I Spit on Your Grave (2010) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
339 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
While a better film than the original, I still PREFER the original...
dee.reid12 October 2012
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
66 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Exceeds the original, but still a tough watch.
KBambrick29 January 2011
Remakes are a dime a dozen these days but when you go through your old DVD or video collection and you come across the 1978 original I Spit On Your Grave you cant help but think "not a chance they will remake this". But remake it they have and the storyline is a mirror image of the original but for some reason this new version doesn't seem to be as nasty as the original. The reasons for this might have to do with the fact that the actors can actually act, its shot in a cleaner, more professional manner and maybe most importantly of all : we are just not that shocked by anything anymore. With more and more films pushing the boundaries of violence and gore, this just doesn't offend as much as the original did in its day. Having said that its still a tough watch and anybody not familiar with the original and not a fan of this genre will find its extended torture and intimidation scenes very difficult to stomach, but with a title like I Spit On Your Grave this movie will only attract a certain type of viewer.
65 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A tough film to watch at times but has a certain raw power & intensity.
poolandrews27 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I Spit on Your Grave starts as author Jennifer Hills (Sarah Butler) leaves the big city for a relaxing break in a luxury cabin deep within some woods just outside a small town, there Jennifer plans to take it easy & continue writing her latest book. While on her way to the cabin Jennifer stops off for gas & meets station attendant Johnny (Jeff Branson) & two of his friends Stanley (Daniel Franzese) & Andy (Rodney Eastman), Johnny tries it on with Jennifer but she knocks back his advances much to his bemusement. The pipes block at Jennifer's cabin & out comes local retard Matthew (Chad Lindberg) to fix the problem, later that day Matthew tells Johnny & his mates which annoys him even more & together they decide to get even & have some fun. Trapping Jennifer inside her cabin Johnny & his mates abuse, threaten & beat Jennifer but much worse is still to come as Jennifer suffers a gang rape & attempted murder as she is left for dead. Naturally upset by the incident Jennifer seeks a brutal revenge that fits the crime...

Directed by Steven R. Monroe this is a remake of the notorious rape revenge exploitation flick I Spit on Your Grave (1978) as filmmakers continue to be obsessed with remaking old (I won't use the term 'claasic' in the case of I Spit on Your Grave) horror films but more often than not coming up well short, having said that I actually think the new I Spit on Your Garve is a better film than the original in almost every aspect. I have seen the original I Spit on Your Grave quite a few times over the years & I don't really want to compare the two that closely & every single little difference, basically the two films run a very similar path in which an author hires a cabin in the sticks & get gang raped & left for dead before embarking on some brutal revenge. The original I Spit on Your Grave is a straight forward film, it's fairly simple with a very long & protracted rape sequence although the revenge part of the film is rather tame while the I Spit on Your Grave remake is far more fleshed out with little incidents to shape the story better. The video tape, the rapists going back to Jennifer's cabin to burn her clothes, the murder of Earl, one of Jennifer's friends trying to phone her, the search for her body, the rapist Sheriff's family & the ways in which Jennifer tortures & kills her attackers are all themed & relevant (the video-camera guy has his eyes pecked out, the ass rapist gets a shotgun shoved up his). With a bit more story comes a bit more depth but not much & there are a few issues with the script (like how Jennifer survives drowning, how she manages to set all the traps up, why would a rapist film the crime & why did the other's let him?), the character's & events are still minimalist & abrupt, at an hour & three quarters long the time flew by while I was watching it actually & overall while not a pleasant film to watch I did like it. I liked it's brutality, I liked it uncompromising nature, I liked it's twisted morals, I liked the bleak downbeat tone & I liked it's nastiness. Don't go into I Sopit on Your Grave looking for morals or an emotional drama of a woman's recovery after being raped, this is hard & often difficult to watch with some disturbing moments of sexual abuse & graphic torture so anyone wanting an uplifting film or anyone even slightly easily offended should give this a miss. However, if you do like to have your limits tested, can take I Spit on Your Grave for what it is & have a twisted taste in films then I do actually recommend I Spit on Your Grave quite highly.

While the emphasis of the original I Spit on Your Grave was a forty odd minute gang rape here it's definitely toned down, while the men humiliate & dehumanise Jennifer more before the rape begins the rape itself is much shorter & only two of the men are shown raping her. There's nudity & the rape is as brutal as the original while it's on screen but it's just that it's much shorter. On the other hand the revenge part of the film is far more effective & brutal than the original, there are some really nasty torture & gore scenes here from eyes being pecked out, fishing hooks put into eyelids in a truly painful looking sequence, a face is burned off with acid, teeth are pulled out, there's an off screen castration & the severed penis is shoved into it's former owner's mouth while there's also a fair bit of blood splatter & the torture scenes also go on for quite a while as the terror, pain & panic of the victims are dwelt upon. Shot in full 2:35:1 widescreen I Spit on Your Grave looks far better than it has any right too, it is very polished actually & very well shot.

With a supposed budget of about $1,500,000 this had a limited theatrical run both here & in the US although I don't think it did great business which is understandable. Filmed in Louisiana. I thought the acting was very good actually, Sarah Butler was really hot in this & puts in a good performance that goes from scared victim to cold blooded killer.

I Spit on Your Grave is maybe the most unlikely remake so far, to be honest I liked it, I liked it's brutality & it's polished good looks & actually think it's a better film than the original other than the sleazy 70's feel is obviously absent & a few minor lapses in the plot. Not bad, not bad at all.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Contains no grave spitting
TheLastPersonStanding20 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
My experience watching this remake of "I Spit on Your Grave" at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival is one I'm not likely to forget. I don't know the exact number of audience members I was with, but there must've been over 500 of them. Two reportedly passed out, a few walked out, and there were lots of cheering and sounds of disgust during the gruesome revenge scenes the lead character Jennifer unleashes upon five male hillbillies, who cruelly toy with her and rape her. I have only seen a few films at film festivals, although none were like this; not even last year's "Antichrist".

I've already described the basic plot of "I Spit on Your Grave", but I'll elaborate more. Jennifer is a writer who travels to a cabin in the woods for relaxation and to work on her next book. She encounters three of the men at a gas station on the way and they immediately show signs of not taking kindly to her. A mentally handicapped friend of theirs named Matthew comes to her cabin later to fix her toilet, which she also conveniently drops her cell phone into. The three other men decide to teach this city girl some kind of lesson and have Matthew lose his virginity to her, but he's sympathetic. It all seems familiar to the original 1978 film, which I didn't care for. There are differences, however. One is ironic as there's a fifth man involved, who's a corrupt sheriff. In the original, there are four, but the poster tagline mistakenly says, "This woman has just cut, chopped, broken and burned *five* men beyond recognition". The irony with the remake is probably intentional. It may seem like Jennifer's damaged cell phone doesn't even matter, but it's hard to believe the rest of the law enforcement in the town might also be corrupt. Well, I can give a bit of leeway regarding the cell phone because there probably wouldn't have been a film, otherwise.

I wouldn't dare spoil the revenge scenes, but they're more brutal than the original. I don't even want to describe them because of how sadistic they are. Watching them, I felt depressed and repulsed, yet amazed since they feel realistic. As you may have guessed, I didn't cheer with the audience. Despite what these men did to Jennifer, I felt kind of sorry for them. It's like she's treating them way worse. I was lucky enough to briefly speak with director Steven R. Monroe afterward about my different reaction and he told me you're suppose to feel that way. I was kind of relieved, to be honest. I don't remember if he told me not to tell people that, but if he did, I'm sorry. His film is indeed horrific and I don't see what's so wrong about revealing his intention.

This remake is about as simple as the original, but the remake's made better, including the acting. I felt more emotion throughout the entire film. When the men at the gas station break into Jennifer's cabin and toy with her, there's genuine tension. That goes for other scenes that have mystery to them. Jennifer's fear and despair is definitely visible when she's abused and trying to escape. Yes, the characters are pretty one dimensional, but I don't always need great development to take interest. Ambiguity is nice to have. There's actually an interesting twist to the sheriff I won't reveal.

