I Spit on Your Grave

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!).

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.

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.

'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