I Spit on Your Grave 2

watched I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE 2 ...compare to its prequel this flick is more brutal more gruesome more violent more eww more plight-full n more entertaining(if you like this genre)...this movie completes everything that its prequel lacked..well not everything exactly..it too has some loose ends...BUT do/should we even care about that?..in front of this girl(Jemma Dallender)'s acting..she did a tremendous job..for a moment you'll wonder if she is being violated for real!(I'm not being an assh*le BUT it has one of the best woman abusive scenes I've ever watched in a film_of- course)..above that she is beautiful..you feel sorry for her(movie's job done here)....this revenge film has a cheesy twist n they kinda turns it in another SAW in the end(though)..its not very good BUT its a nice film..if you like sick things(kidding)

its _WORTH A WATCH_

When you read the title I spit on your Grave 2, you do kind of think of some knock off sequel. I never saw the original but did see the remake of the original. I can remember the general gist of that movie however methinks it was not as uncomfortable as its sequel. The movie starts off relatively generic however there is an air of reasonable quality about the production which continues throughout, plus it's not entirely predictable, at least until the third and final act. All the actors perform well enough with the material they're given and only one plot point irks me. The movie is a gory revenge movie and therein lies the basics of the story. What ISOYG 2 does differently lies in the pretty graphic depiction on its events and you really feel so sorry for the lead actress that your almost cheering when she exacts her revenge. Some viewers may find this quite uncomfortable, you'd really need to have seen movies somewhat like this before. The strongest point however without a doubt in the film is the lead actress Jemma Dallender who really steers this film with a very strong performance and without whom this movie would certainly be a lesser work. An above average horror sequel not for the faint hearted.

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.