MovieChat Forums > I Spit on Your Grave (2010) Discussion > original(1978) vs. Remake(2010) wich one...

original(1978) vs. Remake(2010) wich one is better?

posted 13 years ago by OpenMindedObjectivist
35 replies | jump to latest

just wanna here your opinions,

Its close, but i go with the original..!
The remake really could have been better. It had really strong parts in it(last minutes of the rape)...but when the revenge starts, i couldnt take it sersly anymore.

The original is just a more honest film. They did not try to please a mainstream audience, like the remake. The original was more straight forward....and thats why its a little bit better, imo.

But both got their flaws. They could have been both better :(

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dalldorfw 13 years ago

The original, obviously.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Berniewrestle 13 years ago

Well it is rare for me to say that a remake is better then a original...but the remake is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY better then the original. Honestly I don't see how the original movie even has fans...it's terrible. This one though I am real impressed by how good it is. Just my opinion

[–] btc8 13 years ago

The rapes are too stylized and over the top to be taken seriously? What exactly do you think constitutes rape? It's a forced sexual contact, mostly happening like what was depicted in this film. Sure, the woods scene and water part might have been over the top, but it was mostly just to galvanize the audience and foreshadow a few elements of the film.

[–] AkrayBothorda 13 years ago

They're both quite visceral and disturbing. While the remake was better quality and more inventive the original was more honest and raw.

I'm not sure I'll be able to sit through the remake again, not because it was bad but because it was so successful in showing the horror of rape and how something close to equivalent might be for a man.

[–] Warrenpeace69 12 years ago

original.

------------
georgetown,dc
-------------
In nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritu Sancti

[–] FridayOnElmStreet 12 years ago

I normally hate remakes but I kinda like the remake better here.

[–] bomblade 12 years ago

I think the remake was better. Sure, they went for a far more brutal and gore-porn film. The original had some major issues, like the mentally handicapped actor was terrible. I thought the main protaganist in the first taking the bath and all of that was not in any way real, as others have said about the original. He trusts completely this girl who he brutalized and raped, and that was just holding a gun to him.

I was really glad they left the seduction part out of this.

[–] alucardvenom 9 years ago

I think the remake was better. Sure, they went for a far more brutal and gore-porn film. The original had some major issues, like the mentally handicapped actor was terrible. I thought the main protaganist in the first taking the bath and all of that was not in any way real, as others have said about the original. He trusts completely this girl who he brutalized and raped, and that was just holding a gun to him.

This had something to do with feministic views on man at the time, which was basically "men would do anything for sex". Mier kinda confirmed this on DVD commentary.

It doesn't make much sense, even on screen, but there you have it.

Anyway, I kinda like original more, it was much more raw, revenge part was more simplistic, yet much more effective.

Remake was better acted, it was surely more polished, and overall much better produced, but revenge part was kinda "meh". It was so obviously made for new "we want DA cool" audiences. Whole revenge part just felt like those rednecks kinda piss*d off a serial killer instead of a regular girl, like in the original.

This is kinda same problem with Last House on the Left remake. It's much better made, it's structure is much better (like in this remake), but "revenge" part kinda misses the point. Instead of "parent's revenge" it turns into generic "home invasion" movie. There wasn't actually "parent's revenge" in remake, it was just "bad guys start home invasion and parent's are defending".

[–] youtreatmesobad 12 years ago

I feel like they're both very different movies. I didn't enjoy either better than the other.

I died soon afterwards

[–] Mydoona 12 years ago

I liked how this movie included the crooked cop that you think you can trust and then find out you can't.the stupid thing about the original was that after she was raped she went back and seduced the guys so she could kill them, if I just raped a woman and she got away and then turned up again, I would make sure she was dead, the remake did it much more believably.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Spankalicious 12 years ago

The remake is much better. The original is extremely misogynistic, suggesting that the only power woman has is her sexuality. The editing and directing are also absolutely abysmal in the original.

The remake is far less mean-spirited, and the ending is much more satisfying.

[–] TheAndyFox 12 years ago

I like the original better because the rape scene is longer.

[–] Not_Afraid_of_snakes_or_spiders 12 years ago

The one where they all smell each other's farts and laugh about it is the better one.

We're mad at Mike. Do you know who we're mad at? Mike? You dang right!

[–] longcooljolie 12 years ago

This weekend I saw the remake first and then the original.

For me the remake was better because it was much better filmed and edited and contained much better acting. The three guys seemed the same in the original, more or less, besides Matthew who was portrayed as a slow-witted dork. For the remake, the guys all have distinct personalities and roles they play when they savage Jennifer. And Matthew seemed like an Asperger's syndrome type of individual.

Jennifer in the remake seemed more delicate and vulnerable while in the original she was kind of like a mannequin. The rape was actually more brutal in the original while lots of it happened off-screen in the remake.

As for the revenge scenes, there's no comparison. I agree that they were a little stylized and over-the-top but they were horrendously WICKED. The sheriff character adds tons to the movie because it all adds to the hopelessness of the situation for Jennifer.

According to the information on the gross and budget, this was a big money loser for its studio, though, which is kind of surprising.

[–] Errington_92 12 years ago

Prefer the original version. Though the remake was better stylistically and performed compared to the original (I assume an higher budget would be a major reason for this), the original stayed true to a sense of feminism which Jennifer had and regained through revenge. The remake, although letting Jennifer regain her sense of self, primarily focused on the gory deaths of the rapists which just seemed for the joy of horror fans taking away any serious context.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".