad things wont happen to you :-)

'I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE' (2010): Four Stars (Out of Five)

Modern remake of one of the most controversial films of all time 'DAY OF THE WOMAN' (which was it's original limited release title in 1978, it was later retitled 'I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE' to capitalize on it's notoriety when it was given a major release in 1980). The film and it's 1978 predecessor both deal with rape, savage torture and murder. Both films have been highly criticized because of this with critics like Roger Ebert giving both films a zero star rating and calling the original a "vile bag of garbage". Almost an equal number of supporters (of the original film), including high profile critics, have raised their voices in defense of the film as well, with many labeling it a misunderstood masterpiece. Opposers of the film claim that it's man hating (with reports of some men walking out of the theater in disgust at both films) and some also accuse the film of glorifying violence against women (for it's violent rape scenes). Defenders of the films claim the movies are 'pro women' feminism and cathartic. People have been debating these issues for thirty two years and they'll probably go on debating them for longer than that and that's a good thing. If a movie causes that much discussion you have to give it some respect just for that.

Both films tell the story of a writer named Jennifer Hills (played by Sarah Butler in the new film and Camille Keaton in the original, Keaton is the grand-niece of Buster Keaton and won a Best Actress award for the role at the 1978 Catalonian International Film Festival) who heads to a cabin in the woods to work on her next novel. Once there she attracts a lot of attention from some hooligan hippies which eventually escalates in them braking into the cabin, raping her repeatedly and leaving her for dead. She unknowingly survives the viscous attacks and seeks out brutally sadistic revenge on all of the men involved, including a mentally handicap young man who was coerced into involvement by his buddies.

The remake was directed by Steven R. Monroe and written by Stuart Morse. The writer and director of the original film, Meir Zarchi, served as an executive producer on the film. Zarchi has said that he was inspired to make the original film after coming across a young rape victim in New York and escorting her to the police (which he says was the wrong decision considering how incompetent they were in the matter) and later the hospital for assistance. He defends the violence of the film as being completely necessary and rejects any criticisms that it is exploitative.

As far as the remake compares to the original film it's technically far superior on every level; it's better filmed, acted, written and directed (the original film had to manage with a much smaller budget though). The new film also shortens the rape scenes, in comparison to the much more explicit original, and relies more on psychologically implied imagery (which I think was a smarter decision). It also elaborates and extends the violent revenge scenes with much more creative deaths (much like many popular horror films). Where as the first half is more realistic and believable the second half branches much more into 'grindhouse' style revenge fantasy. While the film is much better than the original in all those ways it'll never be as remembered and cherished as a cult classic by fans.

I personally don't agree with the film's critics or it's supporters. I don't think you're supposed to necessarily agree with the heroine's actions or condone them and I definitely don't think you're intended to agree with the assailants' actions (that's a ridiculous argument). I think the film raises a lot of thoughts (most of them unpleasant) and discussion which like I said is something the films deserve credit for. A movie should never be judged by the actions of the characters within it, so however disgusting and disturbing they are (and in these films they're atrocious) it doesn't mean that they're bad films. I think both films are well made to a certain extent and effective at what they attempt to do. They're definitely not for everyone and very hard to watch but they're also memorable and dialogue inducing.

Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgaAYiwY0g0