3/10
Why was this movie re-made?
5 July 2012
In the early years of the 1980's when video was in its infancy I watched some of those sensationalist 'nasties' such as Driller Killer, Texas Chainsaw and I Spit on Your Grave. Low quality, poor acting, bad plot lines, grainy colour et al. They held a curiosity factor but were of little merit when compared to the likes of Straw Dogs. These cheap movies had a limited market and exposure. So it begs the question as to why these should be re-made? If the theory goes that you re-make a movie to make something better than the original, then that is fine. However, in most cases the re-make is nearly always inferior. That refers to both mainstream cinema and gore/horror low budget flicks. This re-make of I Spit, although it has better camera work and production values, is nevertheless a like for like piece of work with elements of the original flimsy plot excluded. If you haven't seen the original then the plot would seem weak.

The first half of the movie builds up to the violent rape scene followed by the girl throwing herself into a river, presumed drowned. Not a comfortable viewing experience. But then the second half immediately delves into the individual acts of revenge by the girl, despite a month having lapsed without her body being recovered. The original movie showed the girl having returned home to get well before she returns to exact her revenge. In this movie her acts of revenge are just standard gore. The movie ends with many questions unanswered. Above all, why did these actors agree to make this rubbish. They surely will not be invited to appear in mainstream movies of any merit when this flick is on their CV's. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, except for those who like shock horror gore. If you must see it - try the original first.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed