| Page 1 of 31: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
| Index | 306 reviews in total |
92 out of 106 people found the following review useful:
Brutal, 31 December 2005
![]()
Author:
Gafke from United States
I tried to watch this film once before and made it up to the second
rape scene before leaving the room, believing I was seriously about to
throw up. I finally forced myself to watch it all the way through
recently, and I'm glad I did.
Jennifer Hill is a young, hip, free-spirited woman of the 70s, who
leaves her home in New York City for a long vacation in Connecticut,
where she plans to write her first novel. Jennifer soon attracts the
attention of four lowlife scumbags as she sunbathes in her bikini. The
semi-evolved thugs kidnap Jennifer, drag her into the woods, rape her,
beat her, sodomize her, beat her some more, follow her home, rape her
again, kick her when she's down, make fun of her manuscript, rip it to
shreds, rape her with a bottle, beat her up one last time and leave
her, bleeding and unconscious on the floor of her vacation home. Damn.
They send the retarded Matthew back into the house with a knife and
instructions to kill her, but Matthew can't bring himself to do it. He
tells the guys that he has killed her, and they stupidly believe him
and leave. But Jennifer is alive, and as she heals from her hideous
wounds and recovers her strength, she plots revenge against her
rapists.
Roger Ebert called this the worst film ever made and feminists damned
it to hell for all eternity, but you know what? I'm a woman and I liked
it. Jennifer is no weak, whimpering, helpless little victim. She tries
her best to fight back. When threats and violence fail to work in her
favor, she uses the only other weapon she has: sex. The men are all
stereotypical slobs, disgusting pigs who are clearly already
emasculated and use Jennifer as an outlet for their frustration and
rage. The rapes have nothing to do with sex and are portrayed most
realistically - they are ugly, brutal, violent, nasty and completely
devoid of eroticism. The sodomy scene was the one scene that horrified
me the most, as Jennifer emits the most bloodcurdling scream of pain
ever heard. It is very difficult not to flinch from that sound.
Jennifer's revenge is every bit as bloody and painful, and nowhere is
it more sadistic than in the infamous "bloodbath" scene. These guys all
get what's coming to them, and Jennifer makes sure that the punishment
fits the crime, turning the men into the helpless, pleading victims and
feeding their own sadism right back to them.
Okay, so not all of the plot points make sense, and not everyone is
going to agree with Jennifer's decision to kill the men, but it's still
a powerful film. It's told primarily from Jennifer's point of view but
it never takes sides. It simply tells the story and lets you decide -
is Jennifer an insane psycho-killer who ought to go to jail for her
crimes, or is she an angel of vengeance delivering poetic justice?
Scaredy cats like me might prefer to watch this film with the audio
commentary by Joe Bob Briggs turned on. Joe Bob provides a lot of
interesting information about the making of this film, and also
supplies some much needed comic relief throughout.
86 out of 107 people found the following review useful:
A neglected cult classic worthy of an larger audience., 19 November 2003
![]()
Author:
Miyagis_Sweaty_wifebeater (sirjosephu@aol.com) from Sacramento, CA
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (1978) is one of the most notorious pictures ever
released during the seventies. Along with LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and
Thriller: A cruel picture, it's one of the greatest revenge flicks of
that era. A feminist writer goes out to the country so she could have
some peace and quiet whilst working on her first novel. Instead she
runs into a group of male locals who decide to have some fun with her.
Unlike many other movies of this ilk, I.S.O.Y.G. is not like
other"exploitation films". There is nothing sexual or provocative in
this picture. The director wanted to show what it's like to be raped
and the after effects of such a traumatizing event. He went through
great lengths in research and from his own personnel experience. I
found it to be a very different film than all of the others that deal
with the same subject matter. The film-making (for a first time
director) was very well done and for the most part the acting was up to
par. I am proud to admit that I have this film as part of my
collection. Don't believe the hype. This is a good movie.
Highly recommended.
P.S. The subject matter is real graphic, but rape is not enjoyable. The
director did an excellent job of portraying the true horror of it
instead of hollywoodizing this dirty, degrading act.
64 out of 98 people found the following review useful:
Not the piece of trash that it's reputation suggests it to be, 10 June 2005
![]()
Author:
The_Void from Beverley Hills, England
I Spit on Your Grave is a film that will never be accepted as a serious
piece of film-making. This is thanks in part to the gratuitous rape and
murder scenes, which don't exactly hold back the shocks; and it's also
due to the time in which it was made. These days, as proved by the
likes of 'Irreversible', films tackling rape in a shocking and
disgusting way are more readily accepted, and even gain a strong
reaction from many critics. This film was unfortunately (albeit for
good reason) caught up in the 'video nasty debate' in the early
eighties, and as such it's reputation has been diminished to such an
extent that the likes of Roger Ebert have labelled it 'the worst film
ever made' (even though The Blair Witch Project is the worst film ever
made) and it's reaction in general tends to be of the bad variety. For
some reason, we have found ourselves in a world where it's more than
acceptable to give praise to 'A class' rape themed dramas such as
Irreversible, but woe betide thee who labels this as a good film. Well,
woe betides me then.
