I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

So, we’re looking at a remake of that controversial 1978 classic. I decided to put together a bit of a double feature review to kick this thread off.

http://www.e-north American.net/kultura/4638...ob-dvaput.html

The only thing worth watching in this movie is the female lead. Honestly, just skip the rest...

Does this have anything to do with the book I Spit on Your Grave by Boris Vian?😕

Ashley Nguyen44 said:Does this have anything to do with that book *I Spit on Your Grave* by Boris Viacom? 😕

Not at all. It definitely didn't follow the book, and honestly, let’s be real—this kind of movie isn't exactly for everyone. It's a tough watch if you aren't prepared for it.

Ashley Nguyen44 said:Does that have anything to do with the book *I Spit on Your Grave* by Boris Viacom? 😕

I honestly think the title of Viacom's next novel should be set in the future tense and plural—something like "I Will Spit on Your Graves."

If anyone here actually knows their French better than I do, please feel free to set me straight.

David Walker4 said:So, we’re talking about the remake of that controversial flick from 1978. I actually put together a double review to kick things off, so here it is.

I was thinking about how we tend to revisit certain films, almost like an obsession, wondering if they actually hold up or if we were just caught up in the hype the first time around. It’s funny how memory works—you can go back to a movie years later and realize you completely missed the point, or worse, that the movie wasn't nearly as profound as you convinced yourself it was during your first viewing. Take those extreme, controversial cult classics that everyone talks about at parties. You know the ones—the kind of movies that make people uncomfortable even mentioning them. There’s this specific tension between wanting to understand why a piece of art is considered "transgressive" and the genuine visceral reaction you have when watching it. Sometimes, you watch something like *A Mexican Film* or *Irreversible* and you feel like you need a shower afterward, yet you still find yourself dissecting the director's intent for hours. It’s a weird psychological loop. I think there's a massive difference between enjoying a movie for its craftsmanship and being fascinated by its sheer audacity. One is about appreciating the lighting, the pacing, and the acting—like seeing a classic starring Monica Bellucci or Julianne Moore—while the other is more about testing your own limits. When you sit down with something heavy, you aren't just watching a story; you're engaging in a confrontation. It’s also interesting how our perspective shifts as we age. What felt like a revolutionary statement in your twenties might feel like cheap shock value in your forties. Or, conversely, a film you dismissed as "just mindless violence" when you were younger might reveal itself to be a biting social commentary once you've lived through a few more decades of reality. At the end of the day, whether we love them or hate them, these films stick. They stay under your skin. You can try to look away, but once you've seen them, you can't unsee them. That’s the power of truly provocative cinema—it forces a reaction, even if that reaction is just wanting to turn the TV off and walk away.

If you go into either of those movies on their own, you’re basically just looking at two mediocre flicks with some trashy elements thrown in for flavor. But if you connect the dots—if you take what one movie is missing and plug it into the other—you end up with a pretty decent look at how chauvinism and sexual violence played out across two different eras. It actually provides a solid foundation for a real conversation about the subject.

I haven't actually sat down to watch both of them yet, but honestly, I don't think watching the remake is going to change my mind much. It’ll probably be just as mediocre as the original. garbage I honestly think its cult status comes down to one thing: that raw, unpolished way the violence is shown. It was just shocking to the average viewer back then because it didn't feel sanitized, and frankly, that’s about it.

To be honest, I wasn't even that shocked when I first saw it about three or four years ago. I can't quite put my finger on why, though. Maybe it’s just because explicit violence has become such a staple in mainstream movies lately that nothing really hits the same way anymore. Mainstream culture is such an interesting beast, isn't it? It’s funny how we all collectively decide what’s "in" and what’s "out," almost like there's this invisible hand guiding our tastes. One day everyone is obsessed with a specific blockbuster or a certain fashion trend, and the next, it’s like it never even existed. It’s a bit of a whirlwind, honestly. I’ve always found that while mainstream stuff can be fun and easy to digest, there's something much more rewarding about digging a little deeper to find those hidden gems that most people overlook. It's like finding a quiet little bistro in downtown Chicago when everyone else is lining up at a massive chain restaurant—it just feels more personal. Of course, you need the big hits to keep the industry moving, but the real soul usually lives in the fringes.And how much extra is that going to cost me? I’m asking because I picked up a DVD over in the United Kingdom, and we all know how those British censors love to get a little too aggressive with the scissors.🙄).

I think you might have overlooked a key component in your psychoanalysis—at least regarding the first film, anyway; I can't speak for the second one. There’s this recurring theme where you see the collision between the raw, unrefined, and often uneducated "lower" rural world and that more polished, educated, "higher" urban society.

The idea that the explosive clash between these two different worlds leads to a downward spiral of violence isn't actually some new concept cooked up by the director of *I Spit on Your Grave*. It’s not even the core backbone of the plot—which usually follows that predictable pattern of local thugs attacking and victimizing some innocent outsider, only for that person to transform into a ruthless vigilante by the end. It doesn't always play out literally like that, obviously, but that’s the fundamental DNA of the story. You can see these same themes popping up in much older classics too; movies like *Straw Dogs* and *Deliverance* immediately come to mind when you look at the structure. Even more recently, there have been several notable films that fit this exact mold, such as...The BackwoodsIt’s right up there with *Irreversible*—you've got Monica Bellucci descending into this whole gritty, dark underworld filled with drugs, prostitution, and a shady subculture. Honestly, it feels like just as much of an unnecessary detour as watching *Deliverance* play out in the middle of nowhere. I've always had a bit of a soft spot for that classic hillbilly aesthetic. There’s just something about that raw, unpolished energy that feels more honest than anything you see in the big cities. It’s a vibe that sticks with you.It’s highly likely that these recent remakes have convinced producers that the general public's appetite is finally "mature" enough for yet another unoriginal piece of trash.

@ electricorca112

When you’re reading my reviews, just keep one thing in mind: I write for the "general public." So, when I use a word like "shocking," you have to view it through that specific lens, because what qualifies as a shock depends entirely on who you're talking to. To give you a real-world example, I have a brother who was born in '95. He was only ten years old when he sat down to watch *Scream* with my mom. She was absolutely terrified, while he just sat there cracking up. Now, if I were writing for some niche horror site that specializes in grindhouse or trashy cult cinema, I wouldn't dream of calling this movie particularly shocking. But we live in a world where people hold intense debates over whether a sixteen-year-old should be allowed to watch a Hollywood blockbuster featuring a few scenes of Angelina Jolie, or if such content might somehow stunt their psychological development. By those mainstream standards, *I Spit on Your Grave* is undeniably shocking—even when you account for censorship. In fact, it might actually be more jarring than films like *Deliverance* or *Irreversible*, simply because it lacks that layer of artistic context and stylistic polish.

I’ve been chewing on the idea of tackling *Irreversible* lately. I might actually pull the trigger on it eventually, but I haven't fully committed just yet. I decided to go this route because, frankly, it felt like a much steeper mountain to climb. My plan was to dive into a comparison between the remake and the original, while also testing whether I could take a film that feels fundamentally shallow and weave in associations and impressions that carry some actual depth. Maybe I’m being a bit too hard on myself regarding my own objectivity here, but my gut tells me I managed to pull off something meaningful with it.

I just watched the remake. It’s good—brutal, honestly. It isn't for everyone, but I have a weakness for those heavy, shocking films. Definitely one of the better horror movies I've seen lately.

electricorca112 said:I actually think the title of that Viacom novel should be in the future tense, like "I will spit on your graves."

Someone who actually knows French better than I do, please jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.

You're totally right about the French part—"je vais cracher" basically translates to "I am going to spit on your grave."
That book title alone has me so incredibly worked up... I honestly won't be able to relax until I finally get my hands on it and read it. 😁

Look, David Walker4, it’s not like I was throwing the word "shocking" around recklessly, nor did I ever actually accuse you of that. 😬

I was really just trying to wrap my head around—and explain to myself—how such a mediocre movie managed to achieve cult status in the first place.

(Though, let’s be honest, all those bans and censorship controversies definitely helped build up the mystique.)

I only ever saw the original, and honestly, back when it came out, it was pretty shocking
I watched something somewhat similar in a Korean flick once
Last night I caught Bedevilled—it’s about this woman getting revenge on everyone on the island for all those years of abuse😁 though things get weird when she snaps and starts talking to the sun😁 and getting messages

electricorca112 said:Look, David Walker4, I wasn't saying you were overusing the word "shocking," nor was I throwing that accusation at you. 😬

I was simply trying—partly to convince myself, too—to wrap my head around why such a mediocre movie managed to achieve cult status in the first place.

(And let's be honest, all that mystique generated by various bans and censorship efforts definitely helped its reputation.)

The reason I snapped is just that lately, I feel like I’ve been stuck in endless debates about what qualifies as "shocking," so the word was still ringing in my ears. For instance, my ex-girlfriend called me the other day after watching *A Mexican Film* and asked if someone without serious sexual or psychological issues could actually direct something like that, and why any sane person would even bother making it. On the flip side, I have a buddy who saw the exact same film while visiting Napa Valley, and he told me he didn't see anything particularly shocking about it at all. Even Ashley Nguyen4 and I had a pretty deep debate recently regarding the whole concept of shock value when we were talking about nudity.

As for the film's cult following, it isn't some unsolvable riddle. Take *Da Vinci's Code*, for example. Despite the massive budget wasted on it, I’d argue it's actually worse than *I Spit on Your Grave*. Yet, much like the book it's based on, which is also subpar, it maintains a certain legendary status—primarily because Vatican City made such a massive moralistic stink over the suggestion that Jesus might have had a sex life. In the movie itself, there isn't even any actual sex involved. It turns out that if you can just get enough conservatives to lose their minds over something, it instantly gains cult status among everyone on the opposite end of the spectrum.

That being said... whether the movie was mediocre or not... I think you have to possess a certain level of skill to film something that looks so much like pornography while simultaneously providing a foundation for discussions on various nuanced topics that aren't just forced. If you ask me, that’s technically much harder to pull off than filming a layered psychological drama where Julianne Moore and Nicole Kidman comfort one another. Especially when you know you've got a swarm of censors and busybodies breathing down your neck the whole time.

moderately entertaining 🙂

Man, that movie was absolutely brutal! But honestly? That revenge plot was top-tier.

Scott Davis32 said:Brutal movie. The revenge was executed perfectly.

First off—it’s actually quite educational and highly inspiring.
The keyword here is DIY.

Such an incredible movie. I’ve actually lost count of how many times I’ve sat through it... It gets pretty brutal at times, sure, but there's so much to take away from it. Honestly though, the original was kind of a mess.