Mondo Kane

Is that the real actress? If so, that's something that the original poster didn't get right:

^No way was that Camille Keaton.

Rypro 525

I applaud Roger for actually seeing the remake
I Spit on Your Grave
BY ROGER EBERT / October 6, 2010
This despicable remake of the despicable 1978 film "I Spit on Your Grave" adds yet another offense: a phony moral equivalency. In the original, a woman foolishly thought to go on holiday by herself at a secluded cabin. She attracted the attention of depraved local men, who raped her, one after the other. Then the film ended with her fatal revenge. In this film, less time is devoted to the revenge, and more time to verbal, psychological and physical violence against her. Thus it works even better as vicarious cruelty against women.

First, let’s dispatch with the fiction that the film is about "getting even." If I rape you, I have committed a crime. If you kill me, you have committed another one. The ideal outcome would be two people unharmed in the first place. The necessity of revenge is embedded in the darker places of our minds, and most hate speech is driven by "wrongs" invented in unbalanced minds. No one who commits a hate crime ever thinks his victim is innocent.

That set aside, let’s see what this movie does. The woman, Jennifer (Sarah Butler), is a writer who rents a cabin in the woods where she plans to stay by herself. Once we know this, we start waiting for the gas station occupied by demented rednecks. There’s always one. Of course that’s where Jennifer stupidly asks directions and reveals where she’s going to ignorant, leering phallus carriers.

There are four. One is their "ringleader." One is his sidekick. One compulsively makes video recordings. The fourth is mentally handicapped, and they treat him as their pet "retard." After many scenes involving alarming noises in the night and the usual Woman in Fear sequences, the men enter her cabin and terrorize her.

They use words and guns. They insinuate. They toy with her answers. They enjoy her terror. This is rape foreplay, and they stretch it out as long as they can. There is a reason for this. Rape is a crime of violence, not sex, and the male rapist typically savors the fear he causes more than the sex. Indeed, if he enjoyed sex more, he might not be a rapist. The true pornography in this film involves the dialogue and situation in the cabin before the physical assault. It is well done. This is a professionally made film. The audience is very, very quiet. Some share Jennifer’s terror. Some, I am afraid, may be aroused or entertained by it.

When the rape inevitably arrives, it is the hapless mental deficient Matthew (Chad Lindberg) who is forced by the others to go first. Otherwise, he crouches, whimpering in a corner. The movie’s exploitation of his handicap is on a par with its cruel sadism. Eventually, Jennifer is thoroughly raped and runs away into the woods barefoot and almost naked, and when they approach with a shotgun to eliminate her as a witness, jumps from a high bridge and disappears.

We will slip past the movie’s non-explanation for her survival and reappearance, to consider her revenge. I chose not to describe her methods. Let me suggest that if you recall any of the torture scenes described in the novels of Cormac McCarthy or Larry McMurtry, I suspect the director and writer of this film remember them as well. Jennifer’s methods are elaborate, bizarre and cruel.

Oh, sure, they have it coming to them — except for the pathetic Matthew, who has been a victim all his life and is now punished by Jennifer, even though she witnessed his grief and innocence. He is a man and must die. A couple of tortures here inspired groans from the audience, but this stuff isn’t a novelty for connoisseurs of horror movies. Consider "Saw" and anything with "chainsaw" in its title.
No, it’s the first half of the movie that’s offensive. It implicitly assigns us the POV of the men as they taunt and terrorize Jennifer in plausible ways — which are different from her killing methods, which are implausible, probably impossible, and offered and received as entertainment.

Now here’s an interesting thing. There were walkouts at the packed screening I attended. Not many, maybe eight or nine. Nobody walked out in the second half; they all left in the first half. And ... they were all men. Most of the audience looked like they were on dates. For conversation afterward if you see this loathsome film, here are some suggestions.

Men, ask your dates: What bothered you more, the first or second half? Would you recommend this movie to your girlfriends? Did you enjoy it? (It’s OK, you can be honest.)

Women, ask your dates: What part did you like the most, the first or second half? Would you recommend this movie to your sister? Why did we go to this particular film? Did you know there were two new four-star films playing in the same multiplex?

Both men and women may find some food for thought in the answers. Certain answers may cause you to ask yourself if you have any future with this other person.

Rypro 525

whoops

Kevin M. Dean

Was your 2nd post a despicable remake of your first post?

Rubix

roger ebert is such a moron sometimes. i'd punch him in the jaw, but it already fell off.

freshticles

It's really horrible that I just spent 5 minutes laughing at this.

Rypro 525

saw it tonight. I was actually surprised at the fact that the basic story/setup was pretty much the same from the original. The rape scene is in fact very disturbing and long (and not unintentially funny. If you watch the original, some of the guys faces while they're in rape mode, make me laugh for some reason, eh, blame the joe bob briggs commentary). the kills are kind of in the torture porn area, and i can def see why the mpaa had trouble with some of it. "fans" of the original/gore hounds will enjoy it, most others wont.

