Review of I Spit on Your Grave (2010) by Sleez B — 19 Oct 2011

The foolish spitter thought what harm could as the spit hits my grave and goes into the soil. What is that, the spitter hears something. It's coming underneath, the spitter crouches down. With the ear and face on the dirt, the spitter believes there is noise underneath the dirt which then- sucker punched! My skeletal fist punches right through the wooden the casket and soil and hits the foolish spitter. The spitter is unconscious, and I emerge from the ground holding a copy of the 2010 remake, I Spit on Your Grave. This is Sleaze Boy and I will be discussing this film as soon as I find a solution for this guy. Don't worry, says a young lady nearing. I have a score to settle with him.

I Spit on Your Grave has been described as a despicable remake to a despicable film from famed film critic, Roger Ebert. I read the review from Ebert for the remake and revisited his original review from 1980. I originally did not think that I would ever watch both films, but I soon changed my mind for some odd reason. I made a few notes that I found interesting when I read about the controversy surrounding. Ivan and I rented the film for fifty cents because we have bought and seen the original one for eight bucks.

I thought the original was okay, but really unwatchable. No, the forty minutes of explicit rape did not upset or angered me (but it will to someone else) in anyway because I could not take the film seriously because of the ineptness and moronic writing from Zach Meir. Yes, it is deplorable, but very numbing to feel anything. I wrote a review and posted the film here and some other sites. I also gave my thought by saying the film was over interpreted. I thought it was perfect, but I manage to forget one thing about when it comes to interpreting films: they can be interpreted it anyway you want it along with a theory of original interpretation from which is what the author originally wanted to say. To summarize it, not everything is linear when it comes to meaning. With that said and all, here comes the remake I Spit on Your Grave with the same title, logic, theme, violence, and brutality only with a few twists.

The film opens up exactly like the original one started with Jennifer (Sarah Butler) leaving the city and driving as the title is displayed. Jennifer goes into a desolated cabin to write a new novel, but she is quickly harassed by a group of hicks. If you have seen the original, you know how this will end. Jennifer is then attacked and raped. She recovers from the attack and then takes her revenge. Yes, this has the same story as before, but this version is not misleading as the original...'s tagline. Phew, the original tagline had five men while the film actually has four men. Anyways, the five men commit a crime, so they have to pay with their life according to the film's logic following the original. She has her revenge with a volatile attitude.

What did I think of this film in general? The first half of the film took me by surprised because I noticed there was a huge difference between this one and the original and that was the film in general. I was impressed with the fact the film was very professionally made with some real dialogue, acting, and development. The original film's dialogue was overtly moronic (city girls love to screw, paraphrase from the original that is repeated), but not like this one. The dialogue in the first half allows us to enter the hicks, Jennifer, and a local storeowner. We begin to know them and see what kind of people they are. Then, the film develops a little more right after the rape scene because we see the impact it had on the hicks as they worry over the possibility of Jennifer's existence. I sat back and thought this was actually going to be tough, but worth it. The film then descends into a very crappy Saw rip off where the revenge becomes implausible. I could not believe what I was seeing because the film becomes very moronically. I could not buy it because the linear events from the first half dissolve into obscurity in the second half. Was I supposed to enjoy it or be horrified? The method in which Jennifer commits become unpleasant, but never expresses itself as quote unquote justifiable. The energy and torture scenes felt stolen from such films like Saw and Hostel, with a possibility of Seven sneaked for good purpose, because Jennifer knocks the guys out and then tortures them in unrealistic methods; meanwhile, the rape and violent scenes committed against Jennifer were very plausible and well made. Certainly something was lost in the translation. My suggestion would have been to keep things razor straight, but apparently not because Jennifer has grabbed the razor to castrate someone. "No use Jenny, these bad boys outta does the trick." I throw her some hedge clippers. It is a shame because the film actually had potential to be rough-hard to watch, but good film. *Snip* ah! The film cheats itself and its internal logic. Sure, I am fine with a castration on screen, but everything else did not work. One guy is dunked into lye while another is covered in fish guts and pecked to death by birds. It just does not go well together. The original film was exploitive, but it was at least honest in its internal logic equivalency. The rape and revenge scenes were very exploitive, but cheap. I found it visceral as Jennifer, played by Camille Keaton, used her sexuality and inner strength to draw the rapist in one by one and kill them in inventive ways. Here everything felt lumpy, volatile, and stolen while the first half had the rapist feeling power and gratification. This does not click well or equal if that's what the film was aiming for. It is very good at making audience stay away in numbers, but the overall results are bad. Stay away from this and rent the original one instead. I do not think this film should be up for debate especially in a subject that is still an issue today.

There are some special features in the film. There is a documentary, but I did not see it all the way. The screenplay was adapted by Stuart Morse and directed by Steven R. Monroe. Film was produced by Meir Zarchi which they could have made a pretty rough, but good flick. However, the second half of the film is a real downer as it takes away the set up the first half made. There is also no mention if revenge is even a possible solution and no grave spitting. I Spit on Your Grave is best buried six feet under a gas station. Okay, I am all done now. Sleaze Boy, it's your turn now. *clacking hedge clippers* I gotta go.

Bizarrely, castrations in movies are up this year in the movies that I have seen recently. Not all of them are rape revenge of course, but to name some examples there is Cannibal Ferox, Sin City, and Street Trash to name a few examples.

Review for original I Spit on Your Grave.

Other horror film remakes.

Nightmare on Elm Street.

The Fog (rework).

Friday the 13th.

Halloween.

Halloween II.

The Hitcher (rework).

The Uninvited.