I Spit on Your Grave 2 (2013)

Directed by: Stephen R. Monroe

Starring: Jemma Dallender, Joe Absolom, Yavar Baharov, Aleksandar Aleksiev, and Mary Stockley

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Exploitation, Rape-Revenge

Rated: R

Katie has just moved to New York in hopes of beginning a modeling career. In need of new photos for her portfolio she answers an ad offering a free set for prospective models. However, answering this ad brings her to the attention of some very dangerous men, and soon Katie finds herself trapped in a nightmare of rape and torture – one that the perpetrators will soon regret inflicting upon her.

I’m not really certain why this sequel was made, except to cash in on the success of the remake and cult status of the original film. The filmmakers tried to take it in a different direction this time, tackling the human trafficking issue, but I feel it may have taken on more than it could handle.

I found the plot a lot harder to believe than that of the previous film. Katie is extremely naïve, and I found it foolish of her to think that such an ad could be entirely on the up-and-up. When is something ever given away for free without some kind of catch, especially a photo shoot that typically costs about $2,000? I understand that she’s a country girl, but that doesn’t mean she’s foolhardy enough to walk into something that is obviously shady. (Let me be clear, I am in NO WAY victim blaming. The character did NOT deserve or ask for what happened to her. I simply think she was written as far too naïve for a girl living in a slummy part of town, who is obviously smarter and more resourceful than that. If anything it’s an insult to her character and to the audience.)

The initial attack I did find believable. One of the men from the photo shoot, Georgy, appears at her apartment to drop off a flash drive containing the pictures. He later breaks into her apartment, ties her up, and brutally rapes her – a graphic and honest portrayal of the horrific act. What follows is a bit more far-fetched, as the super catches Georgy in the act, and is stabbed to death in his attempt to rescue Katie. Georgy then calls his brothers to rescue him and Katie is drugged and packed in a crate, only to wake up in Bulgaria, laying naked on a bare mattress in a basement. (How they got her to Bulgaria is anyone’s guess, and has been a topic of much debate on the imdb.com message boards.) There she is brutally raped and tortured by the brothers and one man who paid the brothers for a turn. (This was the point where the flimsy human-trafficking subplot comes in.) Once she has been beaten to near unconsciousness, she is once again drugged, packed into the box, and left for dead. These men underestimate Katie’s strength, and for that, they will pay with their lives.

As in both previous films, Katie comes back with a vengeance and the viewers get to watch these rapists and their conspirators get their just desserts. I did like how Katie twisted the tortures each man inflicted upon her back on them as she was taking her revenge. However, I found it hard to believe that she could manhandle these grown men as easily as she does, as she is more petite than her predecessors, and these men easily ranged from 170 to over 250 pounds. To drag them through the sewers like she does would take greater strength than she looks like she could possess, but maybe she’s running on pure adrenaline.

I didn’t find the performances as convincing as in the remake or the original. Jemma Dallender does well in the first hour of the film as the victim, but when playing the badass revenge seeking heroine of the last portion of the movie, I feel she falls short. Joe Absolom was probably the most convincing as Ivan, the ringleader of the group, and he’s a little scary, but mostly just comes off as an angry older brother trying to clean up another mess Georgy has made. Baharov (Georgy) is really only menacing in the initial rape scene in Katie’s apartment, and Aleksiev’s Nicolay is nothing more than an egotistical drug-addled douche bag.

These actors cannot take the entire blame for these characters not holding up; they were just working with what they had. Georgy appears to be written as almost sympathetic after the initial incident in Katie’s apartment. He comes off as a little mentally and intellectually troubled, and I wonder if he’s a half-hearted homage to Matthew from both the original and remake. It appears that Georgy thinks that he and Katie have some kind of connection, and tries to take care of her – not understanding why she rejects him. In a twisted way he almost becomes sympathetic, except, like Katie, the audience cannot forget that this entire scenario is his fault. Unlike Matthew, Georgy was not coerced or forced into participating, he initiated the attack. His brothers wouldn’t have gotten involved if it weren’t for him. He may be intellectually challenged, but he is also violent and dangerous.  

The character of Nicolay seemed only really good for one thing, and that was supplying the drugs to keep Katie under control. Honestly, he was just there to add to the rape count and further humiliate Katie, and his obnoxious character was not really necessary. I think the film would have worked better if Ivan had the drugs and Nicolay wasn’t even in the picture. His character seemed like an afterthought – like “Oh, we need a fourth man, because the original and remake had a group of four,” and he could have been left out entirely.

To be honest, the human trafficking angle didn’t work, as there was only one paying “customer,” so he could have been left out as well. His entrance into the film wasn’t handled very well, as him being a customer isn’t explicitly made clear. He is just suddenly in the room with Katie with no introduction. The torture he inflicts could have been performed by Ivan, (if it had to be in the film at all) and the human trafficking subplot could have been dropped, as it doesn’t work with this particular formula.

I think this film would have worked better if it the men had left Katie for dead after the apartment incident. That scene was plenty brutal enough; her ordeal did not have to be extended to being transported overseas for continued rape and torture. The human trafficking angle could have been dropped, and the film could have just followed the original formula. It may have been a rehashing of the previous films, but it would have worked better than the contrived plot the filmmakers went with.

The rape, humiliation and torture scenes are very graphic. There is full frontal nudity from Katie and Ivan, as well as genital mutilation performed on both characters. The deaths are relatively slow and seem excruciating, which these men absolutely deserve, but at the same time, they don’t seem like enough after the forty-five minutes to an hour of watching Katie suffer. She is tortured for days, and raped repeatedly, director Monroe obviously ditching his previous less-is-more angle, exposing her completely to her assailants and the audience. As mentioned above, the rape scenes could have been trimmed back to the apartment scene and still been effective.  

Overall, this was an unnecessary sequel that attempted to take on too much while sticking to the original formula. However, it is not terrible for the kind of film that it is, although after watching the heroine be tortured for the majority of the film, having all of the rapists’ deaths crammed into the last half-hour was a little unsatisfying. This film focuses more on shock value than characterization and plot. It will make you cringe, both for the acts committed against Katie, and those she commits against her attackers. Still, I think the film would have worked better if the excess characters and subplots were removed, and there was equal focus on the demise of the rapists as there was on Katie’s ordeal.  

5.5/10

Trailer: 

Scream Bloody Murder (1973)

AKA: "The Captive Female,” “Claw of Terror,” and “Matthew”

Directed by: Marc B. Ray

Starring: Fred Holbert, Leigh Mitchell, Robert Knox and Angus Scrimm

Genre: Horror, Thriller, Exploitation, Slasher

Rated: R

As a child, Matthew killed his father, managing to lose his hand in the process. Ten or fifteen years later, he is released from a mental institution, his hand replaced with a hook. Upon arriving home, he discovers that his mother has remarried. Angered by this revelation, Matthew embarks on a killing spree, only pausing when he meets Vera, a free-spirited artist and prostitute who greatly resembles his mother. After spending time with Vera, Matthew decides that he must have her, no matter what the cost.

The first half of this movie is a slasher, while the second half is basically Matthew holding Vera captive. The first kill is pretty cheesy, but they get slightly better as the film progresses. The gore effects, however, are pretty awful, with the blood almost watery in some scenes. Once Matthew acquires a house and kidnaps Vera, the film slows down and becomes more of a suspense piece between the two of them.

Clearly Matthew has Oedipal issues that need to be resolved, something the asylum he was in as a boy must never have thought to tackle. His character is rather grating, especially his whiney voice. He is also afraid of anything sexual, thinking any man touching a woman in a sexual nature is hurting her. He goes into attack mode whenever he witnesses people showing affection toward one another. Vera is a strong, intelligent woman, despite the fact that she is a prostitute (an uncommon combination in films such as this). She seems to have a big heart, but she’s also willing to fight for her own safety.

While the tagline, “When You’re In Her Business, Sooner Or Later, It Has To Happen!” makes it seem like Vera was asking for this psycho to abduct her, the film doesn’t portray it that way. Vera is a much more sympathetic character than Matthew, and I longed for her to be able to escape his clutches. I loved that she was stubborn and resilient, despite her fear of Matthew and his psychotic rage. She spits food in his face when he tries to force feed her, and her escape attempts are honorable. Especially when, bound hand and foot, she manages to limbo out of the ropes binding her to a chair, hop downstairs, make her way to the telephone, use it to pull the gag from her mouth, then use her tongue to dial the operator for help. Some people find this scene laughable, but it’s a heck of a lot more than most damsels-in-distress do. I found the scene suspenseful and her efforts admirable.

The acting in this film wasn’t the greatest, but this is bottom-of-the-barrel grindhouse sleaze, so what do you expect? Holbert gives a decent performance as the perpetually childish, psychotic Matthew and his line delivery in a few scenes makes the film. For example, his calm, casual delivery of this line when Vera refuses to eat, “Eat, or I’ll cut your tongue from your mouth.” He ranges from this to a child-like tantrum when he brings Vera his gifts and she isn’t impressed, “See what I do for you? I get groceries and clothes and art stuff and kill people. And do you appreciate it? No!” (I can’t help it; I laughed at this line, a lot.) Leigh Mitchell kept up a strong performance as Vera, varying from friendly free spirit to fearful (but not pathetic) damsel to seductress. However, her portrayal of Matthew’s mother was very weak – though, in all honesty, so was his mother. The worst performance by far was from Robert Knox as Matthew’s stepfather – wooden and unable to express emotion, even fear. His shocked expression is almost laugh-inducing. 

This film also had its random moments, some funny, such as the dual-cane wielding old woman (whom the viewer and Matthew believed to be bed-ridden) and Matthew’s apparent ability to teleport at the end of the movie. There was an unnecessary scene where he killed the old woman’s dog – a dog that wasn’t doing anything to him. That scene felt like it had just been thrown in for shock value and could have been left out without marring the film in any way. 

There is no nudity in this flick, so if that’s what you’re looking for, you’re in the wrong place. The most you will see is Mitchell’s bare back when she’s getting ready to bathe, and even though she is supposedly naked, you can see the top of her underwear. It’s important to distinguish this from many other exploitation films of the era that dealt with rape and women held captive. Matthew kidnaps Vera because he wants a live-in companion, a friend, and a mother-like figure. He is attracted to her, but his fear of sex and the way he views her keeps him from trying anything sexual – something a little different for that sub-genre.

Overall, this was an okay flick. The performances were decent, some dialogue and scenes unintentionally funny, and the character of Vera was very likable. There was also a decent amount of suspense, despite the bad special effects and overall cheese.

5/10

I Spit on Your Grave (1978) Vs I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

I Spit on Your Grave (1978)
AKA: Day of the Woman

Directed by: Meir Zarchi

Starring: Camille Keaton, Eron Tabor, Richard Pace, Anthony Nichols and Gunter Kleeman

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Exploitation, Rape-Revenge

Rated: Unrated

Jennifer Hills (Keaton) is an independent writer from New York City, renting a cottage in the country to work on her first novel. Her relaxing summer getaway soon turns into a nightmare when she is attacked and raped repeatedly by four men from town. After her ordeal, she resolves to make these men pay.

This film is not for the easily disturbed. The rape scenes are very graphic and take up about a quarter of the movie. This flick is actually known to have the longest rape scene in a feature film. I wouldn’t say that is exactly something to be proud of, but it gives potential viewers a scale to measure whether they want to see the film or not. Jennifer is held down and forcibly penetrated, beaten mercilessly for fifteen minutes before being left for dead in the home she thought she would be safe in.

While the above sequence was brutal, drawn out and hard to watch, it did portray how horrific rape actually is. The revenge scenes were where things took a turn for the ridiculous. For instance, in getting back at two of her assailants, she seduces them and performs sexual acts despite the fact that she had been brutalized by these men only weeks ago. One of these men, she had the opportunity to kill out in a field where no one would notice, but decides, instead to bring him back to her house for a hot bath. Granted, this led to a much more vicious death, but it was ridiculous and not something I would think a recent rape victim willing to do. I think these scenes would have been more effective if the seduction hadn’t been a part of it. I also feel that the way she went about killing these men off was risky and left a trail leading right back to her. Maybe at that point she didn’t care anymore.

As for the acting, Keaton does a good job alternating from the carefree writer to the broken victim and, finally, to the woman hell-bent on revenge. Richard Pace is very believable as the mentally disabled Matthew, making him almost pitiable. In some ways, I do feel he was also a victim of his friends’ animalistic behavior. While it was wrong for him to participate, I do feel he was forced to a degree, and was afraid of what the other men would do if he refused. The other men are just common egotistical trash who think they have the right to invade the private parts of any woman they choose.

I didn’t like the style the film was shot in at all. To me, there were way too many wide-angle establishing shots where there should have been medium ones. I felt too far away from the characters when they were introduced for the first time at the gas station. I felt that some moments deserved to be closed in on because the multitude of extra space was simply distracting. The director used maybe three different types of shots throughout the entire film.

Overall, despite decent performances from Keaton and Pace, this film has little to stand on. The cinematography is amateur and Keaton’s behavior in the revenge sequences seemed highly unlikely and more of an excuse to show off the actress’s body. Aside from brutality, this film has little to offer.

