I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE: UNRATED Review [Fantastic Fest 2010]

Posted by Peter Hall - October 3rd 2010 @ 4:16 pm

Directed by Steven R. Monroe, 2010
Written by Stuart Morse


Steven R. Monroe’s remake of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is one of the most pathetic films I have ever seen.  I am aware that is going to sound like exaggeration or a kind of knee-jerk reaction; I assure you it is neither.  It’s a completely worthless enterprise that offers nothing to the world other than the crushing realization that it exists.

There’s no surprise there, of course.  It’s a completely mercenary project; a remake of a movie that not many people loved 30+ years ago, but that’s “worth” remaking solely because it has a recognizable title.  It’s directed by a man whose career is the very definition of director-for-hire (hell, even Monroe’s ICE TWISTERS for Syfy is better than this abysmal piece of shit), it’s written by a first time screenwriter, produced by a first time production company, and it stars a handful of actors vaguely recognizable from small roles on TV shows.  And I’m not one to hate on “for hire” projects – everyone’s gotta eat- it’s just that the financial motivations are painfully transparent here.

No one cared about exerting any thought toward actually improving on the original, or giving the movie a reason to, well, exist at all.  They saw an opportunity to capitalize on a name and took it.  Nevermind bothering to attempt to make it anything unique, that would just complicate their genius formula of “Rape + Rape + 4xMurders = horror”.

If you’ve seen or know anything about the original, you already know what I SPIT YOUR GRAVE is about.  If not, it’s pretty simple: spend 20 minutes objectifying a very alluring woman, Jennifer (Sarah Butler), and then have her get viciously and repeatedly raped by a bunch of rednecks for no reason whatsoever for about 40 or so minutes.  Once she’s successfully been put on a sexual pedestal and then savaged, it’s time to show the rednecks’ boring lives (hah, it’s hilarious that the rapist sheriff has a church going family) before spending about 30 minutes having Jennifer miraculously return from her watery grave completely unscathed and kill her rapists by placing them all in traps that were rejected from the SAW franchise for being completely braindead.  Sounds inspired, doesn’t it?

Normally if I hate a movie, I can at least understand why other people would like it, but I struggle and strain to hypothesize what value can be discerned from I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.  Not only is there nothing to like about it, there’s not even anything to professionally respect about it.  There are competent fundamentals possibly worth acknowledging – the actors are in frame, the cameraman pressed record, no one is holding a script – but there’s not a thing to applaud about it.  It’s a vile, soulless movie with no purpose, no context, no function, no meaning, no morals, no notions of how to tell a story, no characters of any depth, no redeeming qualities whatsoever.  The only thing memorable about it is that the entire God damn thing is a steaming box of shit.

Edit: Since a commenter below felt four uses of the word “completely” was not specific enough, I’m just going to add my response to him as a permanent part of this review:

Considering how many times I (quite intentionally) used the word “completely” in my review, I’m not sure where both of you require me to be more specific. I can draw a Venn diagram if you require.

Putting aside the fact that where you commented from leads me to believe you work for the distribution company, what revisions and additions do you like, RLM? The whole point of the original was that it was the “Day of the Woman”. After being savagely raped by a pack of men, she waits a day and then uses her feminine allure to give the men what they want by seducing them and then killing them. It’s not great, but it’s at least a vague comment on femme fatales and using sex as a deadly weapon.

In your cherished remake, however, there’s none of that. It’s no longer the day after, it’s a month after. We’re led to believe that a person who a month prior couldn’t use a cell phone without dropping it in the toilet or hold a wine glass without spilling it on herself is suddenly capable of rigging up elaborate traps to put her rapists in? Oh, and that she’s been surviving on eating swamp rats the entire time, but she looks like she just got out of the spa? No, you’re right; that makes complete sense.

The acting is tremendous and they all “took a risk”? You actually thinking signing up for a remake in this day and age is taking a risk? That’s about as safe as it gets. As for it having some of the best kill scenes of 2010? You should watch more movies; preferably ones not put out by the company you work for.

As for this review being “broad-spectrum B.S. about the industry”, that’s the entire point of this review. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is the vomitous excrement of an industry that is complacent with putting rape after rape and murder after murder on the big screen under no other auspice than to make a quick buck by capitalizing on controversy. There’s not even any material in the film that warrants it being “unrated”, it’s just another marketing gimmick Anchor Bay can use to turn a profit.

