I Spit on Your Grave (2010) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
221 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
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
100 out of 142 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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
28 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Genuinely repulsive film - but that's a good thing!
robert haynes23 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.
115 out of 178 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Disturbing and very competent
Argemaluco16 February 2011
Back in 1978, the film I Spit on Your Grave (also known as Day of the Woman) provoked controversy due to its violence, gore and for daring to show a woman taking revenge on her own hands against the louts who raped her. As the time went by, the film became into a cult classic, not so much due to its intrinsic merits, but for having been censored (or forbidden) in many countries, something which helped to make it more popular. Personally, I respect its influence on horror cinema, but into the sub-genus of "female revenge", I prefer movies like Thriller: A Cruel Picture and Ms. 45, because I found them to be better written, acted and directed.

However, I Spit on Your Grave (1978) is definitely an intense and visceral experience thanks to its semi-amateur manufacture, rural locations and realistic style. Besides, the revenge methods from the main character seemed like a direct answer to the then rising slasher cinema, something which brought an additional level to the narrative. So, with all that "cultural baggage" carried by I Spit on Your Grave, how would a modern remake work? Considering the standards of the contemporary horror cinema, we can be sure that it will be more brutal and cruel; but would it reach the same historical and emotional impact from the original film? Even though the answer ended up being "no", I have to admit that on its own merit, I Spit on Your Grave (2010) is a disturbing, satisfactory and very competent horror film.

As I expected, I Spit on Your Grave (2010) adds more blood and some new narrative elements. Some of them feel a bit irrelevant (for example, the destiny of the camera with which the rape is filmed), but other ones deepen into the private life from the villains, revealing the hypocrisy of monsters who disguise their evilness with a facade of respectable civilization. However, the biggest change is made on the main character's revenge, which adds a very interesting psychological component to the movie. Fortunately, I Spit on Your Grave (2010) remains within a plausible field, and even though it follows the torture-porn formula, the cruelty and grotesque violence feel justified and organic in the story. I truly appreciate the fact that screenwriter Stuart Morse found an appropriate variation which respects the original formula, at the same time he added a new subtext which avoids the film from being another hollow torture film.

So, despite not being a great horror film and having some fails, I Spit on Your Grave (2010) is a very interesting horror film which ended up being better than I expected. The first half of the film is very disturbing and impossible to "enjoy" in the conventional sense of the word; however, the second half is cathartic and very satisfactory, compensating the suffering we had to go through previously. In conclusion, I recommend it unless you are a sensitive person.
67 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Contains no grave spitting
EclecticEnnui20 August 2010
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.
162 out of 260 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Absolutely Pointless Trash
chicagopoetry28 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I just saw the free screening. I'm glad I didn't pay to see it. Yes, it's that bad. It is utterly pointless, horridly acted trash, a good definition of pornography.

Now I know we don't go into a film called I Spit On Your Grave expecting Oscar worthy performances or brilliant dialogue, but we also don't go into such a movie expecting to yawn, which is what I did at least a couple of times. I saw the original back in 1978 at a Drive-In. Despite how controversial it was and how Roger Ebert ripped on it, I always thought of it as a really well made motion picture. The acting is decent, the atmosphere is creepy and the minimalist plot is well written. The original film engages because we believe the characters are human and we believe something this horrible could actually happen. This is not the case with the remake.

There are some major flaws that make this one too implausible to enjoy. Discussing the flaws of a movie with a plot that goes no farther than "men rape woman / woman kills men" cannot be done without including spoilers, so if you really care that much about the details of the rape and murders, stop reading this review.

First of all, the men in this movie are so immoral and have such a lack of conscience that they can't be related to whatsoever. In the original, Jennifer comes back to actually seduce the men before she murders them, and this is very telling about the men's characters. The fact that she can seduce them shows us how utterly screwed up they are, that they have convinced themselves Jennifer actually got some pleasure out of her rape and even wants some more. This made them somewhat complex characters, perhaps victims of a macho society, which allowed us to feel for them on some small level, making the revenge that is enacted upon them that much more brutal. However, in this crappy remake, the rapists are absolutely one dimensionally evil, making them pretty much inhuman objects and causing the retribution against them to be highly unsatisfying. Plus, in this remake, a fifth rapist has been added to the plot—the county sheriff no less. A sheriff with a wife and young daughter joins in on the sadistic torture of a young woman and we are offered no motivation for this, other than of course he's a redneck, so he must like to participate in forced anal sex, a standard set by the movie Deliverance. And all of this takes place as if it is daily routine, with no regrets or remorse. The character of the sheriff is so unbelievable that it subtracts from the film as a whole.