There's unfortunately predictability to this film, like a few minutes of when Jennifer first encounters the sheriff and what she says to the men when she turns the tables. I had some trouble believing that the shed by her cabin happens to be filled with... well, let's just say unsubtle items. The flaws certainly didn't stop me from being shocked and I even was a little queasy after I came home. That really doesn't happen even after watching such graphic and disturbing films as "Cannibal Holocaust", "Salò or the 120 Days of Sodom", "Ichi the Killer", and "Philosophy of a Knife". *There's* a marathon for you. (Just kidding.)

Did I truly like this film? Yes, I did, but it'll probably be several years for me to consider seeing it again, which would mainly be to see how much its shock wears off. If my review has made or helped you to be curious, hopefully you have a good idea of what you're getting into. Before I met the director, I somewhat unexpectedly got a poster of Jennifer holding a hedge clipper shown in the theatre. The director even signed it with my name. It was nice of him, but I won't be putting the poster up in my room. No siree.
192 out of 286 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
No More Miss Nice Girl
Coventry15 November 2011
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.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
I Spit On Your Grave isn't enjoyable, it's mentally scarring.
TheMovieDiorama24 February 2018
Honestly, I'm not sure how to wrap my thoughts around this and cohesively write a review. Everything about this film, is just wrong. But that's the point. Does that necessarily make it a good film? Perhaps, perhaps not. A young woman stays in a remote cabin where she is terrorised and ambushed by a group of men (including the local sheriff). Presumed missing, she returns to seek justice by her own twisted methods. "Twisted" is gently describing this harrowing story. Simply put, this is disgusting. Two horrific rape scenes, elaborate torture set pieces and an eye wincing amount of gore. Clearly it was going for the shock factor, to which it succeeds. Hands down, I've not seen anything quite like this. The amount of comments I was making throughout its runtime..."seriously!? You're going to rape her again!?", "Oh she's going to do it...oh ohhhh...OHHH she did it!!" and "Revenge is a dish best served cold, even if it is a shotgun up the bum!". I'm not a huge fan of the "torture" sub-genre, I believe it is rather divisive but I can see its appeal to genre enthusiasts. However, making something shocking just so that it is memorable and intimidating doesn't make a good "film". You have to encompass every aspect. At the end of the day, it is a glorified B-Movie about revenge. I'll give credit to Sarah Butler, it cannot have been easy to film certain scenes and I thought she did pretty well. Everyone else could've been replaced and it wouldn't have made a difference. The second act was a slog, the interval where we wait for her to reappear seemed to go on forever. She then all of a sudden becomes an expert at torture, I mean some of those contraptions like the bath filled with lye were just too elaborate. Don't get me started on why she would even stay in that cabin alone anyway! Did we need a remake of the 1978 cult film? Who knows, but we've got one and it is brutally savage. Not necessarily my type of genre, but I can appreciate the fan base for these.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Weak, Toothless Remake of a Cult Classic
gavin694211 January 2011
A young woman goes to a cabin in the woods in order to write a novel. Unfortunately, the locals do not think highly of young, unprotected women and she soon becomes their victim. Is this the end, or only just the beginning?

Some have praised this version of "I Spit on Your Grave" as superior to Meir Zarchi's original film. I could not disagree more. This version is weak, far less stunning, and borders on the "torture porn" trend of the last decade that I thought -- incorrectly, apparently -- was dying.

Some changes were made, such as updating technology and adding in a police man. But it was a very cliché addition, and the only aspect that makes it an improvement at all is because the officer has a daughter. The rest of it is just one-dimensional fluff.

The nudity and rape scenes are toned down dramatically. Some have said the original pushed it too far, but that was the point: violence is not real when it is entertainment. It should horrify, shock and sicken you. This film shortens and weakened the rape sequences, making it more of a gimmick than a real shocker.

From there, the film becomes "torture porn" -- how can we burn, chop, mutilate the men as badly as possible? It far exceeds the first film. And unlike the original's use of sex to lure the men to their doom (a clever turnaround), here it is just raw violence.