Surprsingly there was actually people at my screening, and there weren't any walkouts, and the kills got applause. If anyone has questions, i'll gladly answer

Jack Straw

Not noted in the Ebert's review above is that he gave it zero out of four stars. Based on that, I felt compelled to read the review.

SPiRAL

Only showing at 2 theaters here in LA.

Rypro 525

Its only playing at 12 theaters in the entire country
I Spit on Your Grave Anch. $33,000 - 12 - $2,750 $33,000

I guess thats not too too terrible, as it had a much higher per screen average then Hatchet 2 did, and that movie had way more publicity/hype.

Maxflier

It is so annoying when you want to see a movie but it isn't playing anywhere. Does anyone know when/if this gets a wide release?

Rypro 525

Given that it was released unrated, i highly doubt it'll get a wider release then it already does. Looks like your gonna have to wait til it hits dvd/blu

Giles

awww I remember the 80's when quite a few horror movies went out with the 'No One Under 17 rating' with nary a problem. Given that Evil Aliens only went out as a midnight movie (and unrated) AMC had no problem booking it. What ever happened to Hatchet II - was that a victim of having no rating?

Rypro 525

AMC pulled it the monday after it came out. Hell getting into that movie was pretty nuts, as i got hassled about showing id even after already buying my ticket, they had a cop blocking the entrence, and he even went in to scope out the theater before the movie started. On the other hand, i had no real problems with I Spit, outside of being asked for id at the counter. And shockingly, the theater actually had people in the screening (prob about 25 or 30) and there were no walkouts during the rape scenes

Maxflier

The AMC I went to this past weekend was doing this for Jackass. First time I've experienced that, but admittedly I do not go to the theater very often.

NORML54601

Camille Keaton was absolutely gorgeous in the original. IMO, that's part of what sold the brutality of the rape scenes, the more attractive the woman the more appalling to some.

The remake sounds quite a bit different than the original, other than following the same general blueprint. I'll check it out on DVD but doubt it will surpass the original for me.

Rypro 525

i would say the main differences (outside of the kills) are

Rival11

I was NOT expecting this remake to be as brutal as it was and it's funny to read the comments at the start of this thread (I'm definitely not laughing at peoples remarks cause I pretty much had the same thoughts when I heard this was being remade).

Pretty disturbing shit...can't find any reason to say that it's not as good as the original.

Also surprised at the lack of comments/feedback for this film.

This is probably the type of film that most wanted to see back in the early 00's when horror movies started getting some balls behind them again.

Dr Mabuse

It wasn't as completely horrible as I expected it to be.

That girl is really hot.

I like Andrew Howard. Though he seems to perpetually be in B fare like this and 'Blood River', I think he could carry his weight well in better movies.

dino88

I didn't know that you could die instantly if crows ate your eyeballs.

Did anyone notice the price at the gas pump? $19.78 (the year the original was released)

I thought it was a crap movie, but I did get a good laugh out of the the dick in the mouth.

kilcher

I didn't think he died instantly. The scene cut when it popped and then they went back to show the after-effects, just like they had done with the other guy.

I watched it last night, thought it was pretty good. I really liked the suspense in the beginning of the movie, for some reason it kept reminding me of a Friday the 13th movie (if they could make a good one).

Just got a call from the video store. My wife returned the case empty, the DVD is still in the player.

davidh777

I just watched this for the Drive-In Challenge. Not pleasant certainly but I thought it was well done.

islandclaws

I don't know why I blind bought this. I guess the $9.99 price @ Target was too tempting, but it was a mistake. The movie is a bore. The rednecks are one-note scumbags who would be more likely to break in and rape her under the cover of darkness, not in broad daylight in front of a camera. They're all poorly written, but they still don't feel genuine enough to be menacing. The main girl is hot but vapid. I love the part when she's out running and comes across a random abandoned cabin full of tools, making it clear to us that this will eventually be the revenge cabin. Such lame, obvious foreshadowing. I love how she vanishes into the river for over a month, yet once she reappears she looks like she just left a photo shoot. If only all women knew that spending a month in the wilderness living in a decrepit cabin after being anallly violated could work wonders with your looks! I felt nothing for any of the characters; I just wanted it to end.

TomOpus

Boy, between this and Chillerama, you haven't had much luck

I was never quite sold on a remake and looks I was, for the most part, correct in staying away. I MIGHT get this if it was part of a multipack or below $5. I guess I'm still a little curious.

islandclaws

You're telling me! I might have been more keen on both were I still 13 years old, but this felt so forced. It's as if the producers said, "We need to remake this film because the title is so great, so make sure you hit all the right beats". Nothing felt genuine, and the kills were nothing to get excited about. I'd say if you really feel like seeing it, try catching it on Netflix or on demand; don't spend money on it.