Directed by Meir Zarchi
Starring Camille Keaton, Eron Tabor, Richard Pace, Anthony Nichols and Gunter Kleemann
Stop me if I've told this one before. I've always been obsessed with movies dating back to the days when Han Solo and Indiana Jones were my heroes, but the thing that REALLY put me over the top to the nerdy level that I'm at today was one trip to the library when I was in sixth grade. That particular trip led me to the until-then forbidden ADULT section and away from the kids' ghost story books that dotted my bookshelf back then, and that trip led me to the arts & entertainment section...and the giant book with Roger Ebert on the cover.
Yes, folks, Roger Ebert's Video Companion. 'Memba them? In the days before the internet, these things were THE resource for movie fans, phone book-sized and crammed with reviews and juicy one-liners courtesy of arguably the greatest film critic of all time. That book was what led to me being able to recognize directors and paying special attention to the opening credits of every film I see to this day. It's what introduced me to the phrase "I hated hated hated this movie" in response to North. And then there was what I really came there for: the reviews of horror movies. Weirdly enough, Roger Ebert didn't seem to like horror films very much, but that was what I was into, and I wanted to know what he thought about them. Hell, he gave Halloween four stars, so I knew that movie was worth checking out a little over a year later on Halloween night. But one review that REALLY stood out was the one for the film in question today.
Released in 1978 during the very beginning days of the slasher boom, I Spit On Your Grave might not be an out-and-out HORROR film, but it nonetheless horrified people when it came out. It's far from the first rape-revenge flick, but it was easily the most controversial and even more easily the most successful. Filmed on a filet-o-fish budget, it was also another one of those films that was more effective precisely because it was so cheap. Folks, it probably would have been easier to film this stuff for real and just pass it off as a movie. I saw this flick for the first time in high school, and I can report that this isn't an enjoyable film. Not because it's going to make you doubt life or anything, but because it's just THERE, for what it is. A woman gets raped, repeatedly, and cruelly. Then she kills them all one by one. That's pretty much it, and that's your running time. But I thought it was nonetheless an effective little story, and one that I thought would be worth checking out again. Does it hold up? Let's find out.
Meet Jennifer Hills, played by Camille Keaton as the kind of girl circa 1978 that you just know you'd be hardcore crushing on. She's a writer by trade, and she's on her way to a riverside cabin for some peace, quiet and listening to fingers hitting the keyboard. Within the first ten minutes, we also meet the local gas station manager Johnny (Eron Tabor), as well as his two unemployed friends Stanley (Anthony Nichols) and Andy (Gunter Kleemann). Also within that epic ten minute timeframe, Jennifer has her groceries delivered by Matthew (Matthew Lucas), a slightly mentally disabled man who pretty much sets the entire plot in motion just by mentioning that he saw Jennifer's breasts. I swear on the church, this actually happens.
There isn't much in the way of tension in this movie. For a VERY brief period, Stanley and Andy cruise by Jennifer's cabin at night, but it doesn't take long for the second phase of this movie to kick in. And that second phase...it's something else. And when I say "something else," it's not the kind of movie that you'd want to watch over and over, even in 2017. Those four characters that Jennifer has passably met in the movie thus far? They eventually invade her house and rape her. And then they rape her again. And then one more time for good measure.
Brief aside. You know that Roger Ebert review that I talked about in the introduction? He gave this movie ZERO STARS, and he told a pretty funny story about the people that he saw this with in theaters, stating that they might have very well been serial killers and said things like "that was a good one" after each rape scene. Complete with jokes about these guys' appearances. Despite his general dislike of horror movies, Roger Ebert used to be so awesome.
A few words about the people committing all the raping and pillaging in this movie. It's a subject that I certainly don't mean to make light of, and the movie doesn't, either. Make no mistake. This flick is damn near 40 years old, but by the end of it, you REALLY want these creeps to get what they have coming. Of the four, the only two who are anything resembling multi-dimensional are Johnny and Matthew, Johnny due to actually has a family that he goes home to, and Matthew due to the "mentally disabled guy that the others are trying to get to lose his virginity" angle. He eventually does, although he's the one that spares Jennifer's life in the movie's crucial moments. And boy does he pay for that one, but I'm getting ahead of myself. A few words about the ACTING by these four jokers: I actually think this flick is a better movie than Wes Craven's Last House on the Left, but the performances in that film from David Hess and Co. were infinitely better. But there's no comic relief cops in this movie, so take that for what it's worth.
Left for dead, Jennifer is able to recover. She makes her way to a church, and prays for forgiveness for what she is about to do. And the final third of the movie is her tracking down each assailant and giving them their just desserts in ways that had to be completely unheard of in 1978.
No matter what your opinion is of horror movies or even movies like this, that are more true crime-based than out-and-out horror based, I don't think anyone could deny that this flick makes you FEEL something. Camille Keaton doesn't exactly put in an Oscar-worthy performance here, but she's perfectly believable as an innocent victim in the opening chapters. And when she's getting her revenge, she's one sexy mama. How this is possible for someone cutting a dude's junk off I don't know, but it's there onscreen for everyone to witness. Oh yeah, spoiler alert. Amazingly enough, Keaton actually REPRISED this role in two sequels. What say you, readers? Are they worth seeing?
Now, a few words to you lazy millennials (/Vince McMahon) who might be reading this. There is a remake of this movie. THIS movie, probably, is going to make you laugh. To be sure, it's cheesy. It's old, and it doesn't look like Michael Bay's Transformers. These things seem to be mortal sins with the kids these days. I haven't seen the remake, but I can take a guess what it probably tries to do: "gritty" everything up to the nth degree, show the violence in a lot more graphic detail, and amp up the Jennifer character to superhero status in Act Three. Sorry, but no thanks. Stick with this one. It's way more emotional with probably 1/20 of the budget. And I base that on having never seen the movie that I'm comparing it to. +2 points for film criticism.
Since you can't multiply zero, I can't say that this movie is any degrees BETTER than Roger Ebert says. Nonetheless, I give this flick *** out of ****. It's definitely worth checking out, but it's not the kind of thing you'll want to have on your DVD shelf to pull out at a moment's notice. Maybe once every five years. Maybe.
No comments:
Post a Comment