I suppose the sound and picture quality are improved due to a decent budget and modern technology, but it is just a disposable film. I will go on pretending the remake never happened, because it is the ultimate disappointment. One more weak plot with weak characters, a remake that does not honor the original in any way or try to improve upon it.
33 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I Spit on Your Remake (Because it SUCKS)
squeezebox8 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The ONLY positive thing that can be said about the remake of I Spit on Your Grave is that it has made me realize how good the original is. I never liked Meir Zarchi's rape-revenge shocker, but I now can appreciate it for the gritty, basic thriller that it is. Remakes are almost always pointless, but in horror cinema, remakes are an opportunity new filmmakers to polish, upgrade and outdo the original. In attempting this, director Steven Monroe has more or less made a movie which lives up to the unfair negative press the original received. In other words, it is a movie which is misogynistic, exploitative and far sleazier than the the original.

Jennifer Hills (Sarah Butler) is an independent young woman who has rented a cabin in the wilderness to write a book. She gets unwanted attention from the local rednecks who eventually attack and rape her. After enduring several hours of sexual assault, she wanders off, lays low for a while, then takes violent, poetic revenge on her attackers in various gruesome ways.

Sounds pretty similar to the original plot-wise. So what are the significant differences that make this movie so horrendously awful? First, the character of Jennifer is turned from an average, likable young woman into a smoking hot model who also happens to be kind of a bitch. I found the character to be pretty obnoxious. It doesn't mean she deserves what happens to her, but making me not like her made it that much harder to care about her.

Secondly, the rape scenes, while not outright glorifying the rapes, are far more exploitative than the scenes in the original. My biggest gripe about them is the attempt to make sure Butler always looks attractive before, during and after the rape scenes. In the original, Camille Keaton looked like she'd been run over by a truck. Despite being completely naked there was nothing sexy about her appearance whatsoever. On the other hand, Monroe makes sure there's not TOO much dirt and blood on Butler's face and body, as he wants to make sure she still looks at least a LITTLE sexy. There's a conspicuous effort to get as many shots of her ass on screen as possible - and to make sure it always looks cute.

Third, the ridiculous revenge scenes. Here's where the movie basically stops being a remake of I Spit on Your Grave and becomes a rip off of SAW. Apparently being raped and beaten has shocked Jennifer into suddenly becoming an expert in the engineering of Medieval torture devices. Whereas she seduced and killed her attackers in somewhat plausible ways in the original (except maybe for the over-the-top outboard motor disembowelment), here her revenge is pure fantasy. She sets up absurdly elaborate mechanisms to torture and eventually kill her attackers. And the movie is so eager to hurry up and get to the third act bloodbath it leaves inexcusable pot holes unresolved.

I Spit on Your Grave UNRATED (as it is proudly titled) is not just one of the worst remakes I've seen, it's one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. It's a waste of time and energy for all involved including the audience. Once again, in their attempt to make the "sickest movie ever made," a group of filmmakers have succeeded only in making a movie that is trite, boring and stupid.

Skip it.
90 out of 164 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Wonderfully brutal and straight to the point...
paul_haakonsen18 September 2011
I recall having seen the 1978 version a long, long time ago, but must confess that I can only recall parts of the movie. So I decided to give this 2010 remake version a go, without having any hopes or expectations to it.

Wow! This movie was wicked. And in more than just one way. The story was compelling, even though it was twisted and perverse. But the movie just sweeps you up and takes you along for a ride, and you want to stick around and see what happens next. Basically, the story is about a young writer named Jennifer, who goes to a small town to write, and she is assaulted and tormented by a group of locals. Leaving her for dead, Jennifer comes back and takes revenge on those who wronged her.

The "I Spit On Your Grave" 2010 remake had me nailed to the chair, especially because it was so brutal. This movie is definitely not for the faint hearted or for those easily offended. I was cringing several times throughout the movie and was curling in the chair in phantom pains as well. The way the brutal scenes were executed and portrayed was just off the charts. It was in a weird way, perfect brutality caught on film. Sounds bad to say, I know, but trust me, watch the movie and you will know what I am talking about. It was like you were right there in the movie yourself.

Most of the people cast for the movie was new faces for me, I think I only recognized a single face, and he didn't even have a big role, that being Tracey Walter (playing Earl). Sarah Butler did a good job with the role of Jennifer, and she really came off quite believable. And credit is due the guys playing the tormentors as well, because they did good job with their roles as well (despite it being the roles of perverse deviants).

"I Spit On Your Grave" really surprised me and left me wanting for more. I actually want to sit down and watch the 1978 movie again to freshen up my memory of that version and compare it to this 2010 version.

Normally I am not keen on Hollywood remakes of older movies, but this one really hit the nail straight on the head, and as the nail tore through the flesh, you will cringe, groan and want for more.

There wasn't much music throughout the movie, or perhaps I just failed to notice it, because I was so caught up in the movie. But "I Spit On Your Grave" doesn't really need a hyped up score to work, because the story is selling (and telling) itself.

The effects in the movie were good as well, though there wasn't an extraordinary amount of effects. But the effects that were used worked superbly and were straight to the point, showing and telling what needed to be portrayed. The movie has just the right amount of blood, guts and gore without turning into a splatterfest.

If you haven't already gotten around to seeing this 2010 remake, then get yourself into gear and sit down to watch it. You will be in for quite an experience. But be warned; this movie is brutal. "I Spit On Your Grave" is definitely a movie that I will be popping into the DVD player again sometime in the future. It was wickedly awesome!
29 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Awesome B horror movie
bernygilbo10 May 2020
I'm a huge horror movie buff. Doesn't matter how low budget it may be I'll still give it a watch. So when I saw they remade the original I Spit on your Grave, I was intrigued at whether it was better than the original which was a low budget B horror movie for it's time. This movie is not for the squeamish at all. This girl did exactly what any other woman nowadays would do had they been in her situation. I think I probably would have done far worse honestly. They deserved every bit of it too.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The P is Pronounced as an H...
Xstal26 February 2023
You plan to spend the summer locked away, in a cabin in the woods is where you'll stay, start to write a piece of fiction, enjoy your time without restriction, what could possibly go wrong, get in the way? It's not too long before you're woken from your dream, as four assailants drag you down and make you scream, but you manage to escape, inform the sheriff of the scrape, he takes you back, no more attack, or so it seems.

A vicious and brutal piece of filmmaking that has Sarah Butler excising a violent attack from her mind by replacing those memories with ones that are far more rewarding, and downright imaginative compared to the 1978 version.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
'Vile bag of garbage', 'Misunderstood masterpiece' or neither?
Hellmant27 January 2011
'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
182 out of 251 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great!
paranjcoolguygamer5 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is a re-make of the 1978 classic 'Day of the Woman'. Now with a name as sinister as 'I Spit On your Grave', the movie was bound to attract controversy. The original 'Day of the Woman' itself was a very controversial movie with it receiving bans initially upon it's release in many countries. Now I am a violent movie fanatic. I like gore, horror, chills and blood in my movies. I started up with this movie with a lot expectations. Some were fulfilled, some weren't.

The thing that stands out the most is the acting. Not only Sarah Butler (who does a phenomenal job) but the whole cast acts very well. They make the movie seem very real. The second thing is the ambiance of the setting where the movie is filmed. The woods, the lonely cabin... it all adds to the realism of the experience that is 'I Spit on Your Grave' The directing is nice too. No out of the world shots but it is adequate. The dialogs seemed a bit to generic. But this are little nit-picks, let's get down to the things that this movie is known for. The explicit rape and torture scenes of Jeniffer Hills and then the scenes of the revenge.

The rape scenes seemed pretty well played. They were too in-depth and disgusting. The rape and torture scenes went on for about 20mins and I guess that's what is controversial about the movie. I was astonished by it but that wasn't what I watched this movie for. I watched it for Jeniffer Hill's revenge.

The revenge scenes were great. The film let my expectations down on the violence and gore front. I expected more blood but I was let down. But what's good about this scenes are that they are gruesome. The way she takes her revenge is disturbing. Especially the final two. The movie's violence does not hold up to movies like Cannibal Holocaust or Men Behind the Sun but it's adequate. It's done nicely and for an average movie watcher, the movie will be down right disgusting.

Overall, it's a great movie for people who like this kind of stuff. It's listed as horror but it isn't. There are no scary/spooky scenes. It's more about the torture, the violence... so if you are in house for some chills then this isn't the movie for you. It's great for what it is. A cult classic and rightly so. Now I am trying to obtain the 1978 version to see if it can surpass this one on the violence front!
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't know which was worst? The Torture/Rape or Wasting Time Watching This
ebert311-121 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
There are bad movies. There are terrible movies. There are movies that should never be seen by anyone. And then there is "I Spit on Your Grave" remake. Unlike the Last House of the Left, which is a similar brutal horror/revenge movie, the whole premise of this movie is as crazy as a crackhead running your bank account.

