I Spit On Your Grave (2010)

Hurricane-Dean

Just watched it there, it was banned nearly everywhere because

there is a pretty horrendous rape scene in it and other torture related scenes

but I watched it a friend and the gf and we thought it was really good, we were glued to it. Any one else seen it and have any other comments about it?

BigBenRoeth

Haven't seen it,will probably take a look but I suspect it will be an inferior toned-down version of the original

Hurricane-Dean

BigBenRoeth wrote: »

Haven't seen it,will probably take a look but I suspect it will be an inferior toned-down version of the original

I saw the original myself and it is more fast paced then the original when it gets into the

torture part of it

faceman

Its not banned in Ireland, and its a terrible movie. It missed the point of the original which is still banned here for some bizarre reason.

While the original's graphic violence and sexual scenes served a purpose, the remake sets out to shock without purpose, trying to come up with some inventive way to kill.

Although in credit to the remake, we didnt have the cheesy line, "Forgive me Father for I will sin"

I felt the rape scene in the remake was very tame therefore completely reducing the purpose of the subsequent torture scenes to nothing more than schlock nonsense that would make Eli Roth cream himself.

Hurricane-Dean

faceman wrote: »

Its not banned in Ireland, and its a terrible movie. It missed the point of the original which is still banned here for some bizarre reason.

While the original's graphic violence and sexual scenes served a purpose, the remake sets out to shock without purpose, trying to come up with some inventive way to kill.

Although in credit to the remake, we didnt have the cheesy line, "Forgive me Father for I will sin"

I felt the rape scene in the remake was very tame therefore completely reducing the purpose of the subsequent torture scenes to nothing more than schlock nonsense that would make Eli Roth cream himself.

Yea that was fairly shocking alright, eh I wouldn't say tame on the rape scene (guess I don't need spoilers anymore :rolleyes:) it was fairly graphic and as always what you don't see can be worse than what you do

faceman

Hurricane-Dean wrote: »

Yea that was fairly shocking alright, eh I wouldn't say tame on the rape scene (guess I don't need spoilers anymore :rolleyes:) it was fairly graphic and as always what you don't see can be worse than what you do

Have you seen the original?

Hurricane-Dean

faceman wrote: »

Have you seen the original?

Yea I have the two of them on my laptop, well as an older film it wouldn't be far off the likes of the deliverance to name one, but in comparison to newish films that have them stir of echoes, the last house on the left (just off the top of my head) I thought it was worse compared to these

Suspiria79

Come on and sequel, sequel like a pig, boy!!! Reeeeeeek Reeeeek , that's it, boy, come on, now you sequel!

ghostwriter

Haven't seen the remake and to be honest have no intention of after seeing the previous posts. I have the original on dvd which is a timeless classic. Very few remakes surpass their original when it comes to horror/thriller.

jaykhunter

ghostwriter wrote: »

I have the original on dvd which is a timeless classic.

LOL! So people that have seen both, which is the better film? (irrespective of the historical value the original has)

Aw man, please include spoilers in your posts because I think a lot of people haven't seen either film.

FrostyJack

The

rape scene in the original nearly made me throw up, I mean how could they let a girl run around ungroomed as that,

disgusting. Going to watch the remake on the weekend, though I heard it is very Saw-like, which is disappointing, don't think it has a look in at the Oscars

faceman

The original film, the female lead (Buster Keaton's grand niece!) won Best Actress for the role at a Spanish film festival.

Although it received massive criticism from many camps and obviously bans in many countries. The inital realise in the US was a heavily cut version.

Setun

Hang on a second - when people say the original was awesome do they mean in an ironic evid dead 2 kind of way, or are they actually serious!?

ghostwriter

jaykhunter wrote: »

LOL! So people that have seen both, which is the better film? (irrespective of the historical value the original has)

Aw man, please include spoilers in your posts because I think a lot of people haven't seen either film.

Could you explain to me what a "spoiler" is ? With my 1 (now 2) posts i'm a newbie to Boards.ie

Thanks.

faceman

ghostwriter wrote: »

Could you explain to me what a "spoiler" is ? With my 1 (now 2) posts i'm a newbie to Boards.ie

Thanks.

A spoiler is mention a plot point or ending or anything at all about a film that people might feel would spoil the film if they haven't seen it

If you take a look at the Film Forum charter there is a section that explains how to put spoiler tags on a comment. It's dead easy.

Phony Scott

I thought the remake was technically better in every way to the original. I completely disagree with you Faceman that the rape scene in the remake was tame. For me it was more emotionally involving, as rape, or certainly my understanding of it, is all about power control through violence. With that idea in mind, and that it was far better acted out, the rape scene in the remake, for me, was far superior.

The 1978 rape scene goes on way past the point of being viewable, which, in a way, is a point; but it also becomes very dull, very quickly, thanks to some very poor acting. You look at it and you go "yeah, I understand what you're trying to say, now can we move on please". But it doesn't. The second problem with the rape scene in the original is that the woman is debased to such an extreme degree, it makes the second half, and her methods, frankly laughable and unrealistic.

I’m well aware of the (doubtlessly part-apocryphal) story of how the director of the original film, Meir Zarchi, discovered a woman who had been raped in real life and how the police handled the events after. Meir Zarchi, came away incensed; then went on to make the original. If there is a point to the original, this is it and the director of the remake hasn’t got this point of view, or a point of view of his own for that matter.

At the end of the day I thought the remake was technically superior in every way. It’s more polished visually, the acting is much better and it has twists in the plot unlike the original. The second half is utterly ridiculous again, but mostly because it hoodwinks the audience into wanting blood thirst, utterly trivialising the earlier rape scenes.

