Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Don't Believe the Hype

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Let me start off by saying the original I Spit on Your Grave (initially titled Day of the Woman, as far as I know) it's controversial, but not because of the subject matter. Last House on the Left pretty much started the market for that and, before that, there was I Drink Your Blood, in which Jerry Gross was involved as much as he was with Meir Zarchi's film. I believe the controversy spans from the hype created by "professional" reviewers like Roger Ebert and the marketing strategies employed by Gross himself. Audiences had a picture on their minds already, which in most cases is far worse than anything displayed on the screen. From there on, it was a matter of outdoing whatever was done before in terms of graphic sexual elements and violence. The Italian film industry did a great job at that with the same classic story line Wes Craven slightly modified from Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring. I saw a totally different movie from what Ebert or most people saw in 1978's I Spit... It stroke me as a serious, hyper realistic, minimalist and even uncomfortably lyrical piece. The much talked about record- setting gang rape sequence, as long as it seems to be for most people who vilify this film, is such a large chunk of it because, as opposed to the two first spin offs, it focuses on the physical suffering and moral degradation of the victim. Compared to the remake and its sequel and as brutal as it is, there's no magnifying of the sadistic element through verbal exchange and games or anything else. It's a vile act because there's nothing else to call it and no need to revel on it. The second half seems rushed and unsatisfying because, 1. The market Mr. Gross aimed at would want more brutality and 2. Most of all, the real point, as it came across me, was her moral dilemma and the victim's method, which was to lure the aggressors and, most likely, the audiences into believing she was some kind of masochist. I'll even go as far as to say that the impact, besides the subject matter, was mainly achieved through genuine tension build up and even a few jump scares, much like the good horror films from the era. That being said, I think in a perfect world you would say that I Spit on Your Grave 2010 exists only as background for Vengance is Mine (which for starters, being a quote from the Bible, makes for an intriguing title) and that part 2 has no legitimate reason to exist. In reality, is the other way around. Part 1, which whatever one may call it is not hyper realistic as the original, but all the contrary, exists because of the big audience there is for the so called "torture porn" genre. Therefore, Part 2 exists only because "fans" of the first one wanted a second serving of the same (which, in all honesty, lacks the creativity of the avenging schemes and devices and the little credibility part one had to it), even though there's no connection to the "original" and, part three, straying almost completely from Craven's basic formula and leaning more towards Ms. 45 or Death Wish's, is aimed at the wrong audience and, therefore, doesn't really have a reason to exist. Therefore, except for a couple of all too brief graphic scenes which consist mostly of Jennifer's fantasizing, this film doesn't really have anything to offer to audiences of the first two. The dialogue, which is a whole lot more copious, consists more on philosophical "diatribes" on justice, forgiveness and human nature than the "take back what you said" dynamics of the rest of the franchise. There are more characters to follow than just Jennifer and more development to them and the settings seem more likely for a rape victim than those in the former entries, too. Most of all, the overall moral of the film is a whole lot bleaker: While it's true that violence is the most contagious of diseases and creates a seemingly never ending cycle, and despite how vacuous the idea of justice may seem as it is practiced the "right" way, it only gets worse and worse... I particularly liked Doug McKeon's character (whose name is deliberately mispronounced by a law enforcement agent on several occasions) a lot. It offered a radically different perspective on the issue, and it's not the only one. In that respect, Marla was also pretty remarkable. If this film borrows from any other movies, besides the "vigilante" ones, is the original Last House on the Left, Eye for an Eye, the Accused and even Taxi Driver. Overall, I see why most fans of the franchise hated it and it's no wonder. It's a similar case as Robocop 2 or The Empire Strikes Back, not being directed by the same guy and not keeping up with the "trademarks" of the "saga." It's too serious for its own good.....

I really liked both 1 and 2 of Steve R. Monroe's I Spit On Your Grave movies, but this third installment directed by R.D. Braunstein turned into a bit of a joke.Years after her abuse Jennifer Hills (Sarah Buter) is is trying to get on with her life with the help of a psychiatrist and a support group. Not sleeping, daydreaming and hating life, Jennifer soon meets Marla (Jennifer Landon) who's "stuff the world" attitude and positive outlook on justice soon helps Jennifer with her own outlook on life. The pair become BFF's and begin dishing out their own form of justice. When something happens to Marla, Jennifer seems to lose the plot and go it alone in a sadistic, I-now-love-killing manner.In I Spit on Your Grave: Vengeance is Mine it lost the difficulty of abuse and the brutality of it that the previous movies had. It became more Saw than sad.If you liked the first two you probably won't like this much, but if you hated the first two, this attempt might be right up your ally.

I will certainly try to avoid spoilers in my review but have made sure to enter the spoiler warning just in case.I put off watching this series for a long time, I had read previous reviews both good and bad, I decided it was finally time to watch the trilogy. Knowing the first of the films was a remake I didn't have my hopes set too high (however I have not seen the original).I was impressed, I was disturbed, I felt for the character Jennifer Hills, I expected revenge and gore and the film delivered... by no means was it particularly innovative but I sparked emotion and that is important in a revenge/horror/gore flick.Part 2 was disappointing considering it was the same as the first film in a different location ... also I didn't feel as compelled to cheer for the victim character (I've already forgotten her name if that shows how well the movie was executed).I had about given up on the trilogy when I read the synopsis ... Oh what do we have hear? The return of Jennifer Hills, a character I enjoyed. Well heck, now I want o see it. I knew she couldn't possibly end up in the same situation as before so there as hope it wasn't going to simply be a rehash of the previous 2 films. I was excited, still felt some sadness for the Jennifer character, I really hoped we would see her struggle with the aftermath, maybe she would act as a counselor for other victims of abuse and rape, relive her story etc... but that doesn't make for an exciting revenge flick now does it ... I knew there had to be a vigilante angle... now I could only hope that she simply lost her mind and was to become a raving lunatic (Spoiler** Ya that's kinda what happened). Where this film missed the mark for me was from the get go every male character was played out to be the bad guy, even the good guys ... yes I get it, trust issues that makes sense and I really would have bought into it by the end had the Jennifer character met justice of her own ... The ending feels as though it can be interpreted a few ways, the entire story was just her fantasy and she will be set free into society to live out those fantasies (which is how I read it, and it certainly gives room for a 4th film)or that what we did watch actually happened and was now being recounted in therapy (because we do not know what happened with the officer in the park)... This is where I have the problem, to me she got away with it (either having served her time or having only had fantasies which she was about to pursue). They took an innocent character from the first film and made her the villain (which I fully support)but left her as the hero... I know this is all open for debate but I personally feel it would have been nice to see her go over the top, become what she once fought and paid the ultimate price.

This was probably my least favorite of all the grave-spitters, but I still loved it. I think there was a conscious choice here to break the franchise mold by holding back on the graphic violence against the leading females which is admirable from a social standpoint, but at the same time, people don't watch these films for lessons in morality. They watch them because they love the pay-off of revenge, and revenge this brutal just feels so much better when there is a really disturbing catalyst behind it. Quick flashbacks from the first sequel don't do much for building tension, and it's lazy film-making. That said, I wanted to give it 8 stars just because I enjoyed it so much, but in all honesty, while still enjoyably brutal, it's probably a star or 2 behind all the others.