I Spit on Your Grave (1978) User Reviews (389)

Brutal

[Gafke · 6/10 · 31 December 2005]

I tried to watch this film once before and made it up to the second rape scene before leaving the room, believing I was seriously about to throw up. I finally forced myself to watch it all the way through recently, and I'm glad I did.

Jennifer Hill is a young, hip, free-spirited woman of the 70s, who leaves her home in New York City for a long vacation in Connecticut, where she plans to write her first novel. Jennifer soon attracts the attention of four lowlife scumbags as she sunbathes in her bikini. The semi-evolved thugs kidnap Jennifer, drag her into the woods, rape her, beat her, sodomize her, beat her some more, follow her home, rape her again, kick her when she's down, make fun of her manuscript, rip it to shreds, rape her with a bottle, beat her up one last time and leave her, bleeding and unconscious on the floor of her vacation home. Damn. They send the retarded Matthew back into the house with a knife and instructions to kill her, but Matthew can't bring himself to do it. He tells the guys that he has killed her, and they stupidly believe him and leave. But Jennifer is alive, and as she heals from her hideous wounds and recovers her strength, she plots revenge against her rapists.

Roger Ebert called this the worst film ever made and feminists damned it to hell for all eternity, but you know what? I'm a woman and I liked it. Jennifer is no weak, whimpering, helpless little victim. She tries her best to fight back. When threats and violence fail to work in her favor, she uses the only other weapon she has: sex. The men are all stereotypical slobs, disgusting pigs who are clearly already emasculated and use Jennifer as an outlet for their frustration and rage. The rapes have nothing to do with sex and are portrayed most realistically - they are ugly, brutal, violent, nasty and completely devoid of eroticism. The sodomy scene was the one scene that horrified me the most, as Jennifer emits the most bloodcurdling scream of pain ever heard. It is very difficult not to flinch from that sound. Jennifer's revenge is every bit as bloody and painful, and nowhere is it more sadistic than in the infamous "bloodbath" scene. These guys all get what's coming to them, and Jennifer makes sure that the punishment fits the crime, turning the men into the helpless, pleading victims and feeding their own sadism right back to them.

Okay, so not all of the plot points make sense, and not everyone is going to agree with Jennifer's decision to kill the men, but it's still a powerful film. It's told primarily from Jennifer's point of view but it never takes sides. It simply tells the story and lets you decide - is Jennifer an insane psycho-killer who ought to go to jail for her crimes, or is she an angel of vengeance delivering poetic justice?

Scaredy cats like me might prefer to watch this film with the audio commentary by Joe Bob Briggs turned on. Joe Bob provides a lot of interesting information about the making of this film, and also supplies some much needed comic relief throughout.

An extreme exploitation flick that works out surprising well.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 23 September 2008]

Lets just forget the title "Day of the Woman", the alternate title for which this movie is much better known for; "I Spit on Your Grave" is a far better one and part of the reason why this has become a sort of a cult-classic over the years. It's a pretty repulsive and extreme movie in which a young woman gets gang-raped. The second part of the movie focuses on the woman, taking revenge on her rapists, Charlie Bronson style, that on its own right is also pretty extreme as well.

This movie features the longest rape scene out of movie history? I don't know but the entire first halve of the movie is basically about the woman getting raped by 4 different guys, multiple times, in various violent ways. It just never stops and just when you think its over it starts all over again for her. That is what mostly makes the rape within this movie shocking and disturbing. It's something pretty extreme for a movie to feature, even for an '70's exploitation flick.

Also the way the woman takes revenge upon her rapists is pretty extreme and mostly original as well. The movie its story basically features too extremes; rape and killing. It's combination might not be unique but the way it is being handled within this movie is. On top of it all, it works out well within the movie, much to my own surprise. I mean, the main story for this movie sounds pretty ludicrous but because of the two extremes within the movie, the movie balances out well. I especially liked the way the second halve of the movie worked out, in which the woman starts her revenge. I can't of course with a straight face claim that this is a brilliant movie or anything like that, it's far too amateur like made for that but it basically is great as an '70's exploitation flick, that is worthy of its cult status.

For yes, it's an obvious very cheap made movie, with poor production values. The sound sounds pretty messed up at times and the acting is just plain poor for 80% of the time. Especially Camille Keaton is no great natural acting talent and is the reason why she isn't active in the business anymore and has never broken through. She was married to the movie its director/writer/producer/editor Meir Zarchi at the time, which probably was the only reason why she got cast in the movie. Appearantly she also is the grand-niece of the brilliant Buster Keaton and I must say that she looks a bit like him.

A great movie for what it is.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Deadly Revenge

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 4 January 2009]

In summertime, the aspirant New Yorker writer Jennifer Hills (Camille Keaton) rents a lakeside cottage in the woods of the peaceful Park Hell Lane, Connecticut, to write her first novel during the vacation. A couple of days later, she is successively and brutally gang raped by three local bigoted rednecks and one retarded delivery boy from the supermarket. The humiliated and abused Jennifer does not report the sexual assault to the police and a couple of weeks later, she is physically recovered and has just plotted revenge against the rapists.

"Day of the Woman" is extremely realistic and violent; therefore the simple and scary story is absolutely credible. The unknown Camille Keaton has an amazing performance, especially in the impressive long sequence when she is repeatedly beaten and raped. However, this gore movie is only recommended for very specific audiences and prohibited to sensitive persons due to the savagery of most of the scenes. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Vingança de Jennifer" ("The Revenge of Jennifer")

Widely misunderstood.

[Moshing Hoods · 15 January 2002]

Of all the films that were implicated in the absurd and sickening tabloid-fueled "video nasties" witch-hunt in the UK, some were demonised more than others. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE joins a select few as being one of THE films cited for causing the most problems at the time. Certainly, the title and advertising campaign (in classic exploitation fashion) was garish and contentious, but unlike some other films that suffered the same fate (such as SS EXPERIMENT CAMP), Zarchi's film is extremely powerful and disturbing... not to mention widely misinterpreted.

I've read a large number of reviews of this film. A worryingly high percentage of them accuse this movie of somehow advocating rape, and being sexist and demeaning. That is the last thought that crosses my mind whilst watching this. The whole "rape/revenge" genre is one that is fraught with moral contradictions. In essence, films of this type ARE exploiting the subject of rape (and sadly, often presenting it in a sexually ambiguous way) but does this mean that they are not able to condemn the subject matter, or offer a powerful criticism of the behaviour of many men towards women? The same school of argument is used against critical film-making like CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST- can a film truly condemn what it exploits? I believe so, and I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a triumphant example of this, putting forward more powerful a message about violence of rape and the attitudes of some men towards it than any other movie I care to mention. However, it goes even deeper than this in this particular case. Zarchi doesn't praise the rapists- nor does he condemn them. Similarly he offers no moral judgment on the revenge that is carried out by the female protagonist. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE offers a truly subjective message in that it presents gritty reality and leaves the viewer to make up their mind on the matter.

Much is made of the fact that the rape scenes last for around forty minutes. It seems that a lot of critics think that by proxy, long scenes of violence equal pure exploitation. In this case, this is far from the truth. The scenes are horrific, grueling and ugly. There is no kind of glorification of rape here. The scenes are shot practically real-time which brings home the gritty and sickening nature of what is being displayed. Furthermore, a lot of the scenes are shot from the victim's perspective. The revolting sight of sweating, grunting men is absolutely anti-sexual and anti-erotic, which is of course EXACTLY what it should be in this context! Rape has little to do with sex, and a great deal more to do with violence and power. This is expressed superbly in the sequences in this film. Sanitising the scenes that are supposedly "exploitative" would trivialise the very serious issues at hand.

The men presented in I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE are nothing to emulate. Nothing is even said about the backgrounds of their characters- they are totally faceless within the context of the film (other than one long shot later on which shows one of the men with his family- merely proving him to be a liar and cheat as well as a rapist). The point here is that they don't even NEED character building- they represent the threat and actuality of sexual violence that women face every day. The final and most telling twist is that these men are then so gullible and arrogant that they could be seduced and murdered by the person they had attacked. If Ebert and all his sniveling comrades are really right about this film "promoting sexual violence", they must see something appealing in the behaviour of these men.

Despite what you might read elsewhere, I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a tightly constructed and well crafted piece of film-making containing some powerfully symbolic imagery. Scenes such as Keaton sitting broken and alone in her house after her attacks or her swimming costume limply floating in the river are extremely effective. There is also practically no music in the entire film. The viewer can almost feel the sense of isolation at every stage of the story- initially it is liberating but it quickly becomes frightening as events unfold. The simple cinematography reflects the isolated feel of the locations that frame this film.

Many horror films can be fairly accused of being misogynistic. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE takes these concepts of misogyny and totally turns them around. This film is EMPOWERING, and whilst it does have the cynical production of an exploitation feature, Zarchi took this and created a powerful, bitter and dynamic story with many issues being explored therein. It's great. Check it out if you haven't already, and if you've watched it before with the wrong approach to it, I demand you have another look. This is one of the pinnacles of the genre but sadly it is (in)famous for all the wrong reasons.

That's what I like in a woman - total submission.

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 4 October 2007]

This is a hard flick to watch. When it was shown in theaters, people walked out after seeing certain scenes. Rape and castration are not everyone's cup of tea.

Revenge flicks are hot right now with The Brave One and Death Sentence. Of course, there is the Death Wish series that defined the genre. I originally saw this film after it came out on VHS. I've seen it many times, but that is a long story. I decided to revisit it after not seeing it for 17 years.

The rape scenes are brutal, especially the one on the rock. The revenge scenes are also harsh, but satisfying in a vengeance sort of way.

Arkansas native Camille Keaton, who is a grand-niece of Buster Keaton, gives a stirring performance as the victim. She even won a Best Actress award at the Catalonian International Film Festival. The rest of the cast only have this one film in their resume.

Hated By Some, Praised By Others...

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 4 January 2011]

A young woman (Camille Keaton) is spotted by a group of men while writing near a river. Not much later, things go from tranquil to nightmarish for her... where do you go after you reach the lowest possible point in your life?

The director's commentary with Mier Zarchi begins by revisiting the history and controversy over the film -- is it a story that is sick and makes woman out to be nothing more than a sexual object, or is it a feminist film where the "day of the woman" allows the victim to strike back?

Zarchi finally reveals the film's inspiration: in the early 1970s, he and his friend Alex Pfau (a protégé of Roman Polanski) witnessed a rape victim after the fact, her body naked, bloody and broken. They brought the young woman to the police, but allegedly the officer on duty was not very concerned. At this point the director realized that being questioned by the police is not the solution to the rape -- at least not yet -- but the continuation of it.

The film is certainly the most explicit up to the time it was made, and some might even say up until today. Those who do not know what to expect may be very shocked by this film if they see it uncut. Then again, even cut, it is a shocking film -- what would be a two minute scene in some films goes on over an hour here.

Mike Mayo praises the film to a point, but considers it "crude and single-minded" and suggests viewers check out Abel Ferrara's "Ms. 45". Indeed, the film has a pretty thin plot, but its point is clear, and even the attackers get fleshed out a bit in the second half.

What should we make of the church scene? Can you reconcile Christian beliefs with murder or revenge? That is not a question I choose to answer, but certainly a question raised by this film, whether intentionally or otherwise.

The film is a natural step from "Last House on the Left", actually upping the ante. And Camille Keaton has to be honored for such dark subject matter and tackling it head-on. This could have been a career killer, and perhaps it was, though it has sealed her place in cult film history.

