Pros: I honestly really don't have any compliments for this movie.
Cons: Awful and bottom feeder by every means necessary: script, directing, acting, even the effects.
You know, I always completely hated any movie that directly took it's title from the cult classic "I Spit On Your Grave," and that has less to do with the movies themselves, but more to do with when I run into some moron who comes up to me exclaiming that they saw a movie in the video store that is a sequel to, of course, "I Spit On Your Grave." You have no idea how many times I got this proclamation when "I'll Spit On Your Grave Too" was released, and I think the funniest occurance is whenever someone comes across Al Adamson's "I Spit On Your Corpse!" For heaven's sake, the movie was made 6 years before the Meir Zarchi flick. This is all like saying that the "Bloody Murder" movies are secret sequels to "Friday the 13th.' What makes it even worse is that these movies aren't even any good to begin with. If you want to see the closest thing to a legit semi-follow up to "I Spit On Your Grave," then for the love of god just watch "Savage Vengeance," or just don't, but atleast acknowledge it. Don't give these other wastes of space any more time in the sunlight than they deserve. Let them rot and die and turn into dust that slowly gathers in the darkest pits of hell's kitchen.
"I Spit On Your Corpse, I P*ss On Your Grave," may very well be the worst of its kind; that kind being movies that take a nod from that 1980 film that Ebert calls the worst film ever made. He has not seen this movie. If this movie had a brain in either one of its heads, it would have realized that the true title to "I Spit On Your Grave" is actually "Day of the Woman," thus naming this here movie "Day of the Punk Rock Chick," even though this movie only covers a couple of hours, tops. Too little action to call it a whole day. I'm sure there were moments in the movie, unseen by the viewer, where the characters' real accomplishments were beating Super Mario 64 in under 3 hours. But you do have to admit, that this is a title that does promise a lot. Not only do they have to be around the dead body to actually spit on it, but they have to keep just enough of a grudge to linger around throughout the funeral visitation, then the actual service, and then wait for the body to be buried in the cemetery, and at that time they can take that long awaited p*ss on the grave. That is the extent of any sort of compliment that I will pay out to this movie, and I must admit that it took me a little while to come up with even that much.
This is one of those direct to video underground horror movies that in their own way try to keep exploitation films alive, but are actually sawing off their limbs one by one until one day they will kill the exploitation genre. Somehow movies like these find a distributor, even though they have the technical style of a movie made by teenagers during a day when the mall is closed. It's shot on a regular handheld camera, and uses every single one of those built in camera tricks (those being black and white, or negative shots, and lets not forget the solar effects). The soundtrack is made up of blazing, and horrible, heavy metal bands where the majority of the audible lyrics go something like this: "mother f***er, mother f***er, you're a mother f***er." Because we all know that that is what made those classic grindhouse movies so stylistic: heavy metal grunge music. I've often been hard on movies that look like they were filmed using stolen equipment from a public access studio, but if I had known movies like this or the "Camp Blood" movies would be in my future, then I would most likely have been kinder to movies like "Stacy."
The writer and director is a guy who I'll give props to because he apparently has kept his real name on the credits. He is Eric Stanze, a prominent figure of Sub Rosa Studios, the company that made this movie. When he's not writing or directing these movies, he serves as producer, and always has something to do with what goes on behind the scenes, and occasionally making his way in front of the camera. He is obviously a guy who has seen his fair share of cult exploitation films, and you can tell that just by looking at the titles to some of the movies that he has been a part of: "Insaniac," "Buzz Saw," "The Christmas Season Massacre," "Savage Harvest," and my personal favorite of the titles, "Last House on Hell Street." If you have a street on Hell Street, then you gotta think that any of the houses have to have some shenanigans, not just the last house. But for a guy who, like I said, appears to like horror films, then it just amazes me how awful Stanze and the rest of his gang treat these old films.
They have no idea what made those 70's grindhouse films so good. It wasn't simply just shoving someone's face in a pile of their own feces; it was the badass style, the characters, the dialogue, the music, the no hold barred to just do whatever the hell you want in reference to the story. Movies like "Cannibal Ferox" wouldn't have worked if was simply cannibals passing around the dinner tray for an entire film. The scenes of blood and guts in those movies were shocking when it was something truly deviant and evil and when it made you feel like you were seeing true sadism up on screen. And when it wasn't like that, they could also work by having a twisted sense of humor, like the "Ilsa" series. These people here think that the old movies were shocking just because you were simply seeing blood and guts on screen and nothing else, because that is all that this film is. It doesn't even have a sense of humor.
The plot of the film, which is nothing more than an excuse to torture three people on screen (and very badly mind you) begins with a little boy playing with his toys in the yard. We then cut back and forth between that and a woman who pulls her car over on the side of the road. Immediately she is chased by a psychopath. The little boy starts to wander through her trees until he stumbles up on her naked dead body. Apparently the woman was raped and killed off camera, even though she looks like she just fell onto a large table of blueberry pies, and then somehow lost her clothes.
But enough about that, as Stanze would probably say, because footage that would probably make up about 10 extra minutes of the film is then left to a long one shot monologue, which ironically lasts about 10 minutes. We get the story from Sandy, played by Emily Haack. I'm debating on whether or not I want to make a joke in reference to her last name. I've decided against it. Physically she looks a little bit like Sara Gilbert crossed with the wallpaper at a midwestern haunted house. According to Sandy, the man who did the raping and the killing was shot down by police, but then his brother Kevin was arrested for allegedly helping the rapist. Sandy and Kevin were former lovers, as she tells us more than she ever needs to. Kevin was sentenced to prison for 20 years, but then managed to escape. This whole monologue scene is shot in a black and white and only features a close up of Sandy's mouth as she smokes. I particular smirked at all the times she tried desperately hard for her eyes not to get in the shot.