For me, the original is garbage, whereas the remake is highly polished garbage. Still, both films are infinitely less offensive morally than ‘A Time to Kill’ which is still the very worst rape-revenge film ever excreted onto screen.

faceman

Phony Scott wrote: »

I thought the remake was technically better in every way to the original. I completely disagree with you Faceman that the rape scene in the remake was tame. For me it was more emotionally involving, as rape, or certainly my understanding of it, is all about power control through violence. With that idea in mind, and that it was far better acted out, the rape scene in the remake, for me, was far superior.

I didnt say the original was masterpiece by any mean, i just feel its far superior to the remake. By introducing twists to the plot prior to the rape scene, it dilulted the impact the director was trying to make.

wrote:

The 1978 rape scene goes on way past the point of being viewable, which, in a way, is a point; but it also becomes very dull, very quickly, thanks to some very poor acting. You look at it and you go "yeah, I understand what you're trying to say, now can we move on please". But it doesn't. The second problem with the rape scene in the original is that the woman is debased to such an extreme degree, it makes the second half, and her methods, frankly laughable and unrealistic.

This is where we disagree. The point of the scene in the original is to make for uncomfortable viewing. it goes on for longer than a scene like that normally would, to labour the point of how uncomfortable it is. we're supposed to HATE the villains. We're supposed to feel for the protagonist. The point being that when the second half kicks in, we're left as an audience at times feeling the gratutious violence and revenge elements are justified because we experienced the ordeal in the first half. This brings up a greater discussion about desensitising to violence on screen, justifying the brutalality of the revenge (would it have been justified if the first half was diluted or less uncomfortable?) Im not saying that the director fully achieved this but the point is somewhat clear in your viewing. The point is completely lost in the remake.

wrote:

At the end of the day I thought the remake was technically superior in every way. It’s more polished visually, the acting is much better and it has twists in the plot unlike the original. The second half is utterly ridiculous again, but mostly because it hoodwinks the audience into wanting blood thirst, utterly trivialising the earlier rape scenes.

For me, the original is garbage, whereas the remake is highly polished garbage. Still, both films are infinitely less offensive morally than ‘A Time to Kill’ which is still the very worst rape-revenge film ever excreted onto screen.

Of course the remake was more polished. It had a budget and professional crew. However the glamourised, stylish revenge killings totally detract from revenge element and render the film largely pointless.

Skerries

i saw bewbies hehehe!

Phony Scott

I didn’t mean to make it sound like I was countering everything you said, just the line were you said the rape scene was tamer. It's all hypothetical arguements from my end.

faceman wrote: »

By introducing twists to the plot prior to the rape scene, it dilulted the impact the director was trying to make.

I’m not sure how you felt that, you’ll have to give me a bit more pointers as to where you’re coming from on this.

faceman wrote: »

The point of the scene in the original is to make for uncomfortable viewing. it goes on for longer than a scene like that normally would, to labour the point of how uncomfortable it is.

If you read again what I said, you'll see I did mention that myself.

Phony Scott wrote: »

The 1978 rape scene goes on way past the point of being viewable,which, in a way, is a point

faceman wrote: »

we're supposed to HATE the villains. We're supposed to feel for the protagonist.

But really we don't because the characters in the original are all one dimensional clichés and very badly written. The remake isn't much better, but there is an attempt to give the characters some sense of depth.

faceman wrote: »

The point being that when the second half kicks in, we're left as an audience at times feeling the gratutious violence and revenge elements are justified because we experienced the ordeal in the first half.

I'll just say I've issues with that statement as a passive audience member. The audience is never really raped after viewing the first half and have no say whatsoever if the events that follow are justified. Unless they're idiots. Keep repeating; it's only a movie. It's only a movie. It's only a movie.

faceman wrote: »

This brings up a greater discussion about desensitising to violence on screen, justifying the brutalality of the revenge

I was going to answer this, but I'll hold back. I'm thinking of tackling the genre with a story which very much counters the idea that an audience is desensitised. I don't believe in the academic theory of desensitisation.

Anyway, less ranting from me, I rest my case, the court is yours Faceman.

faceman

Phony Scott wrote: »

I didn’t mean to make it sound like I was countering everything you said, just the line were you said the rape scene was tamer. It's all hypothetical arguements from my end.

I’m not sure how you felt that, you’ll have to give me a bit more pointers as to where you’re coming from on this.

If you read again what I said, you'll see I did mention that myself.

But really we don't because the characters in the original are all one dimensional clichés and very badly written. The remake isn't much better, but there is an attempt to give the characters some sense of depth.

I'll just say I've issues with that statement as a passive audience member. The audience is never really raped after viewing the first half and have no say whatsoever if the events that follow are justified. Unless they're idiots. Keep repeating; it's only a movie. It's only a movie. It's only a movie.

I was going to answer this, but I'll hold back. I'm thinking of tackling the genre with a story which very much counters the idea that an audience is desensitised. I don't believe in the academic theory of desensitisation.

Anyway, less ranting from me, I rest my case, the court is yours Faceman.

Bare in mind that I dont think the original is an excellent film, I only think its far better than the remake. The whole issue of violence on screen has never really been tackled properly by any film maker. Michael Haneke tried it with Funny Games and both his versions missed the mark.

Getting back to the characters. Adding the complexity of the twists to the characters in the remake only served to further alienate the audience from the characters as they become even less believable. Sure, in the original the characters werent exactly three dimensional either but their cliched portrayal was easier to accept by the audience.