What else would you like to talk about?

Tags: , , , ,


rss 45 comments
  1. IanMcG
    October 4th, 2010 | 8:41 am | #1

    This is one of the most unintentionally hilarious ‘reviews’ I have read in a while. Somebody connected with the film reject your advances, or tell you your script is crap?

    How about actually taking a few moments/paragraphs to expound on why it’s so terrible, rather than simply venting that it is?

    Frankly, this kind of vitriol with no no critical underpinning (or sense of humour) simply makes me want to see a film rather than run the opposite direction.

  2. RLM
    October 4th, 2010 | 9:24 am | #2

    Personally I was very skeptical about a remake of “I Spit on Your Grave.” I’m not a huge fan of the original, but it is a great movie for what it is and when it was made.

    Steven R. Monroe’s remake is insanely good. The revisions and additions that were made only enhance the film. The story has been masterfully modernized while still paying homage to the original. Not to mention, it boasts some of the best kill scenes of 2010 bar none.

    The acting is tremendous and even though they’re “vaguely recognizable” at least they took a risk on a film that was destined for scrutiny and created a movie worth watching.

    I’m still not sure what you didn’t like about this movie. It just sounds like you went in hating it and then wrote down a bunch of broad-spectrum B.S. about the industry itself and not the film up for review.

  3. October 4th, 2010 | 9:57 am | #3

    Considering how many times I (quite intentionally) used the word “completely” in my review, I’m not sure where both of you require me to be more specific. I can draw a Venn diagram if you require.

    Putting aside the fact that where you commented from leads me to believe you work for the distribution company, what revisions and additions do you like, RLM? The whole point of the original was that it was the “Day of the Woman”. After being savagely raped by a pack of men, she waits a day and then uses her feminine allure to give the men what they want by seducing them and then killing them. It’s not great, but it’s at least a vague comment on femme fatales and using sex as a deadly weapon.

    In your cherished remake, however, there’s none of that. It’s no longer the day after, it’s a month after. We’re led to believe that a person who a month prior couldn’t use a cell phone without dropping it in the toilet or hold a wine glass without spilling it on herself is suddenly capable of rigging up elaborate traps to put her rapists in? Oh, and that she’s been surviving on eating swamp rats the entire time, but she looks like she just got out of the spa? No, you’re right; that makes complete sense.

    The acting is tremendous and they all “took a risk”? You actually thinking signing up for a remake in this day and age is taking a risk? That’s about as safe as it gets. As for it having some of the best kill scenes of 2010? You should watch more movies; preferably ones not put out by the company you work for.

    As for this review being “broad-spectrum B.S. about the industry”, that’s the entire point of this review. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is the vomitous excrement of an industry that is complacent with putting rape after rape and murder after murder on the big screen under no other auspice than to make a quick buck by capitalizing on controversy. There’s not even any material in the film that warrants it being “unrated”, it’s just another marketing gimmick Anchor Bay can use to turn a profit.

    What else would you like to talk about?

  4. MS
    October 4th, 2010 | 10:09 am | #4

    Hmmmm,…. once a reviewer gets a “holier than though” attitude about filmmaking I wonder if it’s time for him or her to put down their pen.

    I was no big fan of the original film and only went to see this one cause it was playing on the only night my Gal and I had off together that week. Not the best date film but,….

    I think the film actually delivered as an updated version. I though the acting was pretty solid, especially Sarah Butler whom had a pretty tough role to play.

    I do take exception to your name calling like “director for hire” as if he were some booby prize. Steven Spielberg was once a director for hire, Mario Puzo was once a first time writer and American Zoetrope was once a new production company. They did okay moving forward…. As far as using vaguely familiar actors, I applaud that. It would be hard to believe this film with hollywood super stars.

    If it’s not your KIND of movie, so be it, but don’t crap all over it in anger. Perhaps your extreme review is the best indicator to the film goers it’s a horror film worth seeing.

  5. RLM
    October 4th, 2010 | 10:23 am | #5

    I liked the movie so f-off.

    It’s a horror movie, why does it need to be completely realistic. I haven’t seen a movie yet that didn’t have continuity issues (especially horror films) but that doesn’t necessarily decrease the entertainment value.

