Horror Movie Reviews
|
Title: I Spit On Your Grave (Millennium Edition) (2004) |
|
Review of I Spit On Your Grave (Millennium Edition)
- Writer-director Meir Zarchi's controversial story of rape and revenge has lost none of its ability to shock viewers since it first gained notoriety in the late '70s. Camille Keaton (grand-niece of Buster Keaton and, later, Zarchi's wife) stars as a young woman who is terrorized and then brutally assaulted by four men while on vacation. After slowly pulling herself together, she methodically tracks down and butchers each of the perpetrators. Zarchi's film has been consistently accused of celebrating violence against women, and while the rape scenes are graphic, they also lack the voyeuristic qualities that earmark other similarly plotted exploitation films. If anything, Zarchi is guilty of awkward scripting; the dialogue is leaden, and Keaton's transformation from victim to avenger is too swift. But to label him a pornographer is wrong, and while the film is challenging--perhaps more than most audiences can bear--its depiction of the psychology of violence is undeniably powerful. --Paul Gaita
Amazon.com
[ Back to Homepage | Back to Horror Movie Reviews Index ]
HellHorror.com not responsible for reviews/comments and they may be removed at any time.
Submit Comment
Login / Join/Register for a free account
Comments for I Spit On Your Grave (Millennium Edition)
- Posted on 2008-08-17
Infamous but potent and worthwhile (for some)
Originally released in 1978 as "Day of the Woman" and re-released in 1980 with the more popular title (which writer/director Meir Zarchi hates), "I Spit on Your Grave" is a low-budget film telling a simple story of rape-and-revenge. Jennifer Hill, a magazine writer from New York City, rents a country house for the summer to write her first novel. Four low-lifes catch wind of her and brutally rape her, leaving her for dead. She survives, however, and executes revenge on each, using their weaknesses against them (pride, lust and lack of intelligence).
The film is notorious. Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel have railed against it over the years, giving it a zero star rating. Most theaters understandably refused to show it back in '78-'80. But it became a big hit on video in the early 80s and there's still quite a buzz about it 3 decades later. The film simply can't be stopped, as Zarchi points out. I've repeatedly heard about it over the years and finally decided to give it an artistic appraisal.
Since I knew going in that this was a rape-revenge film with overt depictions I was fully braced for the material and therefore didn't find it shocking. Don't get me wrong, the rape scenes are fairly explicit and fittingly disturbing but, for me, it wasn't shocking because I knew what I was getting into. I suppose it would be quite shocking otherwise. Regardless, I feel "The Wild Angels," which was released a full 12 years earlier, is more shocking. See my review for details.
I should add here that, although the picture is explicit with the rape-revenge scenes, it's not pornographic. In other words, this is not a film to view for porn thrills. Sexually speaking, the rape/revenge scenes are a turn-off rather than a turn-on, if you know what I mean.
After viewing the film I saw it again with writer/director Meir Zarchi's commentary (something I very rarely do). He has a heavy accent but I was able to adjust after about ten minutes. I highly encourage anyone viewing the film to hear this excellent commentary. Meir is brilliant and offers loads of important details. For instance, he shares what inspired him to make the movie. In 1974 he came across a beaten, naked young woman stumbling out of the woods; she had a broken jaw and had been raped by two scumbags. She said they would have killed her but she convinced them she couldn't see without her glasses and therefore couldn't identify them. They then broke her jaw to knock her unconscious so they could make a getaway. She regained consciousness fairly quickly and wisely decided to immediately get out of the area in case they changed their minds. She crawled through the woods to the nearest road, which is where Zarchi came across her.
The film shows that the four rapists are misogynists who feel powerless in their daily lives and are threatened by an intelligent, talented woman from the city. Listen to their moronic dialogue during the night-fishing sequence. These guys talk about women like they're 13 years old (but worse), even though they're all in their late 20s. And, don't get me wrong, I KNOW there are adult men like this out there. It's pathetic.
The picture reveals how actions can be incredibly misinterpreted by people with sick minds. For instance, the leader of the rapists comments that when Jennifer first came to town and stopped at his gas station she got out of the car and flaunted her beauty, her legs and breast. But the viewer sees differently. The truth is she just got out of the car to stretch her legs (in a modest dress, by the way) and make some friendly small talk while he pumped gas for her.
The film also reveals what's in the hearts of people, including the viewer. For instance, when film critic Roger Ebert saw the film at a theater he overheard a middle-aged man make troubling comments during the rape sequences like, "That'll teach her" and "The others were good (the rapes) but this one's the best." Ebert also heard a lady yell out during one of the revenge scenes, "Get him, sister!" (nothing wrong with that, of course).
As for me, I was on the side of Jennier Hill the entire picture. This was obviously a very hard role to play and Camille Keaton did an incredible job; she even won a Best Actress award. Camille has a beautiful face and stunning locks of long auburn hair. But, at the time, she was way too thin for my tastes. She definitely needed to gain at least 20 pounds. Shortly after the film was released she married director Zarchi. Although the marriage didn't last, they remain good friends to this day.