4.5/10

I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

Directed by: Steven R. Monroe

Starring: Sarah Butler, Jeff Branson, Andrew Howard, Daniel Franzese, Rodney Eastman and Chad Lindberg

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Exploitation, Rape-Revenge

Rated: Unrated

Young novelist, Jennifer Hills, has rented out a secluded country cabin by a lake to work on her next book. She sees this summer retreat as a great way to relax and let her creativity flow. Her summer plans are destroyed when she is attacked, humiliated, beaten and brutally raped by five local men. Leaving her for dead, these men soon discover what it’s like to be terrified when Jennifer comes back for revenge.

I never thought I’d see the day when I’d legitimately say that a modern remake is better than the original film. I especially didn’t think this would be the one to curb my usual anti-remake tirade, as I thought there was no way that this could capture the essence of the original. However, this remake is different from many I’ve seen in the past because it actually has respect for the original subject matter. The original was a bare-bones outline while this version is the flesh to fill it in.

The writing is much better in this version. The characters are more defined and have their own little quirks. Jennifer’s much stronger and smarter in this version as well. She employs many well-known tactics to try to scare off an attacker, she fights back and she tries going to the police for help. (Something that she did not do in the original, which makes her killing spree a little less justifiable.) It is only after these methods fail that Jennifer takes matters into her own hands.

The character of Matthew was even more sympathetic to me in this one than the last. Again, he is almost as much of a victim as Jennifer, herself, because he never would have done anything to her without being forced by his “friends.” He is visibly horrified by the things being done to her and powerless to stop them. His actual participation, no matter the motive is unforgivable, but it can be debated that he was raped too. He is also the only one to feel remorse when the deed is done.

The length of the rape scene is toned down from the original, abiding by the less is more ideal. The audience sees a lot more of the emotional torment and humiliation the men inflict upon Jennifer and less of the violent acts themselves. We don’t need to see each individual man take his turn to get the point that each one violated her. Cutaway shots and dialogue can fill in what the filmmakers didn’t feel necessary to show. Both this technique and the original’s drawn out sequence successfully show the horror of rape, but this film does a better job of addressing the emotional breakdown of the victim.

The revenge sequences in this film aren’t entirely realistic, but at least they’re not insulting like those in the original. These attacks are thoroughly planned out, violent and cruel, and admittedly, reminiscent of the traps in the Saw franchise, but at least she’s not seducing these men to lure them to their demise. This is no femme fatale – this is a brutalized woman, probably half-insane, hell-bent on revenge. These kills are examples of what many people believe men like this to deserve – a fantasy of what some would like to do to such offenders. They also raise the issue that violence begets violence, and the question of whether Jennifer was any better than the men who attacked her when all was said and done.

The gore in this film is extensive and as uncomfortable as the rape and humiliation scenes. The torture these men endure at the hands of this young woman is every bit as detailed as the things they put her through – many of which are twisted around and used against them. This movie really is not for the squeamish.

The acting is also well-done. Sarah Butler really gives it her all in both the scenes where she is victimized and when she is doing the victimizing. Despite her tiny size and the fact that she’d hardly be able to move these guys – at least 180 to 230 lbs of dead weight – she manages to sell it with her performance. Chad Lindberg is very believable as the mentally challenged Matthew, making him less of a source of humor and more a source of partial sympathy. Jeff Branson was incredibly intimidating as Johnny, and I was actually surprised at how believable Daniel Franzese (the lovable Damien from Mean Girls) was as the voyeuristic Stanley. It was also cool to see horror veteran, Rodney Eastman (Joey from A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 & 4) cast in this film as well.

As I mentioned above, this remake truly seems to respect the source material for what it was – an exploitation cult classic of the rape-revenge oeuvre. This version just strengthened the original story and made subtle nods to the original film, i.e. the total price of gas ringing up to $19.78, etc. I also loved that they kept the same creepy harmonica tune from the original film.

Overall, this is one of the rare remakes you will see me value over the original film. The characters are much stronger, the heroine’s motives more understandable and the overall tone creepier. I actually felt a little creeped out being alone in my house after watching this film in broad daylight. That alone earns this film points as that is hard to do. This is not a film for everyone, and I don’t recommend it unless you’re familiar with the sub-genre of exploitation film and enjoy gory revenge flicks. For being the type of film that it is, it did its job well.

7/10