    I will agree with you that the need for all modern horror films to have the “my cell phone doesn’t have service/ fell in the toilet/ got run over by a car/ left it in my other purse” disclaimer is getting a little redundant.

    Just as an FYI…The movie has been rated R.

  6. dutchmovieguy
    October 4th, 2010 | 11:53 am | #6

    This movie looks pretty cool. I’d rather it have been made in 3D though. Something about the whole 3D horror genre really gets me. Gore looks so much better on the platform too. I watched some movie on demand this past weekend called Scar 3D and the blood splatters looked awesome in 3D! I’d like to see more horror movies go this route.

  7. Brett Wallace
    October 4th, 2010 | 1:06 pm | #7

    Wow, I think “holier than though” is putting it mildly MS, Peter you also seem to know what is right or wrong for an actors career. Try spending years working your ass off to get somewhere in your career and then take a chance on playing a rapist, it is a RISK. And I see you did absolutely no research on the director as he also directed the very violent feature film House Of 9 with Dennis Hopper, but you just found the goofiest title so you could feel like a big man and make fun of someone. And yea as MS said, when was someone working for living to put food on the table and stay alive a sin? Oh yea in your book Peter obviously. But I guess if you were a director you would just let your family starve and live in a tent until The Godfather script landed on your desk… Totally hostile for such obvious reasons and a shame that people like you get to write “reviews” that some people on the internet may think are legitimate. I’d tell you to take a step back and look at yourself, but people like you would never do that because you aparently already know everything.

  8. Brett Wallace
    October 4th, 2010 | 1:20 pm | #8
  9. R.J. Sayer
    October 4th, 2010 | 2:44 pm | #9

    Peter, i think the same dude just commented on your review a million times under different names.

    i fully plan on seeing the remake out of curiosity. i love the original, but don’t expect this to be any good.

  10. October 4th, 2010 | 2:49 pm | #10

    Not sure why you’re harping on the director-for-hire thing, but maybe it’s because you missed this sentence: “And I’m not one to hate on “for hire” projects – everyone’s gotta eat – it’s just that the financial motivations are painfully transparent here.”

    Just because a project is “for hire” does not mean it has to be devoid of passion or, in lieu of that, originality. I also didn’t find the “goofiest title” of Monroe’s career, it just so happens that I think ICE TWISTERS is the best film of his career. But I guess since I’ve ONLY seen 8 of the 14 films Monroe has directed, maybe I’m not qualified enough by your standards to make that claim.

    Oh, look, I can cherry pick reviews too!

    http://www.fearnet.com/news/reviews/b20390_ff_2010_review_i_spit_on_your_grave.html

    http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/i-spit-on-your-grave/5069

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/i-spit-on-your-grave-film-review-1004116853.story

    http://twitchfilm.net/reviews/2010/07/fantasia-2010-i-spit-on-your-grave-review.php

    http://hagiblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/tad-2010-i-spit-on-your-grave-film-reel-reviews/

  11. October 4th, 2010 | 8:28 pm | #11

    I am with the lovers here. Remake or no remake, this was an effective horror film. It was fun, had some social commentary if you care to read into it a little, and had some pretty great grisly moments. The acting was above average in the genre and it was all well put together and well executed. Horror is for the horror lovers, and it has to be a ride. This is just the same sort of guy who didn’t like Haute Tension because the twist “didn’t make sense”. Who gives a crap, it was a great horror flick. Whatever happened to enjoying a movie, it seems it’s just more “in” to bash. I Spit is a great fun, gory horror flick that improves upon the film on which it was based. Done.

  12. Brett Wallace
    October 5th, 2010 | 4:33 pm | #12

    Hey Paul, go be a “director for hire” and see what you will come up against, or any director that is not famous at that. You think you know everything but you clearly show us all that you don’t know s#@t. get a clue, director’s have all kinds of people to answer to so what ends up on the screen is not always “them”. grow up and at least be able to back up the crap you are spewing. show biz is not what you think it is.

  13. October 5th, 2010 | 4:41 pm | #13

    My name isn’t Paul, Brett.

    All you’re doing is reinforcing my observation, which now appears to be fact, that I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE was a producer-motivated, cash-in of a film and that everything about it was delivering a product and not a passion project.