There is also a 29-minute special feature called "The Values of Vengeance" which is insightful, though does not cover much the commentary does not. Of course, if you want to actually see Meir Zarchi's face, here is your chance. And you will hear a nice story about Wizard Video's shrewd business dealings.

The P is Pronounced as an H...

[Xstal · 4/10 · 26 February 2023]

You plan to spend the summer locked away, in a cabin in the woods is where you'll stay, start to write a piece of fiction, enjoy your time without restriction, what could possibly go wrong, get in the way? It's not too long before you're woken from your dream, as four assailants hunt you down and make you scream, raped and beaten left for dead, terror, fear, alarm and dread, but you will get recompense, and start to scheme.

A vicious and brutal piece of filmmaking that has the remarkable Camille Keaton excising a violent attack from her mind by replacing those memories with ones that are far more rewarding.

Strengths and weaknesses, controversial for a reason

[Stay_away_from_the_Metropol · 6/10 · 1 October 2019]

I am honestly kind of surprised by the lack of reviews in the 4-6 out of 10 range. To me, that's exactly the range this movie belongs in.

First of all, I'd heard of how controversial this film was since I was in high school (around the year 2000) but never quite had the urge to seek it out considering it was commonly described as being mostly just rape, I suppose. Finally, in 2019, I felt it was the right time - and, it lived up to it's legend, in the sense that the majority of the movie really was just one long, extended rape scene. 2/3 of the film basically revolves around that, I'd say. I definitely haven't seen that in any other movie, ever, which does give this film it's own identity. But, as one would assume, it's not pleasant. It's also not impressive in the sense of realism, or in any sort of artful manner. So, instead, you're just choosing to watch an hour of gritty, artless, trash film rape. Since this is the majority of the film, this is what loses it the most points. I seriously doubt I will ever watch it again.

I think the movie is a bit long for what it is. If it were hyper-realistic, the grueling pace would make more sense, but since the acting is schlocky, it would have made more sense to move things along quickly. I really think this film would have served a lot better as a 80-85 minute feature rather than a 100+ minute one. Those 15 minutes of cuts could make a world of difference.

The complete lack of soundtrack also gives the film a lot of it's own unique character. While a haunting score is generally one of my favorite elements of vintage horror, I ended up admiring this movie's complete lack of one. The sound of the motorboat coming really does become I Spit On Your Grave's "theme song", and it's pretty effective in that regard.

On the plus side, Camille Keaton really does bring a lot to the role. This was a very brave performance on her part and the shift from battered victim to sly vengeance seeker is actually believable and satisfying. Though the final act wasn't enough to redeem the movie much as a whole, I did find the acts of vengeance to be quite satisfying and memorable in comparison to a lot of forgettable horror deaths throughout history. I also enjoyed the cinematography for the most part - as often stated, it has a very real element of amateurism and also voyeurism to it, which adds a lot to the gritty surrealism of it. All the distant, out-on-the-water shots really did create quite a bit of an out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere ambiance.

This is a controversial cult classic for a reason. If you're a fan of gore, exploitation, or movies that push things as far as they can go, then yes you should absolutely see this. If not, don't even think about it!

Not even good enough for cult status

[frankspp · 1/10 · 31 January 2021]

I'm sure some people will find a big political statement or something in this total piece of crap. But sometimes a total piece of crap is really just a total piece of crap.

Silly Camp

[zippyflynn2 · 7/10 · 28 October 2006]

I had heard that this was a controversial film, brutal, terrible, the worst film ever made, etc. Usually I stay away from slasher, violence for violence sake films and figured this was in that category, so I had no interest in it. Then I got a copy for free and thought, okay, let's see what this is all about. It was so laughable, reminding me of many of the pornos made back during that period (the 1970's). A simple, linear story with the details and dialog probably being "written" as they were shooting with their one (maybe two!) unsophisticated cameras. Not one talented individual in the bunch, direction, camera work, and the acting so badly over the top and ludicrous that you can't possibly take this movie even remotely seriously. It's a silly, campy film but you can tell that they were trying to sincerely do a real horror/revenge film, so I give them high marks for effort. It's the kind of shallow, vapid entertainment that the shallow, vapid high school boys used to enjoy over a few beers and bong hits in the drive-ins back when it was made. I could see how someone might list it as a guilty pleasure: it's rather mindless, primitive, and ridiculously clichéd enough to have the same guilty pleasure one would get from an off color joke. I found the movie so ho-hum that I realized the "controversy" was more absurd than the film itself. Were feminists really outraged by this moronic offering? Did Roger Ebert really call this "the worst film ever made"? (Wouldn't surprise me actually, he's recommended enough real dogs that I think he's become, or always has been, an out of touch ivory tower cinephile who overvalues his own opinions and the general b.s. of the movie world.) It's not realistic in the least bit, so how can you be offended? It's a little like watching "South Park" and thinking that the characters are evil children. They're cartoons, people, a parody, satire, even farce if you will, but hardly reality. I place this silly film in that same category. If what people are offended by are the IDEAS behind the film: brutal rape, wanton revenge then I think what they're really talking about is a desire to enforce their own brand of censorship. True, violence and rape are unpleasant and nothing I care to indulge as entertainment, nor do I watch so-called "normal" television shows that preach a much subtler form of barbaric brutality, often touted and socially accepted as wholesome entertainment, even comedy. But I do not believe they should be censored. Censoring does not stop people from thinking, believing and acting in any specific way. I don't enjoy watching these movies and shows, I don't particularly like them, I think they're a sad indicator of what brutes most people really are despite our facades of civilizations, but if I don't like them I TURN THEM OFF. Very simple. If you want to get angry, get angry at the real brutality that goes on a constant basis virtually everywhere in this hard world. But getting upset over this nonsense? Come on, get real.