For a 'video nasty', I Spit on Your Grave has surprisingly good
production values. While the acting often lets it down, the
cinematography and even the script are more than decent and this helps
the film in it's bid to get the praise it deserves. The story, which
follows a New York writer who moves to a backwater part of the USA to
work on her new novel, shortly before being horribly raped and beaten,
is just a plot device for the more important elements of the plot. The
main theme on display seems to be a comment on the male sexual ego and
the way that women can have power over them. The film plays out like a
revenge thriller, with the protagonist getting her own back on the men
who raped her. This disrupts the main argument against this film;
namely, that it's misogynistic, as much of the violence in the movie is
actually directed against men. Of course, the rape scenes are the main
crux of the film; but most of the gore comes later. Don't get me wrong,
this is hardly an uplifting feminist drama; but it's not the worst film
ever made either. Content caution though; it gets a bit extreme. A
certain scene in a bathroom takes the prize for being one of the
sickest sequences ever to grace the silver screen.
57 out of 90 people found the following review useful:
A pearl in this maligned genre, 31 December 2003
Author:
fertilecelluloid from Mountains of Madness
I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a straightforward rape/revenge drama with the tone
of a documentary.
The coverage is plain, there is no music, there are no "stars", there are no
concessions to a mainstream audience.
The exploitation film audience may be served, although the rape sequences
are neither dynamic nor stylish.
Camille Keaton (Buster's granddaughter), a writer, drives to the country to
stay at her house on the river. Local losers stalk her and rape her and rape
her again.
The rest of the film details the victim's bloody revenge.
Labeled rubbish by the ignorant, this is very restrained exploitation that
is often perversely effective and confronting.
The rape sequences are nasty and ugly, not enhanced by camera moves, rich
sound effects or lurid angles.
On the other hand, the revenge sequences are more cinematically manipulative
and poorly executed.
An intriguing document of merit.
31 out of 43 people found the following review useful:
Don't dismiss because of title., 3 September 2004
![]()
Author:
marc Daneker from PA
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I Spit On Your Grave has the worst title in history next to Attack of
the Clones! This is not the campy, horror, gore fest you expect, it's
an angrier, nastier take on deliverance.
A you writer goes to a secluded cabin for the summer to write her first
novel.
Three local twenty-something's and the town idiot snatch her in the
woods, take turns rapping and tormenting her, and in an obviously
moronic move, put the dumb guy in charge of killing her. Well, he just
can't do it and when she recovers she gets even.
What's working here is that there's a true emotional bond between the
character and the audience. She's harassed a bit at first, then when a
couple of the guys try for her attention and she turns her back they
decided she's a tease and just needs to be getting some to come around.
One by one they take her, let her go, then surround her again. The
rapes are brutal, but honest, clumsy, messy, bloody affairs, her
situation is tragic and hopeless and her revenge more than justified.
She has a gun, she could waste her time and ours being Chuck Bronson
and just shooting them, but instead she plays them. She draws them
back, seduces them, then Hangs, Castrates, Axes and out-board motor's
them. The tag line says there's five men, they can't count, there's
only four.
There's a genuine film under all the gore and fact that our protagonist
spends nearly 80% of the film completely naked. However her emotions
are as exposed as her body, her transformation from normality, to
victim, through recovery and finally as executioner.
35 out of 53 people found the following review useful:
The horror of rape is graphically depicted., 8 April 2002
![]()
Author:
scribus toasticus from United States
This is not a fun film. This is not an easy film to watch. But this is certainly not a film without merit. The first half of this film takes the audience through a terrible descent into a hell most of us can only imagine. The horror of rape. And this film treats this subject with a frightening realism. No fancy lighting. No mood music hanging in the background. Simply, the horror of rape. The horror of having one's life violated in the most unspeakably vile manner imaginable. That is the purpose of this film. This film does not want to entertain. It wants to repulse. And it succeeds! This film is as sickening as the rape it depicts. Why make a film like this? One might jump to the conclusion that the film was aimed at the prurient interests of perverts who enjoy viewing the degradation and violation of women. But that is an unfair conclusion. This is a film with a purpose. A message. And this film seems to be carefully designed to send that message loud and clear to every viewer: RAPE IS A TRULY HORRIBLE CRIME! Horrible beyond what most of us could ever imagine.
21 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Fore Gore Movies's Fans only, 18 May 2002
![]()
Author:
diegogue
First at all, this movie is not for all the audiences, but the fans of Wes
Craven's "Last House on the left", Sam Peckimpah's "Straw Dogs", or Jorge
Grau's "Coto de Caza" can find a good piece of sexual horror in "Day of the
woman".
The story is simple, Jennifer, a beautiful girl came from New York to a
cabin in the Connecticut woods with the intention of writing a novel in the
summer. Three rednecks and a delivery boy (a retarded) rape her and
humiliate her in very horrible ways (about 40 minutes of . Then, she takes
revenge in unexpected ways too. The atmosphere, the silence, and the
loneliness of the character and the absolutely explicit scenes of the rape,
and a great amount of blood are the elements for creating the tension and
the sensation of anguish that makes this movie special.
No music, a lot of violence, briefs dialogues and an evident low budget
becomes this film in a controversial cult movie.
51 out of 92 people found the following review useful:
That's it?, 13 November 2000
Author:
Dan Grant (dan.grant@bell.ca) from Toronto, Ontario
I first got wind of this film when I was about 16 years old and I bought a
book about horror films. It told you about what they considered were some
of the best films out there, some of the sickest and some of the worst. I
Spit..... made the list of one of the sickest and one of the worst. But
this film was nowhere to be found in suburban Ontario. As it was in most
places, it was banned. It's funny, Last House On The Left was still
available in London Ontario at the neighbourhood Blockbuster and I Spit....
was banned. To me, Last House is a much more disturbing film but it was
still there. It doesn't make any sense. But that's how things are these
days. So it has taken me almost twelve years to track this film down but I
did. I had to order it off of the Internet, but I finally found some guy in
Northern California that would sell it to me for almost $30.00 Canadian.
Quite a hefty price for a film like this one, but when curiosity gets the
best of you, nothing can stop the wheels of determination from running their
course.
So, was all the fuss warranted? I don't think so. Not only is this film
really not all that sleazy, it really isn't much of a horror film and it is
not as horrific as people will have you believe. Where all the controversy
comes from is that the woman gets raped six ways till Sunday in the film by
some local idiots, one of them who happens to be somewhat retarded. So
people get up in arms about it and say how bad it is and how determental
towards woman's rights and the woman's movement and so on. When really what
should have happened is, if people really wanted this film to be ostracized
from the annals of film history, they should have just left it alone. I can
guarantee you that if there wasn't such a push to ban this film, then no one
would really give a damn about it. After all, it really is a poorly made
film. In all seriousness, anyone with a video camera could have made this.
It's really just soft core porn and then it transgresses into a sloppy
revenge piece. There is no suspense, no drama, no shocks. What we have
here is a woman that gets raped for a half an hour and then recovers enough
so that she can extract revenge on her rapists. There is one scene that
everyone talks about as being hard to stomach and that is the castration
scene. But there is nothing to it. Just like there is nothing to any of
the other killings. You don't see anything, all you get is a prosaic take
on what is happening to the rapists. By the time this happens in the film,
you are at least cogitating her revenge for her. You are thinking of all
the things that she could do to the perverts and then she actually does some
of them but you get no satisfaction in the action. You have to think and
imagine what is happening. Now I can enjoy a film like Blair Witch and
Texas Chainsaw Massacre and even Halloween where you have to use your
imagination to some extent. But those films were at least scary, this one
isn't.
I Spit On Your Grave is an over-hyped film given it's reputation by stuffy,
repressed, squalid people that are just looking for a reason to hate
something like this. I don't think this film is good but that does not mean
that I think it should be banned. People should be able to make up their
own minds and decide whether or not they want to watch it. After all, it is
only a movie.
Deal with it.
6 out of 10
14 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Deadly Revenge, 4 January 2009
![]()
Author:
Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
In summertime, the aspirant New Yorker writer Jennifer Hills (Camille
Keaton) rents a lakeside cottage in the woods of the peaceful Park Hell
Lane, Connecticut, to write her first novel during the vacation. A
couple of days later, she is successively and brutally gang raped by
three local bigoted rednecks and one retarded delivery boy from the
supermarket. The humiliated and abused Jennifer does not report the
sexual assault to the police and a couple of weeks later, she is
physically recovered and has just plotted revenge against the rapists.
"Day of the Woman" is extremely realistic and violent; therefore the
simple and scary story is absolutely credible. The unknown Camille
Keaton has an amazing performance, especially in the impressive long
sequence when she is repeatedly beaten and raped. However, this gore
movie is only recommended for very specific audiences and prohibited to
sensitive persons due to the savagery of most of the scenes. My vote is
seven.
Title (Brazil): "A Vingança de Jennifer" ("The Revenge of Jennifer")
15 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
That's what I like in a woman - total submission., 4 October 2007
![]()
Author:
lastliberal from United States
This is a hard flick to watch. When it was shown in theaters, people
walked out after seeing certain scenes. Rape and castration are not
everyone's cup of tea.
Revenge flicks are hot right now with The Brave One and Death Sentence.
Of course, there is the Death Wish series that defined the genre. I
originally saw this film after it came out on VHS. I've seen it many
times, but that is a long story. I decided to revisit it after not
seeing it for 17 years.
The rape scenes are brutal, especially the one on the rock. The revenge
scenes are also harsh, but satisfying in a vengeance sort of way.
Arkansas native Camille Keaton, who is a grand-niece of Buster Keaton,
gives a stirring performance as the victim. She even won a Best Actress
award at the Catalonian International Film Festival. The rest of the
cast only have this one film in their resume.
| Page 1 of 31: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
| Plot summary | Plot synopsis | Ratings |
| Awards | Newsgroup reviews | External reviews |
| Parents Guide | Plot keywords | Main details |
| Your user reviews | Your vote history |