    I’ve repeatedly said that I like Monroe’s other films, so I really don’t know why you’re losing your shit that I hate this one; and that my hatred of this one particular film of his means I in turn “don’t know shit.” (Also, we’re all adults here: you don’t need to censor a profane word when talking about a movie that’s about nothing but rape and murder.)

  14. Tammy Metzger
    October 5th, 2010 | 5:02 pm | #14

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I can see both sides. Personally, I ended up liking this film… a lot. I’ll admit that I disengaged for a bit in the beginning with one of the major changes to the original, but was drawn back in, and think it is much better than the original. The thing that turned me off in the beginning was explained by the director’s wife (?), and understanding the inclusion of that element made it ok w/me. Great review, Peter… always good to get people thinking about what they like and why.

  15. Randy
    October 5th, 2010 | 8:31 pm | #15

    Damn, this is getting almost as much response as my LOG review couple years back.

  16. October 9th, 2010 | 11:57 am | #16

    Oh, there’s no way half of these people are involved with the film somehow. No way at all.

  17. October 11th, 2010 | 11:29 am | #17

    Well to be honest I quite enjoyed this remake, and I was already a fan of the original. It’s not making any ‘feminist empowerment’ statements, it’s just good old-fashionned Exploitation: She gets raped and enacts some bloody vengance on the people who did the crime.
    I think this remake did exactly what remakes should do – take the original story and improve the areas that were lacking the first time around, which in this case were the original revenge scenes. (One was decent but they petered out to dull death scenes). At least the remake went all-out on the revenge, and that’s what you’re watching the film for in the first place.

  18. Sivar
    October 13th, 2010 | 7:30 pm | #18

    The word Peter used that I really zeroed in on is “context”.

    While the original film also used rape as a plot device, in the context of the time in which it was produced, the brutal rape and her eventual revenge worked as commentary on the exploitation of women and also as a female empowerment fantasy. It might not have been intentional (or even exceptionally intelligent in how it was handled), but there was an IDEA within the simple storyline…and given the time period, it is easier to respect the idea, even if you don’t particularly like the film or the craftsmanship with which it was made.

    The new film updates the technicals aspects of the film wonderfully. But by having the story remain “hot girl gets raped by redneck boys” the producers/director don’t seem to have put in any effort to update the context of WHY we are watching rape as entertainment. Have her get raped on a college campus by a rich fraternity and at least we can read some social commentary into it (no matter how boneheaded). This lack of effort on creative side is probably why the film comes off as an exploitative cash grab and why the film has been receiving such hate.

    Let’s be clear–this is not hatred from uniformed, squeamish, uppity overly intellectual critics. This is a rejection from fans of extreme cinema. And the reason seems to be “Why does this film exist?”

    There does not appear to be any sort of meaning to the violence that the film presents. It is just sumptuously shot footage of gorgeous actors pretending to do something awful. Why? Because they were paid to.

  19. October 14th, 2010 | 2:04 pm | #19

    I have my doubts about this film. There was so much hype about the original at the time and when I views it I wondered what the big deal was. If anything it will strike a chord with the feminist groups.

  20. hansulu
    October 15th, 2010 | 1:57 pm | #20

    The original was shit. I used to joke about it getting remade. Well, here we are officially at he bottom of the horror barrel folks. Don’t pay any attention to the people on here telling you this movie is good, Peter. Bunch of damned soulless twits and fucking liars.

  21. R.J. Sayer
    October 22nd, 2010 | 11:18 am | #21

    people who call it “show business” clearly have no fucking idea what they are talking about.

  22. R.J. Sayer
    October 22nd, 2010 | 11:19 am | #22

    i wonder how hard it is for this guy to keep making up names to post under…

  23. slaughterhouse5
    November 10th, 2010 | 11:19 pm | #23

    I think I need to throw my two cents into the pile. These remakes are the most obvious ploy I’ve seen to make a quick buck. Why would anyone enjoy a movie with this subject matter? Why do film companies try to sexualize rape? Look at the cover of the film for instance. Why is it that horror films have stopped having any originality whatsoever? Friday the 13th (2009) was a step shy from being porn. There’s no heart and soul in these films. The films of old were, at the very least, talented. To those who enjoy watching a woman brutally raped on screen and watch this shit as entertainment, you are my fucking enemy. I agree with the reviewer for the most part but I hate this piece of garbage even more than him. I love horror movies but as of the last 5 years, horror has really taken a plunge. There’s been a few fantastic films but the fact is, most are terrible. Here’s hoping that someone with brains will actually write a script worthwhile in the near future. Bring me something fun, Evil Dead 4? Phantasm 5? A movie with a good script? Inventive story? NOT A REMAKE??? P.S. Hollywood, get fucked.

