I Spit On Your Grave (2010 remake)

tn_ispitonyourgrave10I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (2010) is an okay-but-could-be-much-better remake of the disreputable cult classic. In the rankings of 21st century remakes of notorious ’70s rape revenge movies I’d put it at #2, more watchable than CHAOS but not nearly as artful as LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT. It has pretty effective pacing and a couple good ideas, but it’s not as smart or observant as I’d want for a really worthwhile remake.

Sarah Butler of Tacoma, Washington (FLU BIRD HORROR, two different CSIs playing different characters) takes over for Buster Keaton’s niece as Jennifer Hills, a writer renting a cabin in Louisiana to work on her new shit. (is that what the professionals get to do? God damn.) She has a run-in with some locals who work at the gas station when one of them (Jeff Branson, who it seems has had runs on All My Children, Guiding Light and The Young and the Restless) hits on her and she laughs at him. Later they show up at her cabin to terrorize her, and I guess you know how it goes in a rape-revenge movie. You gotta endure the rape in hopes of enjoying the revenge.

The weird detail in this one is that for some reason they keep making references to horses and making her show them her teeth. They must’ve seen ZOO I guess. That movie’s like SCARFACE to a redneck rapist.

One of the other rapists, the guy who plays a harmonica, I didn’t realize was Rodney Eastman, the nice mute kid Joey from NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREETs 3-4. I noticed he gets a songwriting credit for the harmonica playing. I hope that gets him some extra bucks, not because of this movie, but because he’s Joey. He had so much trouble with naked ladies that turn into Freddy that you just want him to do well in life, you know?

mp_ispitonyourgrave10I wouldn’t say Butler is terrible, but she’s much better as a spooky avenger than a normal person. Some of it’s not her fault – she’s got some awkward moments, some of them due to weird staging and timing. I think Camille Keaton benefited from a strange type of long-necked, aristocratic beauty that made her interesting to look at, this girl is more normal Hollywood good looking. And in order to get some of the plot going she has to be a total klutz. She knocks over a bucket of water at the gas station, spills wine all over her clothes, drops her cell phone in the toilet, breaks a glass when scared by a bird. With some actresses that might make her seem like a lovable relatable person, but here it just makes her seem like an idiot.

This new version is modernized in a clever way, but not in the way I wish it was. They chose to do it by making the I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE for this horror era: instead of a slasher movie it’s a torture movie. Instead of getting her revenge through gruesome kills it’s through sicko torture devices. Instead of luring them in by acting the way their misogynistic minds wish she would and then, say, castrating them with shears, she abducts them, torments them for a while, and then castrates them. Unlike the SAW movies though it’s pretty open about asking you to enjoy the sadism. There’s no question about whether or not they deserve it. In SAW it’s sanctimonious moralizing through torture, in I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE it’s punishment.

The only major change I noticed in the structure is that she disappears for a month after the attack. The rapists assume she’s dead, and the movie switches to their perspective, so we don’t know what happened either. Is she gonna come back as a ghost in this one? You don’t really know.

What’s not really updated though is the gender politics or the subtlety of the characterization. The original dealt in broad stereotypes – redneck rapists vs. feminist writer. Feminism was still a pretty new concept to some people in 1978, Zarchi must’ve felt he had to make his points bluntly. The new one doesn’t try to find a modern equivalent to say something about the state of gender relations in 2010. She’s just a writer (not for Bust Magazine or anything) and they’re just yahoos.

Their acting isn’t as over-the-top as in the first one (especially the retarded guy), but not subtle enough to be much more believable. To make this real insidious it’s gotta seem like real guys, assholes who don’t believe they’re assholes, who maybe even hold back their more deviant behavior in front of their friends until they can’t restrain themselves anymore. If this is gonna make a point it’s gotta seem like alot of men have the potential to do this type of shit, not that this is the anomaly that becomes a horror movie.

But these characters pretty much know they’re the bad guys, and even delight a little bit in being evil. I think it throws things off that he has to murder a man to hide the crime. And it seemed to me like they cut out or played down all the sexist excuses, where they try to blame it on her. Instead they try to cover their tracks like serial killers. This should be just assholes who mistakenly think they can get away with victimizing a woman. This shouldn’t be a horror movie massacre, it should be the misogynistic underbelly of America.

And they’re those fake movie rednecks with the unnatural dialogue calling everybody “boy” all the time. I don’t believe them, they don’t sound natural. I’m a fan of class tension in a horror movie, and the anti-tourism sentiment in the maniac community. It works in everything from TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE to WOLF CREEK to STORM WARNING, but here it just seems forced. I don’t believe them bitterly calling her “that city girl” and “stuck up city bitch.” If these guys were real they wouldn’t hate the city. They’d dream of the girls at the Mardis Gras parade. They’d drive into Baton Rouge or New Orleans to see a WWE Raw or a UFC Fight Night, or maybe the Foo Fighters or somebody. I just checked, Ice Cube is playing Baton Rouge in March. If they were still alive (SPOILER) maybe they’d go to that show. They’d probly think about moving there too. They’re too young to want to spend their lives working at that gas station out in the middle of nowhere. This just doesn’t ring true to me.

And now that I think about it the whole idea of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a little quaint in the age of Lisbeth Salander. In THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO she got her violent revenge in the first act of the movie. And she’s a computer genius and mystery solver. Jennifer Hills doesn’t really compare.

But you know, it’s not garbage. Considering director Steven R. Monroe’s previous works include SASQUATCH MOUNTAIN and ICE TWISTERS it’s alot better than I thought it would be.

I like how you see all the tools and chemicals and things she’s gonna use later when she’s checking out the storage shed on the property. Like, you see a pair of shears covered in cobwebs. It almost had a double meaning for me. It works as setup but also made me wonder if these are the shears she used in the original, and now a new visitor is sort of echoing horrible events from the past. I think the original took place in Connecticut, so that wouldn’t make sense. But I think in the original her name was Jennifer Hill and in this one Jennifer Hills. It’s plural, like ALIENS to ALIEN. It could be a sequel, right? I guess not.

Anyway, it has its moments. She certainly finds a novel way to assrape a guy. But there are subtle things I like about it too. Like when they show up to intimidate her and make her show them her breasts she says, “We’re even now, right?” The one guy is mad that she embarrassed him, now he’s embarrassed her (by molesting her, basically) and she’s willing to call that even. But he chooses not to accept that as even. He will regret it.

The best thing about the movie is the added layer of irony with this sheriff having a nice pregnant wife and a daughter he calls his “little angel” who just got into a gifted program. Her name is Chastity, which fits in with his hatred of alleged “whores.” But I appreciate the disturbing observation that people like this want to do shit to adult women that they would stay up at night worrying would happen to their own daughter. And his family has no idea there’s anything wrong with him.

Also, while being tormented, he starts yelling things like “Help me Jesus!” and “I’m a God fearin’ person!” Ain’t that rich? And he keeps calling her “ma’am,” as opposed to his earlier preference of “big city whore.”

Meir Zarchi, writer/director of the original, is credited as producer on this one, and he went and supported it at some film festivals and stuff. I noticed that on the credits they say it’s based on DAY OF THE WOMAN, his original title. It’s funny, I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is one of the greatest exploitation titles ever, you’d think a guy would be happy to be associated with something so legendary. But at the same time the movie is so notorious he has to use his original title just because it gives more of a hint that he was on the woman’s side.  No, seriously guys. “I” is Jennifer, she’s the one spitting on graves, that’s the part you’re supposed to enjoy.

Well, I wish the new movie itself was good enough to help him rehabilitate his image there, but oh well. I’ve definitely seen alot worse. In my opinion I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE 2010 does not spit on the grave of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE 1978. It has a healthy respect for its grave but does not go out of its way to deliver flowers or perform any maintenance such as cleaning the grave or pulling weeds around it.
note: I can’t vouch for the new blu-ray and dvd of the 1978 version (and can’t say I’m planning to find out how it plays in HD) but I’m happy to see they included Joe Bob Briggs’s excellent commentary track from the earlier release

This entry was posted on Friday, February 11th, 2011 at 6:37 pm and is filed under Horror, Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

18 Responses to “I Spit On Your Grave (2010 remake)”

  1. I must admit I wouldn’t have watched this if I wasn’t semi-obliged to review it, but thought it was pretty good if you skip over the rape scenes.

    I thought it a bit weird the way half-way through the movie we switch perspectives and now the killer/rapists are the slasher victims. If you walked into the film at that point, you’d be forgiven for thinking you should be sympathising with them.

    Did anyone else get the feeling Jennifer must have called up MacGuyver when she was figuring out her torture/death-traps? “Hey MacGyver, help me out here – I gotta torture and kill a bunch of guys, but all i have are some fish-hooks, line, quick-lime and garden shears…oh, and some masking tape.”

  2. I may have mentioned it before, but our progressive new censor here in Ireland banned the reissue of the original a few months back.

  3. I did a two-fer review of “No Strings Attached” and “I Spit on Your Grave” remake tried to make some points about how both films were pro-monogamy. I think you might find it insane rambling, but maybe not.

    When you read it, it might help to know that I’m the guy who wrote you an e-mail talking about how the daughter in “Live Free or Die Hard” was an audience surrogate. If that rings any bells.


  4. Mike – I don’t think we ever found out what she was writing. Maybe it was a book about how to be MacGyver.

  5. I’m not defending either version, but I always felt the revenge in the original was weak. Except for the bathtub, she just killed them. The idea of humiliating torture in the remake satisfies that quotient, but I had a lot of the same other issues Vern had.

    Thanks for the tip on the Joe Bob commentary. I’ll have to give that a listen. You know he was my inspiration to to review badass movies? I just got to meet him this year.

  6. Man, if this would be AICN, this would turn into some angry yelling about people who not just watch “rape movies”, but also dare to say at least one positive word about them.

  7. In Stephen King’s new book, “Full Dark, No Stars”, there’s a story, “Big Driver”, that’s pretty much a redneck-rape-revenge tale updated to the present day (internet, ect)–and is about the best version of that concept I’ve yet heard off. Far superior to this or the LAST HOUSE remake.

  8. Hey, CC, personally I found Big Driver a bit weak. I mean, the rape-and-near-murder part was very well written and cleverly done, but the revenge stuff was bland and unrealistic even by the standards of a Jodie Foster movie King was making fun of.

    I liked the part were the writer learned how to make silencers from the research for her women mystery books, though. I shudder to think what useful bits of info Vern could dig up should anyone decide to mess with him.

  9. FTopel: I love Joe Bob. His arch but never snarky approach basically defined the way I view and enjoy so-called trash. He held the movies accountable but never overanalyzed, and he always found something positive to say. He always seemed like he was having fun and not like he got forced to see movies at gunpoint, like it was just such a soul-draining chore, which is a vibe I get from many critics. I once got him to sign my first edition of his first book of reviews and I told him that his screening of FRANKENHOOKER on TMC when I was 13 changed my life. Regular movies just weren’t enough for me anymore once I’d been introduced to the wonders of hooker-exploding supercrack.

  10. CC- Where does that book rank in the Stephen King continuum?

  11. Well I’m no CC but as a (not-so-)short stories collection it’s probably ranks somewhere in-between Four Past Midnight and Everything’s Eventual. Not as bad as Just After Sunset, but not nearly as good as Different Seasons, Night Shift or even Nightmares & Dreamscapes.

    But then again, what is, eh?

  12. “They must’ve seen ZOO I guess. That movie’s like SCARFACE to a redneck rapist.”

    Somewhere at a coffee shop in Manhattan, a guy is cracking up at his computer, and the tourists wonder if this another colorful local they should take pictures of. Thanks for the laugh Vern.

  13. Man, I was just nodding my head through this whole review. My thoughts exactly. Thanks for thinking them for me, Vern.

    My Dad used to review movies for Joe Bob Briggs in some capacity. Joe Bob would send him videotapes and he’d write a certain amount of words on each one, plus tallies of certain elements (how many tits, explosions, deaths, etc.) Some of his reviews were then published in a Joe Bob newsletter of some sort. This would be the late 80s, early to mid 90s. I watched a lot of this stuff on the sly before I knew what it was. Man, I should dig up those newsletters.

  14. Vern’s comments about the unrealistic attitudes of the rednecks hits the nail on the head. So many films fall into this trap.

    It’s like the writers’ hear the dialogue in their heads and think the characters are speaking through them, but really it’s just cliche that’s popping into their head. Don’t write that shit down, or if you do, you need to see it for what it is and re-write it until it doesn’t sound like a collection of lines from other (probably better) films.

    Calling her a ‘stuck up city bitch’ is so weak. If the guys felt more real, her revenge would have been all more powerful and cathartic for the audience.

  15. Majestyk, that was pretty much exactly what I got from Joe Bob. I wasn’t the only one having fun sharing his thoughts about movies (back then on the school paper) and you could be serious without being “serious.” Watching him on The Movie Channel was like having a personal guide. Now I can use the money I make being a journalist to buy Joe Bob’s books at the horror con. Circle of life.

    Gwai, I did the VHS tape thing for Joe Bob too! I got on the Big Studio committee though, so I didn’t get any of the weird movies.

    CC, thanks for the tip. I’d love to read King’s take on the genre.

  16. It’s a lot like Different Seasons (four novellas of roughly similar length) but much, much bleaker. They’re all in the downbeat sordid-true-crime-style of “Apt Pupil”; maybe a more accurate comparison is to The Bachman Books. (They’re so grim they maybe even go past Richard Bachman, all the way to George Stark.) The first story, “1922”, is kind’ve a cross between Edna Ferber and HP Lovecraft; the second, Big Driver, was I thought an absolute classic, vintage King, as good as anything he’s ever written, and sort of a spiritual sequel to “Misery”; “Fair Extension” is a be-careful-what-you-wish-for Twilight Zone-episode sort of story; and the last one, “A Good Marriage”, is another example of King at his best, but just so depressing that I find it hard to imagine reading it again. It’s sort’ve like “The Shining” without ghosts or psychic powers.

    Again, they’re all very well done, but with the exception of “Big Driver”, aren’t horror genre entertainment. I recommend the book, but it’s not much fun.

    Different Seasons has held up so well–all the stories seem remarkably timeless, unlike the Bachman Books, which are good but feel very firmly stuck in the early to mid 70s. “Night Shift”, meanwhile, has endured to become one of the best short story collections ever. It’s like some classic album, like BORN IN THE USA or STICKY FINGERS or FEAR OF A BLACK PLANET, where you listen to it and it’s just great songs, one after another after another. If you can manage to go back and reread it and forget any of the stories have ever been made into bad movies, just look anew at them as if you’re reading them for the first time, you really understand how remarkable it is. “Graveyard Shift”, “The Mangler”, “The Boogeyman”, “Children Of The Corn”, “I Am The Doorway”, “Battleground”, “Trucks”, “Sometimes They Come Back”, “Strawberry Spring”, “Quitters, Inc”, “The Woman In The Room”….I mean, that one book alone would earn it’s author a place in genre history. Stephen King was just getting started. Amazing…

  17. I always liked King’s writing so I’m happy to check out anything. I’d love to read Under the Dome, but The Stand already filled my lifetime 1000 page book quota. One day…

    I guess Skeleton Crew would be my pick for collection, what with The Mist being in it and all. I guess Bachman Books actually, since they put those four together. The Long Walk would make a great movie, and Rage was pretty good. Running Man is interesting considering how completely different it is from the movie, which I guess remains superior because it’s my first childhood impression of the story (and it came true.) What was the third Bachman book?

    I liked Cell. I know King repeats himself. Never read From a Buick 8, but I’ll let him have it. I just think he knows good stories and I support the philosophy it’s better to just produce a lot than toil away at that one “perfect” story. King still ends up with more great stories than the people who tinker on their one. Similarly, I guess, Nicolas Sparks’ output. What, I love The Notebook!

  18. This is a flat out 10/10 as far as viewer satisfaction is concerned. Awesome! Acting is pretty good as well. Strong build up of rage, so revenge tastes really sweet. Delicious!

    ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 10/10

    No surprise Roger Ebert and folks hate this, but I don’t, I’m just lovin’  it.

    I hope this made money over the years.


    And it’s so 70ies, no flashy camera shit, strong long scenes, all patience, no hurry, well done, bloody and tasty.

    Top recommended!

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>