fando Let me start off by saying the original I Spit on Your Grave (initially titled Day of the Woman, as far as I know) it's controversial, but not because of the subject matter. Last House on the Left pretty much started the market for that and, before that, there was I Drink Your Blood, in which Jerry Gross was involved as much as he was with Meir Zarchi's film. I believe the controversy spans from the hype created by "professional" reviewers like Roger Ebert and the marketing strategies employed by Gross himself. Audiences had a picture on their minds already, which in most cases is far worse than anything displayed on the screen. From there on, it was a matter of outdoing whatever was done before in terms of graphic sexual elements and violence. The Italian film industry did a great job at that with the same classic story line Wes Craven slightly modified from Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring. I saw a totally different movie from what Ebert or most people saw in 1978's I Spit... It stroke me as a serious, hyper realistic, minimalist and even uncomfortably lyrical piece. The much talked about record- setting gang rape sequence, as long as it seems to be for most people who vilify this film, is such a large chunk of it because, as opposed to the two first spin offs, it focuses on the physical suffering and moral degradation of the victim. Compared to the remake and its sequel and as brutal as it is, there's no magnifying of the sadistic element through verbal exchange and games or anything else. It's a vile act because there's nothing else to call it and no need to revel on it. The second half seems rushed and unsatisfying because, 1. The market Mr. Gross aimed at would want more brutality and 2. Most of all, the real point, as it came across me, was her moral dilemma and the victim's method, which was to lure the aggressors and, most likely, the audiences into believing she was some kind of masochist. I'll even go as far as to say that the impact, besides the subject matter, was mainly achieved through genuine tension build up and even a few jump scares, much like the good horror films from the era. That being said, I think in a perfect world you would say that I Spit on Your Grave 2010 exists only as background for Vengance is Mine (which for starters, being a quote from the Bible, makes for an intriguing title) and that part 2 has no legitimate reason to exist. In reality, is the other way around. Part 1, which whatever one may call it is not hyper realistic as the original, but all the contrary, exists because of the big audience there is for the so called "torture porn" genre. Therefore, Part 2 exists only because "fans" of the first one wanted a second serving of the same (which, in all honesty, lacks the creativity of the avenging schemes and devices and the little credibility part one had to it), even though there's no connection to the "original" and, part three, straying almost completely from Craven's basic formula and leaning more towards Ms. 45 or Death Wish's, is aimed at the wrong audience and, therefore, doesn't really have a reason to exist. Therefore, except for a couple of all too brief graphic scenes which consist mostly of Jennifer's fantasizing, this film doesn't really have anything to offer to audiences of the first two. The dialogue, which is a whole lot more copious, consists more on philosophical "diatribes" on justice, forgiveness and human nature than the "take back what you said" dynamics of the rest of the franchise. There are more characters to follow than just Jennifer and more development to them and the settings seem more likely for a rape victim than those in the former entries, too. Most of all, the overall moral of the film is a whole lot bleaker: While it's true that violence is the most contagious of diseases and creates a seemingly never ending cycle, and despite how vacuous the idea of justice may seem as it is practiced the "right" way, it only gets worse and worse... I particularly liked Doug McKeon's character (whose name is deliberately mispronounced by a law enforcement agent on several occasions) a lot. It offered a radically different perspective on the issue, and it's not the only one. In that respect, Marla was also pretty remarkable. If this film borrows from any other movies, besides the "vigilante" ones, is the original Last House on the Left, Eye for an Eye, the Accused and even Taxi Driver. Overall, I see why most fans of the franchise hated it and it's no wonder. It's a similar case as Robocop 2 or The Empire Strikes Back, not being directed by the same guy and not keeping up with the "trademarks" of the "saga." It's too serious for its own good.....

Leofwine_draca I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE 3: VENGEANCE IS MINE is another mindless hate-filled addition to the series, barely any different to the two films which preceded it. Okay, the formula is slightly different this time around, as the main character isn't raped at the outset, but the grisly revenge killings are, while the self-help circle material is frankly a bit dull. The problems with this film are myriad, but the weak writing is the foremost issue, with one-dimensional characters and tepid pacing throughout.For the sadists among us, there are some very graphic and nasty death scenes here, meted out to men who are more than deserving of their fate. Even so, this ventures into torture porn territory and would be quite disturbing if the CGI effects weren't so terrible. Elsewhere, lukewarm, occasionally histrionic acting also mars the experience, along with a cast filled with unlikeable characters, leaving this a sadistic chore for only the most hardened gore-seekers.

JÄnis Locis I feel like people are being too harsh on this movie. In my opinion this is a strong sequel and it only adds to the franchise, the franchise is now taking a different way and that is interesting. This film is not as brutal as the first two, but it has a fair share of psychological depth and action in it.This film is more about emotions rather different than the now classic rape-revenge scenario of this franchise. The third installment is all about bringing justice and vengeance upon those, who didn't get punished for their actions by the law. And in my opinion that is a very interesting aspect and a nice turning point for the series. In real life we have got a share of these injustices, when the law just turns a blind eye and chooses to ignore, or even worse, when the victim is made to be the perpetrator.Here we see a huge problem with these single genre franchises, people tend to be disappointed no matter what, somebody thinks this movie is taking away the essence of the series, some others think the franchise should remain unchanged and they just want to see the classic rape-revenge flick. I feel that we need to view this and other possible sequels with an open mind and understand that it is not clever to make a 3 movie franchise with every movie being exactly the same, that is like watching "Saw" and experiencing the very same traps every film.At least for me this movie felt like a good continuation of the previous films and this is going to keep the series alive. It didn't lack suspense, had little more depth to it, just different in a lot of ways, not a horrible sequel!

chrishayes737 I thought part 3 was an excellent addition to the series & brings back Sarah Butler as Jennifer Hills / Angela which was as awesome idea . Many years have passed since Sarah's brutal rape & revenge from the first movie & now is in rape group therapy & it all kicks off from there where she goes on a vengeance spree to take care of a few nasty rapist / murderer's . The movie also has some of the most brutal kills of the series & I was very excited about that cause these men truly deserved it & there was a nice twist that carries out through the film so if you liked the first 2 movies in the series you'll really appreciate this one as well .