  24. rustle
    November 14th, 2010 | 10:21 am | #24

    Well I didn’t manage to see “Spit on Your Grave”. But enough people seemed to like it, that I don’t doubt the credibility of the above posters. I chose not to see it, because didn’t really want to endure the extended rape scenes I knew it would contain. I’m curious Peter, if you saw Bedeviled at FF. I went into it not knowing much about it, and thought it was one of the best films of the Festival. It too is a film that heaps some truly terrible suffering on one of the main characters before she exacts her revenge. I’d be curious if that one worked for you, or not. Anyway I found your blog because I’d just seen The Loved Ones (which I also enjoyed). Afterward perusing the web I found your review of that one. I think you’ve got a nice blog, and I look forward to reading more of your reviews.

  25. November 14th, 2010 | 10:51 am | #25

    Thanks, Rustle. I did see Bedevilled at Fantastic Fest and I loved the hell out of it. What makes its better than I Spit is that it actually has story and scope to it. It deals with how abuse can become institutionalized, about how the human psyche can rationalize it and how gender rolls can be beaten and broken until they conform to it.

    I Spit on Your Grave has none of that. It’s just rape, rape, death, death.

  26. Kyle
    November 22nd, 2010 | 2:46 pm | #26

    Jesus… as others have mentioned, it seems everytime you dislike a film you have this holier-than-thou approach to writing. Is this Roger Ebert 2.0? I didn’t like the remake, but the original(while a great grindhouse classic)isn’t exactly high art. Perhaps you should start reviewing Disney films. You gave Wolf Creek a harsh review(I wanted to see if ever reviewed good horror films positively)and you used the word “irregardless.” Actually that’s not a word at all. Also you liked Paranormal Activity 2… that’s all I need to know.

  27. suck my balls!
    January 5th, 2011 | 2:43 am | #27

    Who gives a shit what you fuckers think? Its just a movie. A bet peter sucks peter

  28. Dave
    January 9th, 2011 | 4:31 pm | #28

    @Peter – It’s ‘roles’ not ‘rolls’. (I like ham and mayo on my gender rolls.)

    This is one of the worst reviews I’ve read in a long time. If you’re going to criticise a film, then please use specific examples, not broad generalities. Only then can we see your arguments in context.

    And finally, what the hell is I SPIN YOUR GRAVE?!

  29. January 9th, 2011 | 4:39 pm | #29

    If you’re going to criticize a review, leave a legit email address, otherwise I don’t give a fuck about anything you have to say.

  30. January 11th, 2011 | 4:40 am | #30

    What a pretentious cocksucker lol

  31. crankyerma
    January 20th, 2011 | 1:06 pm | #31

    If you all think this review was unfair, read Roger Ebert’s review of either the original or the remake. It makes very little difference. Both are vile buckets of mean-spirited, mindless, boring, cruel shit that seem to hate women, men, the mentally handicapped, people who live in rural areas and most of all, the film-going public.

  32. crankyerma
    January 20th, 2011 | 1:12 pm | #32

    BTW, just because a reviewer has standards and holds filmmakers responsible for their actions doesn’t make him/her pretentious. Peter wrote a fair
    review of a film so vile that he felt impassioned about getting the word out. Besides, I find that when people describe others as “pretentious” it’s because they feel inadequate themselves.

  33. Final
    January 27th, 2011 | 3:00 am | #33

    So Peter, if you want to look professional you will retort professionally. If you don’t agree with what a commenter says then speak your rebuttal in professionalism, otherwise you’re just making a fool of yourself. This movie was better than many horror films I’ve seen in a long time and that was refreshing to me. Also the acting was better than most when you see a horror film. I’m so tired of seeing lousy acting in horror films, it almost has become a staple or to be expected to see crappy acting these days in films of this genre. Yes the hillbillies were a very stereotypical unimaginative villain per say, but the content was very entertaining with the twists and turns in the end. Also it’s awesome to see the contrast of the victims behavior switch from sweet to sinisterly devouring by the end. As the viewer I ended up rooting for her in the end because of how the movie was played out. The Saw movies bore me because innocent people get brutalized and there’s no justice, it’s just pointless. Same goes for the “Hostile” series..again pointless gore and torture. I spit On Your Grave gives justification and yearning to see revenge of the victim towards her perpetrators, and then delivers it making the viewer feel more satisfied. This movie had a better plot than most I’ve seen recently in this genre and I walked away from it pretty impressed actually. Also I want to add that you stated that in the end of the movie she places them all in traps that were rejected from the SAW franchise for being completely brain-dead. I couldn’t disagree more. In fact it’s quite the opposite…if anything the traps in Saw were utterly outlandish ridiculousness. In I spit On Your Grave the way she sets them up for death is more of a realistic Dexter type style I think. Ever heard of Dexter? It’s one of the most popular shows on cable these days, popular for a reason. Also you might be surprised that if you personally were stripped of everything in your life like this girl was, you just might find yourself morphing into a calculated confident killer with anger from a person that once dropped his/her cell phone into a toilet. All in all it’s a better movie than most horror films and deserved a MUCH better review.

  34. S.
    February 2nd, 2011 | 9:06 pm | #34

    The ONLY, and I mean ONLY thing pretentious on this page come from the butt-hurt industry plants or basement dwellers sticking up for this trite piece of insta-cash.

  35. ally
    February 6th, 2011 | 5:24 am | #35

    I have to agree with you sir, perhaps its because I’m not completely submersed in the neo lacksedasical trend of defending predictable and gratuitous gore for the sake of “projected” revenues. Tasteless shock and awe remakes are neither “risky” nor “preventative measures” against predators but are a wonderful tool to distinguish true horror buffs from the desensitized freudian phallus hating identity challenged primates skulking about the theaters in hopes they can “club a ho” cuz she’s magazine chic this week. I agree those defenders to that visual abomination had to either receive funds or methadone to disagree with your review. Hope you got extra for taking it all in at one sitting bud…

  36. Casey
    February 25th, 2011 | 5:01 pm | #36

    I cannot believe people are actually taking up for this peice of shit. I know Im late to the party by a long shot but WOW. People are actually trying to argue depth to a remorseless exploitation filck with no redeeming value?

  37. bill giaquinto
    February 28th, 2011 | 5:46 pm | #37

    i have seen the original and i thought it was great. the only thing i think is that they should have changed the characters names in the movie and the fact that jennifer is an author. they should have also changed the title completely and then it would not even be a remake. it is actually a great rape/revenge movie of it’s own. the methods of revenge are entirely different, as well as how the whole story went in general. it is the best horror movie i have seen in many years.

  38. Mark
    March 3rd, 2011 | 12:23 am | #38

    Seriously were are critiquing weather a Hollywood made move is realistic. When there are kids with magic wands, light sabers, and a well received movie like the dark knight exists. No one can figure out who Batman is with his multitudes of amazing expensive gadgets. Really, this is the your complaint.

    As far as the movie goes, I watched it and the original. Didn’t care much for the original, but actually found this remake to be above average. As far as movies of its genre go, Id put it above the Nightmare, Friday, and Halloween remakes easily. It seriously sounds as if you went into this movie ready to hate it because of its taboo subject matter and came away just as you wanted to.

    It had its flaws, but overall not a bad movie at all.

  39. gary
    March 8th, 2011 | 11:51 am | #39

    Haven’t seen the “I Spit…” remake yet, and probably won’t. I agree with your post, remakes of classic and cult films, for no other reason than name recognition. I’ve been tempted by, and watched, too many remakes that SUCKED! Examples: Hills Have Eyes, Friday the 13th, Amityville Horror. Why is the horror genre such an easy target for these remakes? Worse still is the fairly recent term “re-imagining”. Call it what it is, a REMAKE. And what’s up with sequels and prequels to remakes of movies of which there was only the original?