Day of the Woman?

[christopherbelhumeur · 1/10 · 27 October 2005]

The people who seem to like this movie try and tell us that it is alright to show the degradation this woman goes through because she gets revenge. They want to say that it empowers women because she kills them for what they did to her. While some very basic revenge movies do have the pay off that we are looking for when the victim kills the people who violated them, this movie does not empower anyone. This is sadistic violence followed by more sadistic violence. Any rape survivor will tell you that the way they feel empowered is not by killing their attackers, but by surviving and taking back their life. Even for a rape revenge movie, where we expect a violent revenge, this had our heroine going beyond revenge and acting as disgustingly as her attackers. So she is empowered because she has sex with the one guy that couldn't "finish" during the rape and hanging him right after he "finishes"? The rape goes out of it way to show her naked as much as possible, and to rape and sodomize her in as many ways possible. When we get to the revenge, she degrades herself by putting herself into sexual situations that wouldn't even be possible with THESE idiots. Rape is about power. No rapist is going to put himself in any of those situations, situations that are only presented here to try and titillate the audience. Some say that she has basically lost her mind at the end. How is losing your mind considered empowering. For her to do what she did, or if she has indeed lost her mind or morals, shows that the rapists have won.

I just want to make it clear that I like a good revenge movie. I don't mind violence in movies, even sexual violence. But there needs to be a reason for the violence. Irreversible showed how bad violence was whether it was the rape or the revenge. This is simply the worst kind of exploitation film that tries to justify itself by trying to attach some sort of statement.

A neglected cult classic worthy of an larger audience.

[Captain_Couth · 9/10 · 19 November 2003]

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (1978) is one of the most notorious pictures ever released during the seventies. Along with LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and Thriller: A cruel picture, it's one of the greatest revenge flicks of that era. A feminist writer goes out to the country so she could have some peace and quiet whilst working on her first novel. Instead she runs into a group of male locals who decide to have some fun with her. Unlike many other movies of this ilk, I.S.O.Y.G. is not like other"exploitation films". There is nothing sexual or provocative in this picture. The director wanted to show what it's like to be raped and the after effects of such a traumatizing event. He went through great lengths in research and from his own personnel experience. I found it to be a very different film than all of the others that deal with the same subject matter. The film-making (for a first time director) was very well done and for the most part the acting was up to par. I am proud to admit that I have this film as part of my collection. Don't believe the hype. This is a good movie.

Highly recommended.

P.S. The subject matter is real graphic, but rape is not enjoyable. The director did an excellent job of portraying the true horror of it instead of hollywoodizing this dirty, degrading act.

I Spit on Your Grave

[Tweekums · 7/10 · 8 September 2019]

These comments are based on watching International Trading (UK) Ltd DVD certified in 2001; this version has major edits to the more disturbing scenes; the 'alternate versions' section gives a more complete description of the cuts.

This film tells to story of Jennifer Hills; a New York writer of short stories who has decided to spend the summer in the Connecticut countryside writing her first novel. Here she attracts the attention of four young men; the attendant at the gas station, two of his unemployed friends and Matthew, the somewhat simple deliveryman from the local shop. Later they take a boat to her house and she is brutally raped. This happens three times; on the river bank, in the woods and finally back in her house. Not wanting to leave a witness they send Matthew back into her house to kill her but he can't do it. He just tells them he has. Two weeks later they are concerned as the murder has yet to be reported; soon after they learn that Matthew lied. In this time Jennifer has recovered and now she is ready to get her bloody revenge on the four men.

Normally I'm not a fan of censorship but having read some other reviews I'm not sorry that the version I saw was cut; the rape scenes were disturbing enough even with substantial cuts. The story may be basic but it is effective. There may be little in the way of character development, especially for the men but I suspect that was deliberate... it makes everything seem more matter of fact. This feeling is increased by the almost total lack of music. While there isn't much to enjoy during the gruelling rape scenes they do make it easy to sympathise with Jennifer as she extracts her revenge. The revenge section may be more enjoyable but it still has its very disturbing moments; notably the sound of one of the men calling out for his mother after Jennifer deals with him in a way that will have most male viewers crossing their legs and wincing! The acting isn't great but it is okay for a low budget film of this type; Camille Keaton's performance as Jennifer is certainly the best. The story does contain plenty of plot holes that left me wondering if Matthew wasn't the only simpleton in the group! Overall this is a hard film to recommend but if you are a connoisseur of controversial films you will want to see it.

A terrible film on many levels *SPOILERS*

[Daedo · 1/10 · 11 July 2002]

I Spit On Your Grave was one of those movies in the ilk of 'Cannibal Holocaust' and 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' which was banned in the UK by the BBFC for many years. Like these films, it has now received a commercial release, albeit after several cuts were made to cut down on the extreme violence portrayed within. And if this is what the film was like after cuts, I shudder to think what it was like before.

The film is about a female writer who decides to take a trip to the countryside to get away from bustling New York and work peacefully on her new novel. This is shattered however, when a bunch of local hicks ritually abuse and rape her. Instead of calling the police, she decides to take matters into her own hands, and uses her body to lure the men to their deaths.

Whilst this may seem like a fair enough plot for a film, the director did not get his priorities straight. The rape scene in this (the cut version) was over 30 minutes long and still featured the repeated beating and abuse of the writer. Whilst he may have wanted to establish how shocking the attack was, it did not have to been drawn out for nearly half of the film. Because of this, several other key elements are lost.

None of the characters have any depth to them, as all the men are just random Hicksville inhabitants who have as much depth as a petri dish and as much intelligence as a sponge. The one exception to this however, is Jonny, the ringleader of the rapists. With Jonny we find out more about him and his family, as he is quickly established as an evil peice of work. He shows no remorse for the rape, he feels that she was asking for it by 'flaunting' her body in a bikini.

And thus we move onto the murders. It seems the director wanted to see Camille Keaton naked for as much of the film as possible as even after the rape she uses her body to murder the rapists. Jonny, the ringleader recieves the goriest, most horrible death when his penis is sliced off with a knife while he is in a bath. This was by far the high point of the film, as it shows him getting his just desserts. The other deaths merely pale in comparison, especially the last two which seem like throwaways because the director was running out of time. Also because of this the film ends abruptly with no real feeling of closure. It would have been nice to see the results of what happened after the deaths.

The film was long and drawn out at times since there was no music apart from within the film (Church organ, generic hick #324 playing harmonica). This makes scenes with such boring things as walking along a railway track REALLY boring as there was nothing to see other than Camille slowly walk closer to the camera. You never realise quite how much music adds to the mood of a movie until you actually view a film with a distinct lack of it.

The acting for the most part was mediocre at best, but usually dredged down arounf the terrible level. As mentioned earlier, the rapists, with the exception of Jonny were generic hicks and as such anyone could have played the role, acting experience or not. The standout performance by far was Camille Keaton who portayed greatly the role of an abused woman with inner anguish to release. As previously stated however, we get no real information as to what she does after the murders.

The film focuses far too much on the lead actress' body throughout the movie and not enough on establishing characters/proper conclusion. This film is not really suitable for anyone to watch in my opinion, as the rape scene is simply too long by far and makes the whole film worthless. Best to avoid. 2/10

A pearl in this maligned genre

[fertilecelluloid · 31 December 2003]

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a straightforward rape/revenge drama with the tone of a documentary.

The coverage is plain, there is no music, there are no "stars", there are no concessions to a mainstream audience.

The exploitation film audience may be served, although the rape sequences are neither dynamic nor stylish.

Camille Keaton (Buster's granddaughter), a writer, drives to the country to stay at her house on the river. Local losers stalk her and rape her and rape her again.

The rest of the film details the victim's bloody revenge.

Labeled rubbish by the ignorant, this is very restrained exploitation that is often perversely effective and confronting.

The rape sequences are nasty and ugly, not enhanced by camera moves, rich sound effects or lurid angles.

On the other hand, the revenge sequences are more cinematically manipulative and poorly executed.

An intriguing document of merit.

A brave take on the rape-revenge tradition

[lauriepaurie14 · 7/10 · 22 July 2005]

The fact that Roger Ebert labelled this movie as the worst ever made was actually a great deal more shocking to me than the feature itself. I studied "I Spit on Your Grave' as part of a film violence course at university and was subjected to Ebert's disturbing views on rape revenge and movie violence in general. Ebert feels disgusted by this feature, he feels dirty as he leaves the theatre and is depressed by the immense feelings of guilt the images have left him with. Is this not how one should feel having witnessed a rape (fictional or not)? Would he have felt cleaner if Zarchi had fragmented Jennifer's naked body, had used atmospheric music to eroticise the rape scenes and depicted the female character as enjoying herself even just a little bit? In my opinion one should be disgusted and shocked senseless when viewing such material, and in this sense I feel Zarchi has achieved what many others could not. I think it was brave of the director to put such footage out there, even if he lets himself down with the more generic revenge sequences towards the end.

Ebert talks about how he thinks that as a viewer we are subjected to the rapists' p.o.v. and goes on to say that this is a major reason he was so offended by the film. However, if Ebert knew anything about p.o.v. he would know that the audience is put into the place of Jennifer, given extreme close ups of the mens' distorted faces as they rape and mutilate her. We follow Jennifer in her journey from New York and most notably we stay with her during her recovery. The perpetrators are depicted as stereotypical and one dimensional, not to mention uneducated and unattractive. Therefore, if Ebert finds that he is relating to the rapists, rather than the intended Jennifer, I think the problem lies in the critic's psyche, not the feature.

To top it off, Ebert reminiscences about the loss of the art of feature films, as displayed by the likes of slasher extrodinaire John Carpenter. The opening scene of Halloween then, shot literally through the eyes of faceless killer Michael Myers as he plunges a kitchen knife into the naked breasts of his older sister, is obviously good clean fun in the distorted mind of Roger Ebert.

Don't be be put off by the hype surrounding this movie. Yes, watching these rape scenes is an ordeal that will never leave you, but a film about rape shouldn't be inoffensive. To date I have yet to see such a violent, brutal and disturbing depiction of a such a violent, brutal and disturbing crime. In my opinion, sexualized and eroticised versions of violence as seen in Halloween, Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street are far more harmful and offensive.

A rural version of "The Accused" minus Jodie Foster

[ja-191-280465 · 7/10 · 9 July 2015]

Meir Zarchi directs this brutal tale of rape and revenge starring Camille Keaton as a woman who is stalked, raped and tortured by four seemingly normal, sadistic freaks. Keaton plays Jennifer, a writer who travels alone to stay at a secluded house. While settling in, she is soon befriended by Matthew, a slow witted delivery boy who gets pressured into joining the sick escapades of his three twisted playmates. While relaxing in a canoe in the lake, the innocent Jennifer is soon approached by two of the sleaze balls on a speed boat and is dragged and then chased and held captive in the bushes. No matter where she goes, the four sickos catch up to her as she tries to escape and continue to rape, beat and torture her before leaving her for dead. Pretty soon, the four louts vanish giving Jennifer plenty of time to pull herself and regain her strength. After talking poor, old Matthew into killing her, two of the jerks pop back on the scene in their little speed boat only to find out that she's not dead. Furious,the three sorry clowns beat the crap out of Matthew forcing him to leave and never come back. Before carrying out her quest for revenge, Jennifer visits a local church where she seeks forgiveness in advance. And now the icing on the cake: The four stupid retards3 get what's coming to them as Jennifer offs them one by one. In the end, she sails off on their speed boat into the unknown.

Overall, pretty decent movie. The setting is perfect for the theme of the movie. In addition, the characters including the lead gave good, solid performances.

Any good intentions severely undermined

[trryancy · 1/10 · 18 September 2005]

In reading the reviews, I think it best to dispense with the plot summation. I feel compelled to comment due to how, time and time again, those driven to comment on this lurid, artless film keep missing a huge, glaring point- this film, when it gets down to it, is really more soft-core fetish porn than a film about righteous revenge. 'Day of the Woman' has got to be the cheapest, most cruelly hypocritical tagline ever.

The cover art on the video ought to be the first tip off- a woman, scantily clad in something torn and tight-fitting, scratched up and filthy, clutching a machete in her grubby, ravaged hand. But this woman has no face, not even a head, nor is there any man, her presumed rapist who's about to get it, present. The focal point in the picture is her mostly bare back, perky buns and taught thighs, not the woman herself, nor her experience, but her physical, sexual image. How now is that not extreme objectification, when the ravaged body, free from any personality, any human face, is blatantly eroticized- when THIS is the film's visual selling point? This is the absolute farthest thing from empowerment I can think of.

In the ensuing- and flimsy- story that follows- precious little time is spent on character development. All we are allowed to know about Jenny is that she is a New York writer who enjoys the great outdoors. Right away we get treated to a full-frontal and fully gratuitous nude scene, and it isn't very long afterward that the gang rape actually occurs. The rape itself is grueling, graphic, and painfully, unnecessarily long- it is this scene, not the killings, that are the climax of the film, indeed almost the whole point. After Jenny, left to die, manages to get it together, recuperate, and exact her revenge upon the scum that did this to her, it's all pretty dull from there on, actually. There is no effort on the director's part to build up any suspense, and the killings themselves are far less graphic and gory than the rapes, less detailed, and surprisingly occupy much less screen time than you expect. Revenge may be a dish best served cold, but Jenny delivers death with no relish, no triumph, no hesitation, or anguish- not one tenth of the emotional energy present during her violent gang-rapes, not even buy the guys getting whacked. Jenny could be knitting a sweater, for all the emotional expression in either her face or voice. Really, these were some of the most boring slayings I've ever seen in a horror film.

In the end, it's all about the rape, and you find yourself left with the feeling that this film is actually geared toward men who secretly find the visual image of rape kind of hot, and eases the guilt by letting the lady have her revenge, so they can pretend that's actually what they came for. It was what I, for one, came for, and was sorely disappointed. I can't think of one redeeming thing to say about this poorly acted, visually unappealing, lurid piece of celluloid. In fact, that probably IS the nicest thing I could have said about it.

Excellent Direction in true suspense horror

[jesussaysohyeahtokungfu · 7/10 · 16 February 2006]

Wow.....this film pushed boundaries, yes it showed things in a brutal way we might be scared of and realities we don't like to think of, but the important factor of the film is, how horrible rape and violence is and how it can overcome anyone, how people can get carried away, how spur of the moment decision's that you may forget after a day or two can effect the cause of your life.

The director does a brilliant job of making the characters as normal as possible, not giving the 'bad guys' a real bad guy edge or 'the heroine' a real heroine feel. He makes everyone appear normal to make the whole damn thing that bit scarier. This works to great effect.

The scariest part of the film for me is the eerie sound of the harmonica as a rape approaches, it keeps you on tenterhooks for sure. Matthew is a gullible guy who just wants friends and in a way wants the best for everyone without saying no to anyone which inervertivly leads him to trouble and rightfully so, it displays that you cant get away doing what others want you to do, it doesn't work for anyone.

The rape obviously changes Jenny and instead of shooting them all like she could do, she leads them all to a false sense of security then killing when they are at their most vulnerable....perfect revenge perhaps? The sort she could not have achieved for ringing the cops or shooting them all quick.

When looking to see what other films the actors/actresses have been in i was surprised to see none of them have done anything, acting as well as direction was perfect in this film as the budget was enough to display real life events not wasting $12 million on a 'jeepers creepers' monster that doesn't delivery half the scare.

Overall I would say a worth see movie due to the fact you can see how horrible it is to be caught up in such situation and spare a thought for victims who didn't survive unlike Jenny.

Sex and Violence

[rmax304823 · 3/10 · 20 January 2010]

The alternative title is "I Spit on Your Grave" -- great title, along the lines of "I Dismember Mamma." Much better than "Day of the Woman." Camille Keaton is a novelist who rents a summer cabin in the woods in upstate New York, is assaulted by four maniacal rapists, and kills them all, one by one, in revenge.

I don't know where to begin with this thing. It's a pleasant location, around Kent, Connecticut. That's one admirable feature. Let me think. Nope. That's about it.

It's unimaginable that this film is controversial because it is supposed to endorse rape. It doesn't, anymore than "Hamlet" endorses fratricide. After all, of the four rapists, one is strung up by the neck until dead, and his body heaved into the river. (The heroine yanks his struggling body up off the ground with a line she's flung over a tree limb. He weighs twice as much as she does.) The next rapist has his member surgically removed in a bath tub and bleeds to death screaming. The third gets an ax in the back. The fourth has his genitals mutilated by a speedboat screw. That's not an endorsement of rape. But I doubt that the director, Meir Zarchi, is genuinely offended by that interpretation. As they say, a knock is as good as a boost. And now we have the Millennium edition of the DVD with two audio commentaries.

Camille Keaton is young, fair, slender, attractive, and can't act. But I don't want to pick on her. Nobody in the movie can act. I suppose saying that people "can't act" is kind of categorical, so let me say that you'd see equally good performances if you happened to stumble into a high school play in, say, Kearny, New Jersey.

I thrilled at the structure of the assault though. The four roughnecks haul Keaton into the woods and one of them rapes her violently. They leave. She struggles to her feet and makes her way painfully through the woods towards the cabin. She's hardly glamorous by now, naked but covered with blood and smeared with mud. She's half way home when she finds them waiting for her. This time they fling her face down over a boulder and sodomize her after beating her some more. They leave. Thoroughly debased, crawling through the brush on her belly, she manages to make it home, painfully picks up the phone -- and has it knocked from her hands. They're waiting for her. They rape her again and force her to commit oral copulation. Then they try to kill her but fail.

Let me summarize. The beatings, the rapes, the sodomy, the forced fellatio, are spread out over three incidents rather than one. Why? Because we get three thrilling scenes of sex and violence instead of one. And it pads the movie out to feature length. That's why Hamlet doesn't kill Claudius until the end of the play.

No sense sticking with high-falutin' references though. The rape is structurally necessary for the violence that follows. It's just an excuse. First the violent assault, then the violent revenge. It's a familiar structure. Clint Eastwood's "Sudden Impact" -- you know the one, "Make my day?" -- has an almost identical plot, though the structure is varied. Now, if you want to see an artfully done, and thoroughly gripping rape, try Bergman's "The Virgin Spring." For a scene of sodomy that will give you nightmares, see "Deliverance." The photography here is humdrum, but in context that's saying a lot. The director shows us the gargoyle faces of the psychopaths from the victim's point of view. They look like they're doing push ups over the lens. The sound is tinny, even in the Dolby Digital provided for the Millennium Edition. When an actor turns his face from the camera, his voice fades too. In a church, asking for a dispensation from God, Keaton makes the sign of the cross and gets it wrong, unless she is Greek or Russian Orthodox. And it's a Protestant church, with no images and no holy water. When she's holding an automatic pistol on a rapist and threatening him, she gets to cock it twice.

Why -- you, the experienced movie goer ask -- why doesn't she go to the police? They would certainly believe her story and collar the evildoers. After all, she's not a black man in Alabama in 1930. She's a young white woman in New York who has been beaten half to death and is dripping with sperm. Well, again, why doesn't Hamlet knock off his uncle? Or why don't the Indians shoot the horses of the stagecoach they're chasing instead of trying to pick off the passengers one by one? She doesn't call the police because if she did we'd be deprived of the scene in which she pulls a Lorena Bobbit on the cretin in the bath tub.

It's an execrable film, one which couldn't make up its mind which kind of movie it wanted to be, a fashionable feminist allegory ("The Day of the Woman") or a simple slice-and-dice gore fest ("I Spit on Your Grave"). I wonder who started the rumor that this was some kind of message picture. I'd guess the director did. And it IS a message movie. The message is, "It's exciting to see nudity, sex, and violence on the screen."

Your friends and neighbors.....

[Boggman · 7/10 · 25 August 2005]

Jenny (Camille Keaton) needs some R&R and some inspiration for her latest novel. So she decides to pack up, rent a nice little wilderness cabin and kill two birds with one stone. Things are going all too peacefully until the day those rowdy locals start harassing her. While sunbathing on a hammock outside and enjoying the silence, two of the local guys start cruising by her on their boat -- a hoot'n and a holler'n! Jenny could have waived hello, maybe even invited the gents in for a cup of coffee or somethin?? Instead, she decides to stick her nose up, and walk back inside. Big MISTAKE! Especially when your a woman, all by your lonesome and very far out of your comfort zone!

A day or so later, while bikini clad once more and laying in her canoe, minding her own business- the fellows happen to cruise by once more. This time they decide to rope up Jenny's canoe and drag the poor girl to shore. Immediately, Jenny starts frieken, scream'n the whole cruise back and acting scared out of her wits once they hit the shore.

By this time the guys (joined by two of there dimwitted friends) are all fired up. Ya see...they have a "slow" one in the group (Mathew), who also happens to be a virgin that they desperately want to get laid. After some serious peer pressure and taunting of poor Mathew (Richard Pace) Jenny is raped by one of the guys. After the assault Jenny is allowed to walk home, albeit completely butt naked, beaten, and traumatized. After a long stroll through the forest, poor Jenny is attacked again.

Jenny finally makes it home, where her attackers follow and decide to have one last "go around". This time Mathew cant resist the pressure and takes a ride himself. The other guys chant and laugh, and one goes so far as to assault Jinny with a glass bottle before slapping her around a few more times. OUCH!

After the guys have all but drained themselves they leave. Stopping at the shoreline, it is decided that hey can't just let Jenny live. No, she must be killed. And who better to do it than Mathew, the village idiot. Mathew (against his will--if you can call it that) goes back to the house to finish the job. But he just can't do it, because deep down he's just another good hearted, lovable handicapped person. He leaves Jenny as is, and runs back to tell his homies that he took care of her.

Fast forward: Two weeks have gone by and no news of Jenny or her murder has surfaced. This starts to worry the guys, who are just waiting around for the story to break! Mathew continues to state he did kill her, but the boys decide eventually to hop back in the boat and cruise by Jenny's cabin again. During this time, Jenny has recovered, and has been using the last two weeks to get herself back together, and come up with a plan of action. Action of course means DEATH!

The boys realize Jenny is still alive after cruising by her cabin (she's on that damn hammock again) and are quite PO'd at Mathew for lying. They are not sure what to do.

But Jenny knows what she is going to do.....and sets her plan in motion. One by one she cajoles, tricks, and seduces them before making them pay the ultimate price for her violation.

All kidding aside, this reviewer enjoyed "I Spit On Your Grave". I can certainly see how it ruffled some feathers back in it's day. The rape scenes are pretty graphic (especially for it's time), and the brutality of the film is unquestionable. I like the fact that there is no music in the movie either, as it adds to the realism of the film. This is unarguably the ultimate "rape/ revenge" story... and although the revenge portion of it is somewhat "unbelievable" to say the least-- it is a nice ending to this little tale of victimization.