Just like the original, the movie starts with a lot of interesting setup. It's creepy and when they finally get to scaring the lead character (Jennifer), you start to squirm. It's makes you feel really uncomfortable and that's what you should feel. The rape/torture scene is tough to watch and you pretty much want to stop watching the movie at that time. If the movie swerved from this point and did something original, it would have been cool. I've seen the original and it's a mess as well, but this is suppose to be an updated remake. Not retread. I was expecting something cool and new. Dangit, I was expecting too much. Oh and the logic behind this movie....

Jennifer isn't a big girl at all. But we are suppose to believe that she is strong enough to choke out a mentally challenged boy who was earlier strong enough to force her to the ground. We are also suppose to believe that she could carry another grown man and tie him to a bathtub. Jennifer might weigh 90 pounds at the most. She's a writer and supposedly she survived in the woods for a month after falling naked into a dirty pool with gaters. Question. How come her clothes are completely clean? Wait, where did she get clothes? She was naked when they thought she was killed! She not only has clothes (which were burned when they thought she was dead) but boots that were her perfect size and are just as clean. I suppose she found them in the woods along with lye. Lye? Yeah, that's something you find when you go camping. When did she get a chance to wash her hair? The water didn't work in her cabin that well. But she had enough clean water to torture someone and shower. OK, when she's ready to take on the main guy of the trio, again, she supposedly carried a grown man and was able to hang him on the ceiling. Again, she has a change of clothes...from where!?!!? Oh and how is she strong enough to pull someone's teeth out? Oh and how can you choke someone out for HOURS (this is in regards to the last murder) and then have them wake up. Again, she's able to carry people all over the place, rig traps and hoists like she's a professional carpenter, and talk like she's the baddest woman on the planet.

I could go on and on about how unrealistic this is. The title character's name is Jennifer Hills and if anyone tells you to watch this movie with them, HEAD FOR THE HILLS!! The opposite one that isn't playing this movie.
50 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Decent Remake but I Still Prefer the Original
Michael_Elliott20 November 2010
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.
16 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Worst Date Movie of 2010
gregsrants20 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
In 1978, Roger Ebert declared I Spit on Your Grave as "The worst movie ever made". Wow. Harsh words from arguably the most respected film critic to ever roam the earth. The film starred Camille Keaton as an aspiring writer that is raped and left for dead by four men whom she exacts her revenge. It may not have been the first female revenge film, but sure was one of the more memorable ones, and to this day it is still banned in various countries throughout the world.

Thirty plus years later, I began reading that an update to the 1978 cult classic was looking to go into production. I suppose it was one of the last remaining films from the era that has yet to have a new glossy look now that The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes have been checked off Hollywood's new To-Do List.

Sarah Butler steps into the Jennifer Mills role as the victim who exacts her revenge on the men who brutally torment and assail her. Her fury releasing vengeance will make Keaton's Mills look like a girl scout while leaving audiences either cheering or peeking through their fingers to stomach what's next in store when the baddies become the victims.

My first curiosity when heading out to the Toronto After Dark Festival to see the screening of the 2010 update was wondering how they were going to match the cruelty and viciousness of the original rape scene. That now infamous DVD chapter lasted over 20 minutes and consisted of enough full female nudity to garnish an NC-17 rating by today's standards. Surely, director Steven R. Monroe would be unable to match the reboot's predecessor and still get a wide enough release to make some money at the box office. More on that in just a moment.

The update follows the same story arc as the original. Jennifer travels to a remote cabin in the deep woods to work on her novel. She stops at a gas station where she meets hick individuals that will show up at the cabin later and repeatedly rape and beat her initiated by the ringleader Johnny (Jeff Branson). Sheriff Storch (Andrew Howard) also wants a piece of the action and turns the tables on Jennifer when she looks for support from the lawman. Even the town idiot, the mentally challenged Matthew (Chad Lindberg) is represented. Each will take a turn raping the helpless writer in an evening of sheer nightmares that will surely unsettle stable audiences.