  40. Michael Carpenter
    March 9th, 2011 | 1:15 pm | #40

    @Final
    You are the dumbest motherfucker in here. I haven’t seen this movie and probably won’t. I’ve read enough of Peter’s reviews to know that he knows what he’s talking about. Your comment however showed such little brain function I don’t know how you’re breathing. “as the viewer, I ended up rooting for her” NO FUCKING WAY, that’s crazy, you felt bad for a victim and then good for her when she got revenge. You act like you’re the only one! How can you not figure out that Saw is speaking on the value of life and Jigsaw is basically saying “hey, if you’re not going to use your life then i’ll just fucking take it.” ERRRRRRRR, I get bored watching innocent people die. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU WATCH HORROR MOVIES? Do you only run out and find the ones where the victim wins out and gets revenge? Outlandishly ridiculous traps? The traps were engineering masterpieces. And as for calling the Hostel movies pointless, THAT SHIT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. Sex slaves and the murder trade have existed in Eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union. If you need to have that revenge moment, whatever, just don’t bitch about the movies that don’t have it. Personally, I want my soul to feel like it’s been raped after a horror movie, not like it could yell, “AW YEAH, YOU DID IT! GOOD FOR YOU”

    And Dexter really blows. He’s so gay.

  41. Travis Flack
    March 9th, 2011 | 8:07 pm | #41

    I liked the intensity of the film, but the “revenge” was too outlandish. The brutality of what the men did was extremely realistic, and the woman protaginist’s complicated murder spree seemed a little silly. Ropert made me think a little on this one too, look up his review.

  42. Sean Dufraine
    April 4th, 2011 | 10:06 am | #42

    Dude, you are a fucking idiot. Critic’s fucking suck. Yes its your opinion but there is no fucking need to nag on and on about it. You didnt like it so just let it be, there is no need to drag it on repeating yourself on how bad it sucked. Grow up, get out you low life fucking loser and stop bitching about movies.

  43. DiabolicallyRandom
    June 7th, 2011 | 7:47 pm | #43

    Remakes in general suck with few exceptions. Just because you have slightly better actors and effects doesnt mean a movie needs to be remade. The only fundamental change is that the torture genre has become profitable. Hence the cashing in.

  44. Valerie
    June 16th, 2011 | 4:01 am | #44

    Hello. I don’t normally read this review blog or anything, just found it googling around about this movie. Thought I’d mention a couple things.
    First off, hello…I’m a girl. And I’m a horror fan (less the cheesy sort, more the gritty kind). I just watched this, on the enthusiastic advice of a bubbly blonde girlfriend of mine. We both loved it. Absolutely. Now, is it Titus Andronicus? No. But is it a good watch that make you feel something? Yeah.
    Let me explain how this doesn’t glorify rape, or murder: there is absolutely nothing sensual about how she is assaulted. It is chilling, and frighteningly realistic (with, perhaps, the exception of the sheriff). Remember the way she walked as she wandered to the bridge? Yeah. Not sexy. Very visceral.
    Also, the expression on her face at the end is not a smirk. She did a great job channeling the tormented psyche of someone who has snapped. It’s not a “yay” moment, if you are paying attention. She is hollow in her victory.
    Now, why would a woman like this film? In a word, catharsis. Chew on that a minute.
    Ok, so there is no valid reason for this film to exist? Let me ask you this, then. Why is it a perfectly acceptable cinematic trope for a man to cut a bloody swath of revenge when his wife is raped and/or killed, (and maybe his kids, too, just to make it even clearer that he’s got nothing to lose), but it’s crazy for a woman? In Gladiator, we cheer for Russell Crowe to chop dozens of people into pieces, just so he can finally get some sweet regicide on. That’s just one of countless examples I could name, but the only major recent film I can recall that has a heroine avenging her slain husband is Salt (and I liked that, too). Are you telling me that the vengeance acted out in those very popular films is more likely or realistic than a rape survivor filling a bathtub with lye or mutilating one of her attackers with a pair of garden shears? Or that it’s harder to survive jumping off a fifteen foot bridge into a river than it is to manage the same jump from a helicopter a couple hundred feet up? C’mon. They’re not asking for the most outrageous suspension of disbelief here.
    Anyway, that’s just my two cents. And before you ask, no, I don’t work for the company that released this film. I just honestly liked it…liked it enough to google more information about it. Sorry you didn’t.

  45. pingback

    […] of “meh, why bother?”, echoing many reviews of Steven R. Monroe’s remake which labelled it ‘worthless’, ‘unnecessary’, and as ‘pointless’ as “being in the Guinness Book of Records for […]

comment on this article


Recent Comments