David T The film is about revenge, almost more brutal in some ways than the original crimes. It has a dark focus on bullying the weak, not just the woman but the friend Mathew who is obviously mentally deficient. There are no special effects, no big expensive orchestral scores, in fact no music to speak of. The dialogue is gritty and natural, the setting disturbinly bucolic, this conflicts with the nast mysogynistic focus. Jennifer's character is hard to understand, no call to the police, just revenge plotted over a few days, a quick prayer in the local church, then ...

jonathanruano After watching Siskel and Ebert's Women in Danger series, I was intrigued by how bad some of these movies exploiting women in danger were. "I spit on your grave" was worse than I can ever imagine. I am not voting on this movie, because even 1/10 is too high. "I spit on your grave" does not have an original plot. In fact, writer-director Meir Zarchi ripped off the plot of Igmar Bergman's "Virgin Spring" and then made some alterations. However, it would be incorrect to assume that "I spit on your grave" deserves to be in the same league as "Virgin Spring." To be sure, "Virgin Spring" has a scene where the innocent Swedish girl Karin is raped and murdered and a scene where her father (played brilliantly by Max von Sydow) exacts a brutal revenge against the rapists. Rape and revenge, therefore, are common themes in both films. Yet Bergman's filmmaking does not linger over the rape scene. Moreover, "Virgin Spring" has yet another scene where the woman, who is meant to protect Karin, is wracked with guilt and despair over doing nothing to stop the attackers and worse still secretly wanting Karin to be raped. She confides her sins to Karin's father and tells him who raped and murdered his daughter in a truly powerful scene.With "I spit on your grave," we get the exact opposite of Igmar Bergman's elegant film. Unlike "Virgin Spring," "I spit on your grave" focuses and exploits one element of the plot: the rape itself. Some of the reviewers here estimated that as much as 40 minutes were devoted to showing a woman being raped multiple times. In addition, there are scenes encouraging the audience members to look forward to the girl's rape before it starts. What Meir Zarchi and the others connected to this travesty of filmmaking do not seem to understand is that libidos are aroused by consensual sex. That's what makes the Emmanuelle movies appealing and the same could be said for Lina Wertmueller's Swept Away where the young lady turns out to like being dominated and having sex with a dirty sailor. Yet Meir Zarchi does not have nearly as much class as the directors of the Emmanuelle films. He seems to have embraced the logic that rape is sexy and that most audience members relish the opportunity of spending more than an hour watching a young woman being violated. There is also another major difference between "I spit on your grave" and "Virgin Spring." As mentioned earlier, "Virgin Spring" is primarily a film about the human condition. We see Karin's mother worry over her daughter's long absence. We see another woman blaming herself for Karin's rape and death. We see Karin's father with visible signs of anguish on his face. We then see a moving funeral scene where the family tries to move on after burying their young child. The "Virgin Spring" is really a film about intelligent human beings experiencing complex emotions as a result of going through adversity. By contrast, "I spit on your grave," is devoid of any of this humanity. Meir Zarchi did not allocate more than an hour to the foreplay scenes and then the rape by accident. He clearly wanted the film to be about those things. Moreover, he made a conscious decision to leave out the human dimension even of the rape victim herself. We get no real insights into what the rape victim feels inside, because the director is more interested in hyping the concept of the rape itself than creating any sympathetic characters. Then toward the end, Meir Zarchi does something cynical: he films very briefly the rape victim's revenge against the rapists. This was done deliberately so that Zarchi could claim that he was not using rape as a form of entertainment at all. Yet I was not fooled by this cynical hedge for a second and neither should you. 0/10

christopher-underwood This is a difficult film because it is so unremittingly brutal and not just regarding the actions of the men here but also in the woman's revenge in the third act. She is engaged in a power struggle, complete with teasing and coaxing as was the case with the guys. 'Day of the Woman' is a much better title for the film and would at least help a little in those early scenes being assured there was to be some pay back. In the end, the main problem here is some of the acting is somewhat lacking, although Camille Keaton is great in a very difficult duel role as victim and avenger. I thought the use of the mentally challenged , 'village idiot' as I've seen him described, is far too overdone and undermines the film as a whole. It may have softened some scenes by distracting attention from the main horror but I don't think that as a good thing. I wouldn't recommend the film to anyone but wouldn't dissuade anyone either. Its obvious what you are in for and is surprisingly well made. The forest and river scenes glisten and glow like they certainly never did on my first video but then that did also soften the awfulness of some of these proceedings.

callanvass A budding writer moves away to move to a remote cabin somewhere in New York in the woods, with nothing but peace and quiet. Along the way, she encounters some mysterious men at a gas station. Not too long after, she is harassed and raped by the same men. She goes through an ugly transformation and turns into a female vigilante to get revenge on the rapists. This is one of the video nasties that people have talked about for years. It's up there with Last House on The Left, Virgin Spring, and Deliverance. Ostensibly, it was so bad that Roger Ebert walked out on the movie incensed. He gave it zero stars. With all due respect to Ebert, this movie wasn't made for the public. It's supposed to revolt you and be repulsive. This was never meant to be along the lines of "It's a Wonderful Life" This is a brutal revenge film and that's all there is to it. As far as revenge films are concerned, it succeeds in that aspect. In some ways I can see why it was banned. It's unrelentingly brutal in some scenes and the rape scenes are very hard to endure. I'm talking lengthy rape scenes that can make even the strongest of stomachs churn. The dialog is very simple, perhaps a bit lewd at times, but it fits the movie. I'm a guy and this movie reminded me of how disgusting other guys can be at times. It is a harsh reality of how guys view women at times. I can only imagine how difficult it was to film this movie for some of the cast members. The acting is decent for this sort of thing. Camille Keaton is gorgeous but a solid actress as well. Considering what she had to go through, I wouldn't be shocked if some of the emotion was real. It was a good job on her part. My only carp with her character is that I would have liked more character development. The people who portray the rapists are very good at playing perverted creeps, that's all I'll say. I'll be sure to word this as carefully as possible, but I was highly satisfied with the ending. Those that like violent revenge will be pleased. There isn't much gore, but many unforgettable images. I'll just say a castration is a highlight. This movie won't be for everybody. If you found Last House on The Left engrossing, this will be right up your alley. It's not a movie I make a habit of watching often, but it's above average for what it is. If you have the stomach for it, check it out6.6/10