Trying to match the intensity of the rape in the original would seem impossible, but director Monroe does a great job of having the assailants appear menacing (the original failed in comparison) and not shortcutting his way through the assault to get to the vengeful violence that is the film's staple.

After the extensive scenes of abuse and humiliation, Jennifer stumbles through the forest then falls into the river right before Stroch has the opportunity to shoot her with his shotgun. As the five men look down into the river, Jennifer's body does not rise above the water and the men panic in an attempt to find their victim and confirm her death.

Fast forward a short but undeterminable amount of time, and Jennifer reappears. At first, she emerges back at the cabin where the conflicted Matthew was hiding in his guilt. She seems calm, yet distant and coerces Matthew to sit with her on the couch before she grabs a noose and chokes the helpless half-wit.

This will be the launch of Jennifer's vengeance. Over the final reels of the film, she will entrap each of her rapists one-by-one and extract her own type of justice.

To have any of the scenes of torture revealed in a review would be an injustice. This film needs to be experienced in all its gruesome and graphic glory to be appreciated for the genre it represents. But what we will reveal is that her tools of torturous trade will include nooses, water, lye, fish hooks and fishing wire, a bear trap, garden shears, dead rats, dead fish, birds (dead and alive), a shotgun, pliers and plenty of rope. Before she is done teeth, eyes, faces, asses, chests and yes, one penis that is fed back to the victim will have their cringe inducing moments.

Out of all the reboots that have eaten up my box office dollars over the past few years, I Spit on Your Grave was the most satisfying and the best representation of what a reboot should encompass. It was brutal and relentless, but also stayed true to the characters and the original film so as to not reinvent the wheel.

One thing for certain – I Spit on Your Grave is not for everyone. My girlfriend left about half way through the film as the on screen pain and suffering were too much for her to bear. And a gentleman in the balcony section of the downtown Bloor cinema fainted and had to receive quick medical attention. You can't buy that kind of publicity.

If you are looking for a good, violent and straight forward revenge flick that has a gorgeous naked woman mowing down her attackers, then this is right up your alley. But be warned. Taking the most memorable ideas from films like Irreversible and Hostel and putting them together in the same film makes I Spit on Your Grave the true 'Worst Date Movie' of 2010.

Wonder what Ebert thinks.

www.killerreviews.com
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
More brutal, less shocking
jecomans21 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I'm going to assume that most people have watched the 1978 version before they wanted to see this one, or maybe some of you haven't seen either? This film looks clean and professional, some of the acting is quite good. Ms. Butler and Mr. Branson especially. Effects are very good. What made the original so effectual was the sunshine, the playful music, and the way the men talking about Jennifer started so much more innocently than it ended. They seemed like they hadn't done this before. Here the film is dark from the get go. The atmosphere, the music, the boys, are all screaming, 'bad things happens here'. These boys torture here methodically (psychologically) before touching her, and they look very well practiced. For me that detracted. Then Jennifer gets her own back. She is creepy, yes. Violent fulfillment, yes. But it's unrealistic for such a realistic film. It becomes exploitative in a way the original didn't. Any way around it. Highly recommend for those with nerve, but the original is altogether a darker, more meaningful piece.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Uncomfortable material but worthy to the horror faithful.
hitchcockthelegend23 February 2011
I Spit on Your Grave is directed by Steven R. Monroe and written by Jeffrey Reddick. It stars Sarah Butler, Chad Lindberg, Daniel Franzese , Rodney Eastman, Jeff Branson & Andrew Howard. It is a remake of the 1978 film of the same name. Plot finds Butler as Jennifer, a writer who retreats to an idyllic beauty spot known as Mockingbird Trail to write her second novel. But her life is shattered when she is brutally gang raped and left for dead by a group of locals. But the men may just rue the day they set about this particular woman.

OK, there are some fans of the original film out there, where it has enough support to have it listed as a horror cult classic of sorts. It isn't remotely a good film, whether it's judged as feminist wish fulfillment or a grimy gorno exercise in censor baiting, fact remains it's badly acted, badly directed and just leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. Monroe's remake, and lets face it in this day and age of gorno and torture porn excess the film was ripe for a re-imaging, is a film of two tonally differing halves. Two halves that while not making a satisfactory whole, do make for an attention grabbing-squirm inducing-viewing. The unease remains, I mean how can it not with gang rape and revenge fuelled torture as its centre pieces? But it's competently acted, especially by Butler who gives a bold show in a challenging role, and for those who like blood letting grue; the film in its last third delivers by the bucket load. Directing wise, Monroe is guilty of letting the build up drag too long, and even tho the pay off is worth the wait (you go girl), taking its lead from the Saw/Cube movies lacks invention and almost steals what freshness the film had to offer.

It will find an audience for sure, while it's equally going to find enemies in critical and PC correctional quarters. But for a horror movie of this time it does its job well, and as remakes of older horrors go it's one of the better ones: surpassing the original by some margin too. 7/10
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
How do movies like this get made???
chelsea-currington23 January 2011
This was a total waste of two hours. The story was terrible, it falls into the torture porn category. There were too many plot holes in this movie, she's a 100 pound weak girl but somehow she moved all the men by herself in several scenes, set up a bear trap and the timing in this movie was just beyond ridiculous. The torture scenes were also so unbelievable, the contraptions she comes up with are pretty elaborate for a city girl who couldn't get the water running at the beginning of the movie. And somehow throughout it all she manages to have several outfit changes and not get a spot of blood on herself. This movie was trash I can't believe millions of dollars were spent on this terrible story. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THIS.
68 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Genuinely repulsive film - but that's a good thing!
rhaynes197423 January 2011
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.
147 out of 214 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Graphic but good
silliohooie11 September 2021
This movie is super graphic, including both nudity & gore, and not for the faint of heart. However, I felt it had a pretty good story line and was worth the wait for the ending.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
rape culture movie
justin-ismond18 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this expecting a horror movie, and I had not heard of the original. I kept hoping the gratuitous rape scene would end but it just kept dragging on and on and it really seems like the only reason this film was made. There is only minimal satisfaction in the revenge scenes but they take a back seat compared to the rape worship. Also some ridiculous plot holes. Why would she go back to the cabin instead of heading to the police station to file a report? Why does this sheriff who is a father not seem to care that he is committing such an act (he has a daughter)?

It is definitely not a horror movie, more like a 'this is why you should not rape even though the director loves it' cautionary tale. Very disgusting and really no point to the whole thing, quite a waste of time unless you like watching a helpless woman get raped and yelled at for what feels like most of the movie.
31 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Hands Down Best Vengeance Movie Ever.
konvict_massari15 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I know many reviews are complaining about the torture part, but to heck with it, they tortured her as well and damn her vengeance was so satisfying.

When she caught Johnny I was thinking "She should have cut his wiener off" and when I saw him naked, I thought "Holy fvck..." paused for a moment then she grabbed that big scissors and I completely lost it, she was so freaking awesome...

Till she put it in his mouth... literally almost threw up, dammit girl that was some badass sh*t.

Again, best vengeance movie ever, they deserved all the punishment, even Matthew, disabled or not, he knew what he was doing when he chocked her. 10/10
50 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Caru Reviews---I Spit On Your Grave
krawc694 June 2011
I spit on your grave is a horror movie remake that shows both elements of revenge and torture.This movie is quite generic but it had the potential to become an excellent film.despite some parts that over takes a lot of time,this movie had an awful ending.The main flaw is that it has a really slow start that it caused the whole movie to be rushed and make the ending suck.On the bright side the story is overall good and the torture scenes are pretty creative and violent.People i recommend that if you do not like gore and torture than this movie is not worth seeing.If you are a horror or a slasher fan than i would highly recommend this just don't expect high hopes of this movie.

7/10 (Good)
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Getting raped gives you superpowers
xotano23 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
That's pretty much what you learn after seen this movie. How the writer wants us to believe that a girl, raped, beaten almost to dead and fed with rats for weeks suddenly can drag, lift and stages adult men. Also she can breathes under water and be as stealth as a ninja.

All this makes the whole revenge part unbelievable, leaving you with the feeling of have been watching the impossible payback dream of a raped girl.

I haven't seen the original, but as far as the reviews goes the script, acting and directing are superior. If you saw if please stick with it, there's nothing better on this remake.
39 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed