I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE remake set for oct. 2010

[voltron]

My concern with remakes of these 60s-70s-80s exploitation movies of various types is that the original movies are so much products of their time that, when their themes are transferred to a post-2000 context, it usually just doesn't work because of this kind of incongruity - either that, or the 60s-70s-80s spirit is completely removed from the remake, manking it just seem like a effects-ladden contentless post-2000 flick.

I've seen very few such remakes that worked well. I have a hard time imagining "I Spit on Your Grave" or any other revensploitation plots/themes working in a post-2000 context.

My exact thoughts as well, TS. Most 70s exploitation flicks just have this grimy, seedy feel that could never be recreated nowadays, where there is so much emphasis on style (or non-style depending on how you see it), big budget effects, etc, etc. Most older low budget films didn't have time to dick around with pointless exposition - they had to say what they wanted to say in the most direct way possible and as quickly as possible. New mainsteam cinema p**ses me off so much because eyeryone has astronomical budgets to work with that the actual storytelling, atmosphere and style is on the backburner. There's no excuse for that. Most moviegoers these days just want to see ultra glossed over, shiny things so I guess it all serves a purpose in a way. I however am not impressed by that stuff and I avoid it like the plague. Back on topic, I don't really see the point of this remake, but I think the idea of placing an emphasis on the revenge scenes is a good idea, whereas in the original (which I enjoyed) the revenge scenes - especially the last couple seemed kinda like an afterthought in a way. So, in closing, I think I might give this one a go based on the revenge stuff. SUCK ON IT b***h! 

[Allhallowsday]

Allhallows:

WTF is wrong with you?  What are you so upset about?  You are incoherent.  Take a small sharp shock to your optic nerves and start again -
Charles Bronson's character was raped by the fact of the rape and murder that took place to his wife.  He was the protector, and was responsible.  He came back to commit vengeance.  The female protagonist in the first version of  "I Spit On Your Grave" came back to take vengeance for herself, in a very mythic grotesque construction. 
In the past, you have seemed like an educated man, and therefore I would have thought, would be conversant with the structure of Fairy Tales and other extremely violent folk tales & myths that exist.
Seriuosly - are you on medication?  I think you should be.  I made an innocuous remark about an extreme film - I think we see a lot of these here -
What with this being the old "badmovies" site and all . . . sorry, don't get what you're on about.

And oh - "horses**t" to you too, meine freunde -

peter

I'm not upset at all, simply expressing my opinion.  And I was perfectly coherent, you understood what I wrote.  I am sorry that I upset you.  I think what you wrote is horsesh!t, but that doesn't make me think you need medication.  'Cept maybe a chill pill.  I guess you're right, I'm not "conversant" enough in fairy tales and violent folklore.  Well, I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a film, spending an enormous amount of time examining the brutalization of a woman, rather graphically, I remember the content of the DEATH WISH film, which itself might be accused of exploitation.  But I don't see much justification for a comparison, DEATH WISH is nowhere near as graphic, and offensive, as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.  I think GRAVE is a hateful film, but I feel as strongly about LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT.  The "hatred" emoticon is for the film, not you, Denny, uh, Peter. 

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

Hmmm . . . I don't know if "entertaining" is the right word for this film.
Fascinating, perhaps?  Compelling?  All I know was, it drew me in and kept me involved in the story from first to last.  I cringed at the treatment the poor girl endured - but I also cringed a bit at the final payback scene.  Not in sympathy for the victim, but in visceral revulsion at what was done to him.

Make no mistake.  This is a BRUTAL film.  But it is well done.

No argument there..I cringed quite a few times myself when I'd first seen this one.  Revenge is a dish best served cold, indeed. And this movie exemplifies it above many others.

And yeah, the final bathtub scene.

I won't ruin it for anyone here who may not have seen the movie, but let's just say that it did for this movie what Psycho did for taking a shower, and that's still not giving anything away!   

[indianasmith]

Actually, there is a bathtub scene in this movie . . . but the final revenge scene . . . well, it's not in a bathtub this time!  All I can say is, if you liked the original, you
may like this remake.  But OH!  as a man, that last revenge sequence made me CRINGE!

[Javakoala]

I bought both on Blu-Ray the day they came out, then watched the original and then the remake.

I watched the original many, many years ago on the utterly crappy laser discs you had to take out halfway through and flip over. The original is the ONLY movie I ever stopped halfway through and told myself I would never finish it. Only the promise of closure by way of her revenge brought me back to the film to finish it.

The casual way in which the woman was brutalized horrified me, as was intended. I don't think the film was ever intended to be an average horror film. I wouldn't even consider it to be exploitation. I mean, if the thing had been made by some French film company, people would have called it "art". But, face it, the film never allows you to side with the attackers, not even when you see their "normal" lives. In fact, the fact the owner of the gas station has a wife and kids actually makes him all the more vile.

But, upon watching after all these years, I understand what was being done with the film, but I do find the revenge to be a bit unfocused, except for the bathtub sequence.

I was surprised by the remake. After the consistent dumbing down of older horror films when remade, I found this one to be properly restructured with a more modern spin to the attackers. In the original, the attackers were acting on some twisted justification that they deserved to do what they did because the victim represented every woman who had looked down on them individually and throughout their lives. In the remake, they see the whole attack as entertainment, basically, and the woman is little more than a blow up doll to them. In fact, when they ultimately finish with her, they intend to snuff out her life from a distance, just like using a remote control to shut off a DVD player when you are done watching a movie. Their actions mean nothing to them beyond a way to pass the afternoon.

And the revenge is perfectly in line with the attack. She kept thinking, hoping for a chance to escape her situation, as if there had to be something she could do to save herself, until all hope is stripped away and she realizes she is utterly at the mercy, or the absolute lack of it, of her attackers. When the revenge starts, she provides each of her attackers the same experience. She devises situations in which each person believes they can prevent their fate, escape the outcome, yet they ultimately realize they never had a chance.

Worth watching? Both of them, yes. But I can never say I will like these films. Respect the harsh images and ideals presented, yes, I do. But these are not movies I will ever casually toss into the player to pass the time.