Wow, what a horror movie. While the original wasn't a great film by any means, it boasts a fantastic lead performance and is one of the better exploitation movies out there. The remake takes it to a whole different level. Sarah Butler... This girl is going to be a star. She gives this role her everything and it's so emotionally exhausting watching her. Obviously she's the life and soul of this movie and she really delivers. The movie is (of course) very disturbing. It does differ from the original in many ways though. The rape in this isn't nearly as graphic, but I do believe it's harder to watch. It's more of a LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT type where she is tortured for most of it and that just makes it all the more disturbing. The also differs from the original because (from what I remember) she lures them in pretty much saying she wants to have sex with them where as in the remake, she is just balls to the walls wanting revenge. She stops at nothing. This is a real horror movie. It was intense, disturbing and just exhausting to watch. The direction is also incredibly brilliant. If you're a real horror fan, I more than recommend it.

Anyway, I was watching it with my friend Alyssa who isn't a horror fan at all and she liked it a lot. I also watched it with my boyfriend who was visibly horrified throughout most of the movie.

8/10

B+/A-

It was a GREAT movie, the lead chick was awesome and boy the rape scene is disturbing as fuck.

Glad you loved it. I hope people give it a chance when it hits DVD.

I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

The first half of the film is actually rather tame. I half expected it to try and disgust people with constant torture, humiliation and rape of Jennifer Hills, but it does one rape (which is pretty unhorrific), then she gets away, then they start to rape her again but it cuts to black and we see nothing. Now, I'm not some sadistic bastard that wants to see loads of dirty shit, but the marketing for this movie clearly placed it as woman's revenge movie that is high on gore (not to mention it's the remake of a banned movie that was itself subject to much controversy). The whole point of a movie like this is to make the audience feel something for the victim, and therefore when she punishes her rapists, we should feel a sense of justice. But while I felt that her revenge was justified, I think the filmmakers could have shown more to make us revel in glee at her dishing out of the torture. But anyway, that didn't matter too much when you consider the second half of the movie, which is quite honestly absurd and terrific.

I can hardly believe that a spoiled city girl writer could live in the wild after being raped multiple times, with no clothes, after the trauma of that incident, find food for herself, then plot (like a military expert) to kill 5 men that raped her. She did this by taunting them (leaving birds and flip-flops on their porches, sending cassettes to their wives etc.), and then VERY CONVENIENTLY being in the right place to hit them over the head (which of course knocked them ALL unconcious every time she did it). She then proceeded to carry out a rape-related torture like they did to her. Oh, very cunning.

The lead actress is terrible. Just terrible. She wouldn't know 'acting' if it hit her in the face, raped her multiple times, then pushed her in a river. The character she was playing is also very badly written. She falls for almost all the horror tricks in the book. She hears many bumps and noises, and she is obviously scared, so why not get your stuff in the car and leave? why go and investigate? It's really stupid. Then she goes to the tool shed to investigate (in her underwear no less), and doesn't take a torch or a weapon of any kind. She's on the phone with her Mum (I guess), and she hears a noise...so what does she do...stays on the phone while she investigates? That would be the sensible thing to do. Nope! She hangs up...because then nobody will know if she gets assaulted. Yes, she's a clever gal. DUMBASS writing, and very, very, very, very old fashioned, simple horror material.

The movie is just garbage really. I enjoyed the revenge half of the movie. I just had to put my logic to one side and feast on the revenge-dealing bitch (that instantly had no conscience, worry or care about torturing and killing 5 guys like she was some sort of serial killer with experience in doing this) go about her business (and believe me, she really does turn it up a gear when she feeds a guy his own penis). But the movie is just not hard-hitting enough. It was far too tame and even movies like Last House on the Left (2009), Halloween (2007) and The Hills Have Eyes (2006) made me feel disgusted with what I was watching...but this was supposed to be the remake of that video-nasty that was so revered in the genre. Well, it pretty much scores an own goal.

The last point is that for the film to even begin to live up to its reputation, she needed to have killed the retard. Lame.

D+

There are two acts in this movie: the torture and the revenge. It has a fitting setting: a single woman seeking isolation from the outside world in a Louisiana cabin to work on her novel. The buildup is good, but the torture scene is rather tame on the screen and does not elicit much fear. The revenge is well-plotted with some gut-wrenching death traps. Andrew Howard does a convincing job playing the ultimate villain (the sheriff).

Grade: B+

The movie does not answer how she gathers her mind and her tools for the revenge. But I am okay with that the filmmakers does not give away anything about the transition between the torture and the revenge. It leaves more to imagination and adds a little surrealism surrounding the story.

This was really good. The rape was seriously disturbing. I prefer the film to the original.

8/10 (B+)

I haven't watched the original yet, but I will one day cautiously watch it.

I watched this again recently and it's seriously great. Still love it.

The original, though less polished, is miles better than the remake. How can you do a movie 32 years later and be so much tamer and less disturbing. Happens to a lot of recent horror remakes. They are all sissified when compared to the original.

Haven't seen either version of this, but it reminds me of someone saying that most remakes today (particularly horror ones) should be called the "diet" version of the original. Diet I Spit on Your Grave! Diet Total Recall! Diet Last House on the Left!

To be fair, the remake of Last House on the Left is actually quite good.

Some are better than others, but most of the times, apart from sometimes not being as brutal/gory as the original, like I mentioned before I think the originals are helped by their grittier look which makes them seem more real. Seems the remakes are more interested in fancy camera and lightning work, and that takes away that raw cinematic experience.

The Hills Have Eyes remake is miles better than the original and Last House on the Left is great too.

Both The Hills Have Eyes and The Last House on the Left are better than the originals. I still liked the original I Spit On Your Grave though.

The originals have a raw feel to them. Plot is less structured and pacing is often uneven. These can lead to some very rewarding "surprise" scares.