Hi Everyone.

A couple of days ago, I saw the remake of that sexploitation/horror classic I Spit on Your Grave 2010 on the day it opened at a Times Square theater. Here is my assessment of the remake of it in comparison to the original and on its own.

There are some things in the remake that don't measure up to the original. And then there are some things in it that improve on the original.

I am particularly annoyed by the scenes where the lead victim, played by Sarah Butler, is confronted by the yokels in her cabin, which occurs before her abuse in the woods. She's intimidated rather than terrorized. For example, she's forced to suck both a liquor bottle and then a gun and I thought, great, they're getting to a blow job scene but no. And this is the unrated version no less. Also, one of the yokels keeps referring to her as a show horse and asks her to show her teeth and to whinny like a horse. At that point I was wondering was I watching a remake of I Spit on Your Grave or Deliverance. In this respect, ISPOYG is more of a tease than something that delivers. Still, when Butler's being threatened, she does the best begging and pleading short of owing a loan shark money.

Nudity-wise, I would say there's about 10 minutes worth. You see her panties pulled down. And one character uses his shotgun to move her sweater to show some nipple. But I was pissed that there were no scenes of groping of her goodies. In fact, there's like 20 minutes of intimidation and threatening. It seemed so long I wanted to scream, "Get to the rapes already!"

When they finally get to the rapes (already), this is where the movie falls short of the original. In the first movie, Camille Keaton gets a taste by every one of her assailants and it's explicitly shown. In the remake, they added an additional villain which changes to a degree the plot and direction of the film. And this new character becomes the new chief rapist villain. That villain, along with the mentally challenged character are the only ones whom we see actively raping the female lead. There are 5 rapists now instead of 4 in the original film. They all rape individually, but they show only two of them getting some action. The rapes by the other assailants are implied rather than displayed.

There's about 3 or 4 minutes worth of raping in the first scene, if you count the humping, holding her down, and strangling. The way they shoot it, I don't recall seeing much of any tit. A guy on top of her is thrusting himself into her pussy and she's moaning. She temporarily breaks being held down and freaks out and starts hitting the retarded guy. He puts his hands on her throat to try to strangle her and slow her down. It does. And he comes inside her. That's another major change from the original.

She runs into the woods naked trying to flee from her rapists, but it's no good. They're waiting for her. Also, one of the villains videotapes the events and another plays a harmonica. So when she hears that, she knows she's in trouble. And the new 5th character who is really the leader, shoves her head over and over in a ditch with water. He anally rapes her and says he's an ass man. He shoves it to her hard over and over. You don't really get a rear view and I don't recall any nudity in this scene. The way she's held, the grass covers her juicy bits, but Butler does have a marvelous look of anguish on her face.

After Jennifer is anally raped and I'm expecting to see the next guy do his thing, the filmmakers do the cop out thing fading to the next scene with our heroine waking up from shock from the obvious implication that all of her assailants had their way with her.

The most nudity you see is when she wakes up after the trauma and she staggers nakedly to a bridge to jump off. The yokels try to find the body with no success. At this, point, the horror movie aspect kicks in.

The movie does improve upon the original in two ways.

First the star. Sarah Butler is not only better looking than Camille Keaton, she's a better actress too. You get to see Butler in a bikini, mini-skirts and nude. You may not see too much of her flesh, but when you do it's a delight. She is a ravishing lady indeed. You can believe that some guys would be willing to risk jail for piece like her. In regards to her acting, I could almost believe that after the hell she went through, this bitch is hell bent on revenge.

The other way this movie improves on the original is more in the horror movie aspect. If you're a fan of the "Saw" movies, you should like the ingenious way that Butler's character destroys her tormentors. I'll say this, I'll never use fishhooks again.

That theater I saw it in wasn't sold out, but it was filled up enough that it was hard to find a decent seat. Also, the audience definitely reacted to the movie. There's one torture scene (to a male, of course) that had me and the rest of the audience laughing hysterically. Also, the audience looked like they were born after the original film. Two girls behind me had to be oblivious to the original film because she said to her friend, "I bet he's going to rape her". And when the two rapes did occur, I could hear them clearly gasp in horror.

Overall though, it's a movie worth seeing. It's a movie more polished than the original, with mood music, a subplot and better acting. However, my preference would lean toward to the original.

Now on to the remakes of Act of Vengeance starring Kristen Stewart and Hot Spur with Cameron Diaz...