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?


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 :(

reply

[deleted]

What does acting have to do with censorship? The original is obliviously better, a classic of its time. This version just isn't interesting compared to the other modern torture porn movies.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

The revenge in the original movie was weak

Clark Kent + Lois Lane 4ever
DC Can Suck It

reply

The original is better (imo).
In 1978's version there was no music. The scream of the girl when anal rape began was like a thunderbolt - like in calssical "Spiral staircase". The original movie was scary - and remake is too professional, too glamourous and lifeless.

reply

I saw them both for the first time within the same weekend.

I started with the original, and wasn't very impressed with it. Actually, I found it kinda silly. It starts off well enough, and what felt like a 20-30 minute torture/rape scene did it's job of making me feel terrible for Jennifer, but just about everything that happens after that feels terribly unbelievable - Would you really jump in a tub with with someone that you raped, left for dead, and held a gun to you just moments earlier? The seduction scenes felt amateur-ish, and the last 5 minutes of the film actually made me laugh. It diffused everything that happened earlier.

So, after watching the original, my expectations for the remake were pretty low.

LOVED the remake! This movie felt truly cruel. For me, there was nothing about Jennifer's revenge that felt silly, or diffused what had happened to her earlier. There were no hammy seduction scenes, and no silly characters present to distract from a very serious and hate-filled objective. The revenge was adequately cruel, and the ending was very satisfying.

The remake blindsided me, as I wasn't expecting the direction, writing, and editing to be as competent as they were. And I certainly wasn't expecting a performance like Sarah Butler's in what I thought would be a trashy, uninspired remake to an original film that underwhelmed me.

This is definitely a rare instance where I clearly prefer the remake to the original. Actually, I can't think of another horror movie where that would be the case.

reply

[deleted]

I think the original seems more terrifying from the woman's perspective, so I think it's more exciting when the rapists get it in the end. In the remake, it just reminded me of some average horror movie.. The original seems so much more shocking, maybe because they seem to show the rape more. I also think the murder scenes are more believable in the original, although the remake certainly spiced things up. I also kind of thought the acting was over the top in the remake.. but if I'm being honest it was pretty over the top in the original too. The lack of cell phones and nearby people in the original makes it more believable, even if they used the convenient "cell phones don't work out here" excuse in the remake.

Okay I'm babbling, so I'll just say this more clearly.. I watched both versions with my mom (!!!) and the original made me feel embarrassed more than the remake. The original is more disturbing, for sure.

reply

The original is much better....far more nudity.

reply