In any event, in the story Jennifer is a nice, beautiful, intelligent woman who just wants to get some time alone to enjoy nature and write her novel. She does absolutely nothing to provoke the abuse of the dirtbags.
There's a church scene right before she enacts her revenge where she asks God for forgiveness. The real-life minister of the church caught wind of the nature of the film and contacted Zarchi, insisting that the parts depicting his church be taken out. Zarchi drove out to the church in Kent, Connecticut, where the film was made, and explained his reasons for making the picture. When the minister understood Zarchi's intentions he gave him his blessing.
Speaking of the locations of the lush Kent area in Western Connecticut, this is one of the films highlights (I get sick of Southern California locations). In fact, believe it or not, it's one of the main items that prompted me to see the picture as I have personal interest in Western Connecticut.
You'll see that the beauty of nature -- the sights and sounds of the forest -- are contrasted by the hideousness of human nature. This is effective.
There's no score at all, even though Zarchi tried to fit music to it. He said it just didn't work; adding music diminished the impact. I agree.
The film runs 100 minutes and it's all completely realistic until the 73-minute mark where Jennifer allows the mildly retarded rapist get close enough to her with a knife to easily kill her. She later allows the lead rapist the opportunity to get the upper hand (when she gives him the gun). I found this unbelievable. In both cases she could have easily killed the scumbags but instead momentarily makes herself vunerable to enact a more stylized revenge. I don't believe she would have done this in real life. But some would explain her actions on the grounds that she now no longer feared death (since she had been so close to it) and was willing to gamble with her life in order to punish the criminals in a way more fitting than a gunshot.
Some may object to the idea of Jennifer having the strength to pull off the hanging, but Zarchi defends it by pointing out "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
There are a couple other weak moments for which I detract 1 Star in my rating. In one close-up shot it's clear that the retarded guy's glasses are fake. Also, during the infamous bloodbath scene, wouldn't the guy realize he's been castrated right away (regardless of whether or not he's having an orgasm)? Dumb.
Still, this is a powerful film, an important film and a necessary film. It counterbalances beauty with the hideousness of rape and supports the only just punishment for such extreme sins -- death. I should add that's it's not a movie to be watched in the presence of others. It's something you must experience alone, if at all.
Score: 4
- Posted on 2008-08-11
I Spit on Your What???
So this was one of the 'video nasties' that were supposed to be so terrible and that we should be protected from. Well I have to say that after finally seeing this film I found it quite tame. The most disturbing part is the extended multi-rape section which is quite relentless and unpleasant. However, the revenge part of the story is just daft and not at all the gory holocaust that I would have liked. This isn't a horror film at all but a rape drama. Quite well put together but presented as something that it is not. The title means nothing (merely a sensational way to say "I'll get my revenge on you") and the cover photo is misleading, it doesn't show anything found in the film. So although this isn't the horror film I expected it is an interesting rape and revenge story, well made on a small budget.
Score: 3
- Posted on 2008-08-07
I feel sick.
As a woman anything to do with rape makes me feel sick (literally). I cannot watch anything like that because it really fu**'s up with my head and then makes me want to crawl into a hole(lock myself in my room for days) scared to step outside in fear. Is the worst feeling. I am always paranoid about the though just because I am a woman. as much as I would like to see her get her payback I will not watch this movie;-(
I heard of a story about a friends friend (male) who got raped by two guys and a month later shot himself in the head because he could not live with the though and the fact that he lost his manhood. I have always felt sad about that guys story even though I never knew him.
Score: 1
- Posted on 2008-06-25
Utterly Useless
I went into this film with high hopes, being that it is considered one of the most controversial films of all time. However, this movie has absolutely no redeeming qualities. The acting is absolutely the worst I have ever seen, and the storyline is non-existant. Furthermore, there is absolutely no character development. Yes, the rape scenes are graphic and do get a little hairy, no pun intended. But other than that, this is your run-of-the-mill revenge story. Problem is, revenge has been done better a million times over in other movies. Don't waste your time with this one.
Score: 1 - Posted on 2008-06-25
Sadistic Attack = Sadistic Revenge
Controversial and hated by critics and feminists, it's easy to see what people found offensive here. A very prolonged and cruel rape scene that is hardly a pleasure to watch. A series of acts of revenge that are justified but methodical and lacking in emotion.ISOYG is not a badly made film- the problem is the realism of the sexual assault that provokes the less than realistic acts of revenge by Camille Keaton on her antagonists. Watching a 20+ minute scene of a pretty young woman being brutalized and tormented by four rural thugs is no picnic, and maybe credit should be given for portraying such a horrible act in a way that is unglamorous and very unsettling as it should be.
After suffering with our victim, it's not hard to lust as she does for the blood of her attackers. You may find the revenge less than satisfying and cliched and you may find ISOYG a little overhyped and overlong..
Score: 3