Back in the color world, Kevin meets up with Sandy in a graveyard, then blindfolds her and takes her to a strange house. I find it a little hard to believe that a dimwitted man like Kevin managed to escape from what I assume is atleast a minimum security prison. The guy has the aura of Andy Blitz from "Late Night with Conan O'Brien." So basically everything that was said the monologue is repeated once more as Kevin and Sandy proceed to have sex, atleast I think that's what they're doing. There's so many dissolve cuts in this scene that I can't tell if they're having sex or tripping on some wild LSD. But then the real motive of this rendezvous is revealed.
Down in the basement of this house, Kevin has three men tied up. These three men apparently testified at Kevin's trial, and obviously did a horrible job at that, so Kevin wants to kill them. Also, one of the men tied up went out with Sandy after Kevin went to jail. Like everything else that is said in the movie, if you missed it the first time around, it is repeated to you about three more times. Kevin also wants to kill Sandy because she testified as well. Naturally, Sandy runs away from Kevin, then grabs a metal pipe and kills him. This guy escaped from prison? If it was a mental institution, I would understand, but if that were the case, Kevin would have still been alive and left to kill babysitters.
But instead of letting all of these hostages go, Sandy takes a shower and thinks to herself, "hey maybe I might be mentally insane as well." It could be sexually transmitted, but Sandy blames it on the fact that it is hereditary for her to seek out abusive men. I heard that once too at an Ike Turner concert. All three of the men tied up have harmed Sandy in some way shape or form. One of the men tried to solicit sex from her in exchange for drugs, while the other wanted to give her a raise if she gave him oral sex, and the third one in this group got Sandy drunk and then date raped her. Sandy takes Kevin's gun and spends the rest of the movie humiliating and torturing the three tied up men. If you think about it though, Sandy is going about this all the wrong way. Hasn't she ever heard that she does not have to take sexual harassment? With these three cases combined, not to mention that she thwarted an escaped convict, she could be sitting on a mountain of court settlement money and reward prizes. But, you know, killing them works too I guess. I'm just looking at the bigger picture.
What we're left with here are scenes where a man has to urinate, so she makes him wet his pants. She then burns a cigarette on his penis. She wants one of the other guys to sodomize the other, and when he doesn't, she shoots him in the groin. She ties up one of the guys on a bed and then shoves a broomstick up his behind, but had the common courtesy to place a condom on it first. One of the more ridiculous scenes comes where the same man who wet his pants then says that he has to go upstairs to take a number 2. Is this man really surprised when she makes him crap on the floor and then forces him to eat it? I guess it seems logical for him to say that he has to take a dump, otherwise the script would have no lead in to the said coprophilia scene. There's one shot that is a blatant rip off of "I Spit On Your Grave" where we see the inside of a church, and Sandy says the words "forgive me." Comparing someone like Sandy to Camille Keaton in "I Spit On Your Grave" is like comparing a papercut to a severed hand. One's problems are worse and deserve more attention than the other. If you want to go in terms of how scary the character of Sandy is, then I'll gladly say that this character is such zero and a push over that she makes Shirley Temple look like Dyanne Thorne, and the acting all around the film is worse than Bambi Woods' corpse.
The material in the movie probably makes up about a 30 minute film tops, but it is all painfully and forcefully stretched out to about 70 minutes. Even that appeared to have taken some effort. I mentioned earlier about Kevin meeting up with Sandy in a graveyard. Before we even meet Kevin, there is an endless sequence of POV shots of her walking slowly through the graveyard, and then slow pans over a number of tombstones that have nothing to do with anyone in the movie. There are endless shots that take us to an underground grave with a statue of Jesus in it. Stedicam shots are also used while Sandy walks around. These make up about 10 minutes So not only does Stanze have no clue how to stretch his own movie out, but he appears to want to play with his new video toys like a toddler on Christmas morning. Either that or he took film advice from Gus Van Sant. Later in the movie, several negative shots are used while Sandy contemplates killing these men, with close ups of her eyes, and more shots of tombstones. That's another 10 minutes right there. Where is the rest of the wasted footage? Towards the end of the film, Sandy has a spaghetti dinner with one of her victims and goes into a lame story about how she lost her virginity. This scene is so long, that I would bet hundreds of people in my home town lost their own virginity while I was watching this. As far as the sex scenes go, they try desperately hard to be shocking, but when you have movies like "House on the Edge of the Park" or "Caligula" on this earth, the sex scene here are the equivilent of making out under an orchard tree with your initials carved into it.
This movie actually thinks it should be considered today what the grindhouse films of the 70's were considered. It takes itself seriously and it fails miserably and chops off its own foot because of it. I'll bet you the peolpe who made this piece of junk actually think that 20 years from now it will be rediscovered as a classic underground horror movie. Movies like this are what, dare I say, is giving exploitation a bad name. You want to make a new grindhouse movie, then here is what you do. Shoot the thing on film, give it its own style, its own substance, and not make your big climax someone being sodomized with a broomstick. Take a week out of your life and watch some of the best of those old movies, and when you fully notice and understand what made the good ones good, and what made the cheesy ones so entertaining, then maybe, just maybe that will bring exploitation films out of their 20 year coma. Right now, though, all I can say is I've spent way too much time talking about a movie called "I Spit On Your Corpse, I P*ss On Your Grave," and for a movie that only took 8 days to shoot, they took too much time making it.