Another big flaw is the Jennifer character herself. In the original movie, she goes back to the city, recovers (an important aspect because then the revenge she seeks is much more premeditated), becomes empowered and returns to the scene of the crime to murder the villains. She arises as a hero because we get the sense that what she is doing is not merely personal revenge, but something that is necessary in order to keep something like that from happening to someone else, like putting a rabid dog down. But in the remake, we are suppose to believe that Jennifer dives into some water, magically disappears (was she a swimming champ?), is not seen for a month (during which she is supposedly living in an abandoned shack eating rats and snakes I suppose), and then suddenly comes out of the woods to enact a very intricate series of torturous murders. And she doesn't seduce her rapist into the bathtub to cut off the offending member, she relies on the old Hollywood cliché of whacking him over the head with a tire iron so that he conveniently passes out for an hour without a struggle, sort of like a cartoon character does, as this frail women who was beaten and raped and has been living in the woods for a month somehow drags him away and props him up into a contraption straight out of Saw part whatever. All of this is so unbelievable that by the time the brutality begins we don't really care. It is very hard to get any satisfaction out of a revenge film when it isn't taking place in the real world.

And about the revenge murders. They are way too literal. The guy obsessed with her teeth gets his teeth pulled out. The guy with the video camera gets his eyes plucked out. The guy who gives us the gratuitous anal sex scene gets a shotgun shoved up you know where. This Jennifer hasn't recovered. She's not empowered. She's become her assailants. Her revenge is not for the protection of the world; it's for the ego of the screenwriter. There is nothing shocking about the murders because we don't care about the characters and we don't believe Jennifer could pull them off to begin with.

In the absence of good acting, believable plot and character development, what we are left with is about two hours of brutal rape and torture. That's not filmmaking. That's just lazy. That's just trash. As audiences become more and more desensitized to this kind of trash, where is the future of horror films headed? Rape in 3D? After the long drawn out rape scene, the woman sitting next to me got up and left the theater. For a moment, I thought it was because she was so shocked by what she had just witnessed, but in a few minutes she returned with an order of nachos. You just have to wonder.

If you want to see a really creepy, well-acted movie about a young woman exacting revenge on a sexual deviant, watch Hard Candy, an extremely well written and believable film. I Spit On Your Grave (Unrated) is pure garbage compared to that.
221 out of 369 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
36 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
50 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Show me your teeth
Perry Bee20 January 2011
I have a distant memory of the original film so I knew where this story was going to. And seeing Hollywood has been doing a lot of bad remakes the last few years, I thought here we go again, B grader! Val Kilmer territory!

But I was wrong, it get's to it slowly, but hell it picks up fast! For the feminist out there avoid this at all cost, and for those with bad stomach control, don't have your dinner before hand!

The acting was spot on by all actors, enough gore to keep Ted Bundy smiling, and if brutal is your thing this film will get your vote.

At that my vote for this solid thriller/gore film is 8 out of 10
73 out of 132 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Hands Down Best Vengeance Movie Ever.
KiDo15 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
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Seriously messed up!
haphazard7216 August 2014
Wow! This is one seriously messed up movie!

As others have said, watch it at your peril.

In terms of the movie itself in terms f acting, storyline, etc, I thought it was good. I haven't seen the original others talk about though, so I don't have a comparison.

The disturbing part is the scenes that make up the story. The revenge scenes were full on! I found these more "disturbing" than the rape scene (and no, I'm not condoning rape at all!).

As I'm writing this, I'm trying to think of a revenge movie that is similar- Man on Fire comes to mind though it wasn't as graphic.

I'm definitely going to have to check out other Sarah Butler movies though. She played the part so well. I'd also be curious to read her thoughts on making the movie and whether it had any affect on her.....
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Comparing it to the original
Wizard-831 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
If you have heard what this remake (or the original) concerns itself about, you have probably correctly guessed that watching this movie isn't exactly a "fun" experience. But if you view it as an "experience" - that being how brutal rape can be - you'll probably consider it a pretty accurate recreation of the crime, and well made for what it is.

How is it compared to the original? Well, this remake does do some things better than the original. While the budget may have been just $1.5 million, the production values are generally superior (though I did not like how washed-out all the colors appeared.) The part of the movie concerning itself with the revenge of the protagonist was more satisfying than how it was done in the original, partly due to the fact that we get to see the rapists really suffer before they ultimately die.

Though in some aspects, the original did things better. In this remake, it is never explained how, after the rape, the protagonist survived out in the wilderness for so long (and got things like clothes after all of her possessions were destroyed.) Also, in this remake, the transformation of the meek heroine to someone hell-bent on revenge was too abrupt and not convincingly played by the actress.

Overall, this remake can stand up to the original... though if you have the stomach or not to watch this exercise in brutality (or the original version) is something you'll have to determine on your own.
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Atrocious
Rectangular_businessman26 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Ugh. Why do I even watched this? It was one of the worst "horror" films that I've seen in my entire life.

I never saw the original movie, so I can't make a comparison between the two, the only thing that I would say is that I really had a miserable time watching this. It was a hideous mess from beginning to end, having all the annoying clichés that any viewer could expect from a movie like this.

It's disgusting, unpleasant, misanthropic, it demonizes men, and it feels like a complete torture for the viewer from the beginning to the end.

There wasn't any single kind of entertainment delivered by this movie. It was only a nihilistic, unpleasant mess that left me feeling empty (and annoyed, for wasting my time watching this) This is one of the worst movies ever made in the history of cinema.

0/10
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
24 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Yet Another Misandrist Movie
Matt4 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie can best be summed up in the following way: woman gets raped by a group of men, then sets out under the guise of perverted justice and female empowerment to find her rapists, brutally torture them, and then murder them.

Now, why do I call this movie misandrist? Because you have to remember that this movie is make believe. These characters aren't real. A writer created these characters and events in such a way so that he could tell a story. A woman gets raped which leads up to scenes of men being brutally tortured and murdered. There's even a scene in which one of the rapists' penis is cut off (seems to be a current trend in horror movies) with shears, stuck into his own mouth, and then left to bleed to death; and presumably the audience is expected to cheer for this kind of thing (and unfortunately, one too many do). I can only imagine the outcry against a movie in which a man seeks revenge against a group of women in which he cuts one of the assailants' breasts off, performs a clitoridectomy on the other, and scoops out the ovaries of the other with an ice cream scooper.

In conclusion, if you find men getting brutally tortured, castrated, and then murdered, for the sake of a very twisted sense of justice and misguided female empowerment, then this movie is for you.
53 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Totally Destroyed Movie
red8146821 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I Spit on Your Grave was years ahead of its time in 1978. It was and sadly remains the best rape/revenge movie of all time. Stuart Morse has totally ruined this move be taking out the reality and trying to make a SAW inspired film. This remake does not even come close. Here is why:

(1978): the rapist stalk her through the woods and raper repeatedly as she tries to get back to her cabin where they leave her for dead. (2010): the rape happens in her cabin and leads to the wood, to a bridge that is not high enough to kill her..

(1978): she recovers in her cabin and plans her revenge. (2010): she recovers in an abandoned house in the woods and becomes JIGSAW.

(1978): she uses seduction to lure them in to her trap. (2010): she kidnaps them and some how this tiny woman carries them all to the house in the woods.

(1978): the men don't think that what they did was wrong and that in some way she enjoyed it, this adds to their mindset. (2010): they know they did wrong and want to keep it hidden.