Those hicks definitely get what's coming to them.

Props to Camille Keaton, a very lovely woman who had some serious cajones' to take on such a role. While it's far from perfect, "I Spit On Your Grave" is a time honored classic in the tradition of revenge stories that has held up pretty darn good over the years.

Recommended!

This is a nasty, nasty movie

[ClassicAndCampFilmReviews · 1/10 · 2 July 2006]

I love horror films, and I'm not squeamish. But this movie I can't imagine anyone enjoying unless they get some slight thrill from watching a woman being raped, whether or not they want to admit it. It's like a very violent porno. And the revenge sequences didn't make me feel any better about it...at that point it seemed more like what I might imagine a snuff film is like...and I don't want to see one of those either! Its violence is too...voyeuristic.

It just left a very bad taste in my mouth. And for some reason it's in the drama section at the local video store, it should be in the horror one.

Not the piece of trash that it's reputation suggests it to be

[The_Void · 8/10 · 10 June 2005]

I Spit on Your Grave is a film that will never be accepted as a serious piece of film-making. This is thanks in part to the gratuitous rape and murder scenes, which don't exactly hold back the shocks; and it's also due to the time in which it was made. These days, as proved by the likes of 'Irreversible', films tackling rape in a shocking and disgusting way are more readily accepted, and even gain a strong reaction from many critics. This film was unfortunately (albeit for good reason) caught up in the 'video nasty debate' in the early eighties, and as such it's reputation has been diminished to such an extent that the likes of Roger Ebert have labelled it 'the worst film ever made' (even though The Blair Witch Project is the worst film ever made) and it's reaction in general tends to be of the bad variety. For some reason, we have found ourselves in a world where it's more than acceptable to give praise to 'A class' rape themed dramas such as Irreversible, but woe betide thee who labels this as a good film. Well, woe betides me then.

For a 'video nasty', I Spit on Your Grave has surprisingly good production values. While the acting often lets it down, the cinematography and even the script are more than decent and this helps the film in it's bid to get the praise it deserves. The story, which follows a New York writer who moves to a backwater part of the USA to work on her new novel, shortly before being horribly raped and beaten, is just a plot device for the more important elements of the plot. The main theme on display seems to be a comment on the male sexual ego and the way that women can have power over them. The film plays out like a revenge thriller, with the protagonist getting her own back on the men who raped her. This disrupts the main argument against this film; namely, that it's misogynistic, as much of the violence in the movie is actually directed against men. Of course, the rape scenes are the main crux of the film; but most of the gore comes later. Don't get me wrong, this is hardly an uplifting feminist drama; but it's not the worst film ever made either. Content caution though; it gets a bit extreme. A certain scene in a bathroom takes the prize for being one of the sickest sequences ever to grace the silver screen.

Yikes

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 6/10 · 17 November 2003]

Back in high school one of my fellow movie nut friends randomly came in one day with this movie with the cover of a woman's half exposed booty with blood and a knife with the title "I spit on your grave", never saw it, never heard of it, but he told me that I had to see it. So I went home to watch it and man, I don't think I wanted a drink so badly in all my teenage years. This is one of the exploitation films that came out in the 1970's that was porn with a story. Wasn't well acted, not the best made movie, but is always gritty enough to make you squirm. Believe me, I Spit on Your Grave is no joke when it comes to making you cringe, squirm and all those other disgusted feelings.

New York magazine writer Jennifer Hills is writing her first novel, and decides to spend the summer in a cottage on a lake in the countryside, where she can write it undisturbed. Three local men, are disturbed by Jennifer's independence, and periodically harass her by driving by her cottage in their speedboat, or making sounds at night. One day, while Hills is relaxing in her canoe, two of the men surprise her in their speedboat, grab her boat's towrope and tow her to shore. As she tries to escape, she's met by the other two men in their group and she realizes that they had planned this abduction. It appears they have plans in store for their mildly-retarded friend Matthew to lose his virginity. Jennifer fights but is chased by the men through the forest. They capture her and brutally rape her; but what these boys don't realize is that they just messed with the wrong chick, she's up for some good bloody revenge.

Is it bloody? Yes. Is it vivid? Yes. Frankly, this was one of the first films that really disgusted me, it's poorly acted, poorly edited and one of the worst excuses to put on film… yet somehow in some sick way this is a good cult classic. I think because during the time where The Hills Have Eyes was released, we thirsted for revenge on those who did us wrong. The castrating scene is one of the most freaky scenes I have ever seen in my life, I think I still need a drink.

6/10

a film devoid of merit

[Smarmulus · 1/10 · 31 August 2006]

Apart from the fact that it is a controversial movie I can't imagine any other reason anyone would want to see this movie. The plot is almost non-existent. A woman is brutally and graphically raped and degraded for thirty minutes - then she kills the rapists. THE END.

Some people defend this horribly misogynistic movie by inverting reality and claiming it is a feminist film. It just isn't so. The revolting and seemingly endless rape sequence is brutal, graphic, long. The revenge murders are predictable and not graphic (ie, not gory in the tradition of slasher or giallo horror films).

Clearly the sole reason this film was made was to make money from mentally ill individuals who enjoying watching a woman being raped, beaten, degraded.

Is this film the cause of sexism? No, of course not. Is it in bad taste? Obviously. But WHY watch something which is highly unpleasant AND lacks any artistic or technical merit? Likely banning or crusading against these type of film only makes them more appealing to those who oppose censorship and seek out things which are transgressive. I also oppose censorship and enjoy transgressive cinema. But if you read other comments you will see that people who have sought this movie out for those reasons did not enjoy the experience and felt they had wasted their time and money. I would suggest you not make the same mistake.