The addition of the camera and the fifth rapist were points that made this movie totally unrealistic.
26 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
More brutal but that is about it
KineticSeoul26 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is different from the original in a way, mostly because the girl that get victimized doesn't seem as graphic as the original cause it skips the scenes where she gets hunted down and constantly raped. Although the parts where the girl gets humiliated drags on and on. And the revenge scenes are more creative and brutal than the original. The redneck villains are more disgusting in this and yet the original somehow got me to hate the villains even more and root for the girl when she does her revenge thing. Besides the revenge being a bit more creative, nothing is all that different from the original. The culprits in both is evil and deserve what they have coming for the most part, but it still wasn't a satisfying movie and overall a pointless remake. Besides the upgraded brutality, there isn't anything that is worth watching in this.

4.2/10
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
One of the worst! If not THE worst!
awab_avril20 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Wow! Where would I start from? I am so mad that I wasted two hours of my time watching this bull! Look there is no story, it is ABSOLUTELY unrealistic and impossible , and in addition to that it is not scary suspenseful or sad! There is basically no genre that fits this movie.

I want to warn you here in this paragraph there might be some spoilers but get this. Is it possible for a skinny 120 pound woman (or probably less) to lift 300 pound men (or more) for such long distances and have them tied by ropes in the ceiling and on the floor ? Where the heck did she get her clothes from? How on earth did she escape unnoticed from the river? where did she find food? How did she get so strong and vicious all of a sudden?

Not only that but get this, in couple of days she has become (JIGSAW) and started making traps like an engineer.

I have no idea what people who produced this pathetic movie were thinking but they might have been on drugs!

Conclusion: for the sake of your time don't watch this, for the sake of horror and thriller genre don't watch this because it will make you hate this genre.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Getting raped gives you superpowers
Thomas Anderson23 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.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
How do movies like this get made???
samantha walker23 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.
40 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
New "day of the woman"!
nixskits13 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I must admit, I haven't seen the original version of this film. I went into the Fantasia festival screening of this Meir Zarchi produced remake fresh, with no personal comparisons to make to his landmark picture (both he and new director Steven R. Monroe were in attendance, along with lead actress Sarah Butler and producer Lisa Hansen). And not knowing many more specifics than the 30 year+ legends of this story. I can say I was impressed with what new writer Stuart Morse and the fine cast have presented and how the talented director interpreted it! Be warned, those who don't like gore or explicit depictions of heinous events. This is probably not the flick you should check out! But if you're strong stomached enough to handle recent "torture porn" that has little or no conscience in it's artistry (which this will be dismissed as by many, but I think it's really NOT), then you might dare to watch.

Sarah Butler's Jennifer Hills character is a young writer seeking serenity to help the process of completing her newest book. What she has forced upon her soon after arriving and adjusting to the rustic peace of a lakeside rental cabin are amongst the most disturbing scenes I have ever witnessed and I've seen many intense, horrifying films in my life. Her performance for me ranks with the great turns of fellow big screen rape survivors, such as Ned Beatty in Deliverance and Jodie Foster in The Accused (AND fellow Fantasia breakout star Amanda Fuller in Red White & Blue)! Butler's shattering, heart stopping and completely believable performance of a woman in this nightmarish ordeal is never exploitative and neither is Monroe's direction of the attack. The raw brutality of sexual assault is shown in the proper context. That is, a crime of power, domination and humiliation. I had much doubt before the show about how I'd react to these moments. And my feelings are Butler is so good in the role originated by Camille Keaton that this remake will become a worthy debate subject fuse for the limits of extreme subject matter in modern mainstream film. One might not like ISOYG as a work of art about deadly serious hypotheses on crime, but nobody can find artistic fault with Butler's terrific work here. Bravo, Sarah!

Chad Lindberg has almost as difficult a task, portraying a mentally challenged man who's compelled by the thugs he grew up with (uniformly great Daniel Franzese, Jeff Branson, Rodney Eastman and a new contender for the most despicable poster boy for smiling evil, Andrew Howard) to lead the gang rape proceedings. His take on the fragile, but still capable of unspeakable violence Matthew is heartbreaking in it's delicacy AND ferocity. Watching him and Butler together during the prolonged attack was among the most painful moments for me. Lindberg delivers a multi-dimensional, impressive turn and his talent gives it an unforgettable resonance.

Monroe has a long attachment to ISOYG and realizes he will be lambasted for directing a new take on one of cinema's most reviled and legendary tales. What he gives us is not a hollow 2nd generation quickie to cash in on it's predecessor's infamous name, but a searing, realistic effort and for that I admire the job he has done here. It's a man unleashing a vision of a female's violation, then vengeance, with plenty of reason to be. The 21st century will give us hard to watch epics, but this was truly a worthwhile experience for me. I won't elaborate on what happens post-assault, but will say anyone who can see their mother, daughter, sister, friend in Jennifer Hills and her suffering will be very interested in her revenge and how THAT plays out. It was incredibly well handled!

The announcement this film would be released this fall in it's uncut form, not bowing to the 100+ cuts the MPAA requires for the more commercially desirable R rating, raised many eyebrows. I hope if it indeed is released unaltered, there will be enough moviegoers to give this a fair viewing. You can already imagine the hateful reviews some are ready to write and publish merely hearing the title. I just want the market for those filmmakers not bowing down to the antiquated and far from perfect MPAA ratings system to have an alternative in this day and age.
39 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
25 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Another Day of the Woman
thesar-230 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
It shouldn't be a surprise there wasn't enough spit in the box office to even dampen this remake's grave.

There's virtually no reason to see 2010's I Spit on Your Grave. Even with a teen boy's (actually sick) fantasy of a gang bang rape scene that goes on longer than the typical internet's entry, it's not as graphic as one might think. Sure, it's bad, horrifying perhaps, but only for those who haven't either seen the original or any other rape scene in a horror/suspense flick.

Personally, I have seen the buck-fifty-budgeted 1978 revenge film, and not for the same reasons mentioned above – of course, those who know me, know that's a given. I just remember Roger Ebert's vile attack on the movie provoking me to see it.

It was eh – again, it had less of a budget than the main star had clothes following her attack. This 2010 "update" only followed the same pattern/guidelines and increased the budget.

That "same pattern/guidelines" I speak of? Well, Jennifer (Butler) aka woman (hence the original, original title: Day of the Woman) goes it alone in isolated lake cabin and all but immediately gets sexually attacked and taunted by the local back-wooded gang. Is she to blame since she did the stereotypical no-no's, i.e. alcohol, marijuana and inadvertently mocking her soon-to-be captives? Well, duh, no – watch the 1,000 times better The Accused for proof.

Supposedly, she spends some time in the woods when she's able to escape the rapists and in this short time, she's managed to gather herself, obtain money (to ship a video they took of the attack), new clothes, a shower and if those aren't all unbelievable enough…she also devises extensive Saw-like torture plans for the bad men that caused her indescribable pain.

Absolutely, I can state that nothing of this magnitude has happened to me – as probably 96%+ of the population can safely agree, but in my untarnished view – she went far beyond retribution. Granted she couldn't go to the cop (yeah, singular) of this them parts…for spoiler reasons, I'll leave it at that. But there's a line where you not only match your adversary's sins, you become far more evil than what they could've done. This woman, Jennifer, goes so far in this movie that even if you wanted to see a woman scorned get her just deserts, I would think most people would actually start to feel sorry for the men.

The only, and again – SICK, example of how anyone could've gone any further than the torture Jennifer caused on the hillbillies following her Inspector Gadget phase, was someone raping an innocent victim and the first objective is for that victim to go and kill the attacker's children.

There's nothing here to see but woman attacked and woman attacking back. Unfortunately, it was further torture for them to make this 70-80 minute concept into a spitting 107 minutes. Skip it, like everyone else in 2010 when it came and went faster than you can, well, spit.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Awful movie!
Rnester2224 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I love scary movies and a friend of mine told me to watch this movie. I wanted to turn it off after the first 30 minutes. This movie is pretty much a porno. What person wants to watch a poor girl get raped? I certainly do not. I suggest you don't watch this movie it is not worth your time! The only enjoyable part of this movie was when the credits started rolling. I spit on your grave, in my opinion, is probably the worst "scary" movie i have ever seen in my life. There is good reason why this movie got such bad reviews. How this movie got a 6 star rating is beyond me. But if you like rape and like seeing men take advantage of women then this movie would be perfect for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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