Remind me to keep my mouth shut the next time I say I should have been scarred. 2010′s I Spit on Your Grave is a remake of a 1978 film of the same name. I was unimpressed by the original with its bland characters, lack of tension and surprisingly boring execution of a heinous serious of events. The remake rectifies these issues, but to the complete extreme.

The story is the same; a writer named Jennifer arrives in the deep country to write her first novel. Before she gets to her cabin, she interacts with some locals, a healthy mix of creepy, retarded and seemingly harmless. An embarrassing event occurs at the gas station which establishes part of a motive for some depraved acts. This combined with a retarded chap’s misinterpretation of a kiss from Jennifer, quickly results in the go ahead for those acts. Jennifer is assaulted, mentally tortured, and ultimately raped repeatedly. Before the assailants can kill her, she jumps into the river and disappears. Her body is never recovered. About a month later she returns, to get her revenge.

There are some improvements from the original. There actually is a clearly established motive for these men to commit the acts that they do. In the original, they seemed to be a result of mostly them just being country psychos. Also, in the original, the men were lured in to the most ridiculous of traps and met there demise. The remake has them being ambushed for lack of a better term and dispatched in fairly quick and bizarre fashions. Having said those things, this version seemed more realistic.

However.

This film (I watched the unrated version) is quite vile. Needless to say, the crimes committed against Jennifer were most certainly uncomfortable and heinous. Not just the rape, but the mental abuse and games they play with her were just as evil. But, also the crimes committed against the men. Horrible, elaborate deaths. Disturbing at best.

This leads to the ultimate debate that should occur if both men and women view this at the same time. Were Jennifer’s actions justified? It’s clearly obvious her actions are revenge driven, but in case you may not pick up on that, she says the same things to each victim that were said to her during her ordeal. But does that make her right in her actions? If, not what would be fitting? Arrests and eventual death chamber? Same end result. Just not as inhumane. Possibly. I say that the debate “should” occur because it certainly will not. Everyone will be too busy washing their brains in hot water in an effort to remove some of the images. The film seems more interested in shock value than healthy discussion. Not that all films should result in a healthy discussion, but man. You have quite a controversial subject to not want to spark one.

The film is better acted, directed and just plain is better than the original. But is it good? Unfortunately, no. It goes too far. Instead of say, the A Time to Kill approach about justifiable homicide, which mostly involves a deadly reaction to something and then a trial, this film just shows repeated horrible acts, which leaves you too jarred to even discuss the subject.

***THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS***

After watching this film and reflecting on it, I feel robbed. I feel like there should have been several hundred different things I should have felt that I did not. Similarly to my experience watching Feed, I felt like the subject matter of I Spit on Your Grave was treated with indifference.

Jennifer is spending the summer in the country writing her first novel. She has rented a house by a lake. She stops at a gas station and the attendant is quite friendly. There are a couple of locals entertaining themselves over in the grass. When she arrives at the house she has some groceries delivered, and the delivery man is also very nice, and might be a little slow. What I assume is a result of a combination of boredom, sweltering heat and backwoods inbreeding, this group of men violently beat and rape Jennifer at 3 different locations and leave her for dead. This is something that they will soon regret in a terribly boring, anti-climactic fashion.

Technically, this really isn’t horror by normal standards. I mean, the events are horrible, which is why I categorize it as such, but there isn’t a whole lot of blood, that much violence (outside of the rape) and there is no tension whatsoever. It’s funny, though. There was no music in the film, except when actual music was playing on a stereo or something like that. I found this to be an interesting choice, because it would make any scares or tense moments organic, without music to tell you when to be frightened or when to jump. But those things never happened. It was like a lazy walk through a few weeks of events and then a quick slip out the back unnoticed. The film even ended without warning, with Jennifer boating off in to the credits.

My main problem with this film is, I felt indifference toward every single character. Now, please do not misunderstand me, the crimes committed against this woman were heinous and vile and I hated the offenders while in the act. But there was really no characterization, and half the time I doubted that these guys really would have done these things, especially as the film went on. They kept making horrible decisions, like getting in the car with her after finding out that she was still alive. One of them takes a bath with her. I saw them think, they can rationalize things. How could they make these decisions?

So, Jennifer takes her revenge on each one of them, one by one. Each kill was preceded with such obvious ruse or what seemed like endless delay, they were completely void of any terror or surprise. They were no different than any other scene in the film, really. Also, due to the lack of any real character development, I almost just didn’t give a shit if they lived or died. It was like watching robots do horrible things to each other and then trying to imagine what it would be like if the robots were humans.

I hope that the recent remake of this film does a much better job of what the original should have done. It should have scarred me, honestly. I should have been very upset, and then shouting with glee every time Jennifer killed someone. Instead, I was left relatively the same as I was before watching it.

***THIS REVIEW MOST ASSUREDLY CONTAINS SPOILERS***

This is the second film where I have seen a zombie involved in a sex act. The first time I saw it was in Dead Alive. I will tell you this: it was far less comical this time.

Deadgirl starts during a fire drill at a  high school. J.T.  and Rickie are entertaining themselves with bad jokes and daydreams about girls. When it’s time to go back to class, J.T. and Rickie decide to ditch school and drink some beer. They go to “the asylum” which is an abandoned insane asylum. After being chased by a dog, they end up in a room with a door that is rusted shut. They force the door open and discover a nude woman wrapped in plastic, and strapped to a gurney. Naturally they assume she is dead, but they notice that she is breathing. Rickie freaks out a bit and wants to leave. J.T. however, has other plans. He wants to to have sex with her. He sends Rickie home and stays behind to have relations with a woman that has been locked in this room for who knows how long. Delightful.

Now, I should tell you that I am assuming that this woman is a zombie. I make this assumption based on several things. The day after they find her, J.T. brings Rickie back to the asylum. He tells Rickie that while he was having sex with her, she struggled, so he killed her. Yet she is still alive. To prove this, J.T.  shoots the girl in front of Ricki and she lives. In addition to this, when she bites someone, they seem to turn to the undead as well. One can argue that she is not a zombie, however, as zombies tend to have superhuman strength and while the girl could rip a metal door off the frame, she could not break free of her restraints. She also spared Rickie’s life when given an opportunity to bite him. Rickie never really approved of the continued rape of the girl, so one could suspect that she spared him as he did not violate her. That is kind of un-zombie like. Zombies generally are mindless. However there are no really established “rules” about the zombie world in the film. She is the only one and we are not told how she became the way she was, so for all we know, zombies might actually have a sense of reciprocity in this film’s universe.

There are a few things that I really like about this film. The biggest one is the fact that we have no idea how this girl became a zombie. Therefore, as I previously mentioned, we don’t know what the “rules” are. Obviously biting turns you, but apparently sex does not. I found that incredibly intriguing. Was she the last of a zombie apocalypse that happened? If so, why was she left alive, and what happened to the people that left her alive? Was she the first of a potential apocalypse, but contained before starting one? I very much liked the choice to leave that not addressed. I also liked Noah Segan, who played J.T. I like it when a psychopath is not played as over the top. He did not do this at all. He also had excellent comedic timing and delivery, as much of his later dialogue is evil funny.

The gripes are many. Until they find the girl, this film is VERY boring. I actually thought an hour passed but when I checked, it had only been twenty minutes. Absolutely no character development. This is especially annoying because Segan was so good. He is immediately a demented psychopath and sociopath.  There should have been a progression to that point. Also, there is no back story for anyone. The closest we get is seeing the drunk boyfriend of Rickie’s mother. This limits your emotional involvement. While the performances are enjoyable, you don’t really care who lives or dies. Also, demented as someone is, really? Sex is your first thought when finding a girl wrapped in plastic? I’m not even going to get in to why that doesn’t make sense. Here’s perhaps the most perplexing part of the film: the girl escapes and we see her running outside. However, the movie continues and life appears to be normal. Would there not be a FUCKING ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE GOING ON? Besides the fact that she escaped, she bit a guy in the dick, and he didn’t die. He went back to school, shit out an intestine and is referenced as being in the hospital or something, but surely he would have bitten some folks as well. There really should have been some more zombies by movie’s end.

This film deals with issues of peer pressure, alienation, love, popularity and control with one of the most bizarre story lines I have ever run across. I found myself liking some of it, but ultimately, its flaws outweigh it’s successes. I recommend a viewing of it, however. It is not a waste of time by any means, and you are sure to find some enjoyment out of it.

***THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS***

Let’s do some math. View Askew + clown = funny,  right? Not really.

Vulgar is the story of Will (Brian O’Halloran), who is having a rough time of it in life. He lives in a crappy house, has a crappy car. His neighbors throw bottles at him. He is a clown for hire named Flappy, that makes birthday party appearances. While this is not paying very well (or sometimes at all) he loves it. His mother also lives in a rest home, which is yet another bill that he has to foot. Needing money badly, he comes up with an idea. In addition to being Flappy, the birthday party clown, he will become Vulgar, the bachelor party clown. An idea that would have immediately come to anyone’s mind, he will dress up as a clown, but wear lingerie. As a gag, he will come in to a bachelor party, tricking the groom-to-be in to thinking a gay clown stripper was hired instead of a whorish woman stripper. Obviously hilarity would ensue as all of the party guests would be in on this, and then a whorish stripper would really come in and the planned debauchery would go on. Unfortunately, his first gig does not go as planned and he is sexually assaulted by a man and his 2 adult sons, and the incident is video taped.

The story of this film is rather unique and interesting. However, it is almost unbearable in some scenes to watch, but not because of the depravity. Brian O’Halloran is just not a good actor. He really tries, and sometimes, he does deliver a good line, but he just really sucks. I am all for movies that don’t require decent acting, and this is certainly one of them, but he can’t pull it off. And I will tell you another thing, the scenes with him and the film’s writer/director Bryan Johnson are painful.  In one of them, they are spouting off out of place faux clever dialogue back and forth like they’re reading lines off the walls behind each other. Thankfully, that Mallrats-esque banter is only in one or two scenes, but the poor acting continues throughout. Jerry Lewkowitz, who plays Ed, the father and sexual deviant, gives a fairly decent performance. One problem with his scenes however, is that most of them are with his two sons, who are idiots, and the scenes take a somewhat comical tone. While this may take the edge off a scene where 3 guys are raping a clown, it also kind of makes it less realistic. I would blame that on the way the two sons were written, and not on Lewkowitz’s performance. The film was also directed fairly well, if you’ll excuse a scene were a dead man is obviously breathing. And, again, ignoring some bad dialogue, the script is not bad either. It isn’t a bad little film, but in the Viewaskewniverse, it is near the bottom.

I would not mind seeing a second attempt at this movie, just with some recasting. This film barely had a budget, was written in less than a month, and shot in less time than it was written. Now that there is a lot more money in these people’s bank accounts,  I would like to see what could be done with this story to make it better on film. Interesting bit of trivia: Vulgar is the clown logo of View Askew.

Repulsion is Roman Polanski’s first English language film. It is quite well done. Also, I am in love with Catherine Deneuve. Well, 1965 Catherine Deneuve.

Carole (played by Deneuve) lives with her sister Helen. Helen, has a boyfriend, Micheal, who is married, yet spends a lot of time at Carole and Helen’s apartment, much to Carole’s dismay. It is clear almost immediately, Carole doesn’t like Michael and possibly men in general. Later we find out that this is an understatement. Carole has a boyfriend, or is dating a man named Colin, but tends to shy away from him and sometimes doesn’t even show up for dates.  Carole goes so far as to throw away Michael’s razor and toothbrush because he puts them in her bathroom water glass. She doesn’t seem to have a hatred towards men so much as a dislike and even fear of them. This is indicated by actions such as vigorously wiping her mouth off as if it were dirty after being kissed and not letting Colin hold her arm. Helen and Michael go on vacation to Italy leaving Carole alone, and to unravel. Her phobia quickly becomes an extremely disturbing psychotic couple of weeks, and quite a satisfying movie.

This picture is a fine example of how suspense and even silence, can be just as effectively uncomfortable, if not more so, than violence and blood. The telephone and doorbell that constantly ring, the bells outside, the barking dog and the constantly cracking walls (that perhaps symbolize Carole’s ever deteriorating sanity) are all supremely employed to make the viewer quite agitated and feel somewhat overwhelmed. Contrary to that, there are long periods of silence that are also quite unnerving, especially when used during 3 hallucinatory rape scenes. I found the use of silence in these scenes particularly,  to be a brilliant choice. Yes, this is without a doubt one of the best directed films I have ever seen. Also, Deneuve, is simply superb playing Carole.  As Carole spends time alone in her apartment, she sits in the dark, lets food rot and just generally deconstructs. We can speculate that the reason for her madness is molestation; she constantly is wiping herself off suggesting that she feels unclean. She hallucinates that arms are coming out of the walls and grabbing her, once specifically on her breast. She also appears to have at least a slight desire to be with a man sexually, but at the same time is (cleverly) repulsed by it. Molestation is not directly addressed in the film, however. It is suggested, by a photograph of a clearly unhappy Carole as a child staring at a man (Father?), but nothing further to confirm this or any other reason.  It really is not relevant in my opinion and not knowing for sure just makes the film more eerie (as it may suggest the possibility that the fear is just plain irrational and has no basis in reality). At the very least, not confirming one way or the other is just a brilliant director’s choice to leave something open to interpretation. There is also a bit of violence as well, which I think was well placed to release the tension that was built up prior to those scenes. You would be hard pressed to find things not to like about this film.

I feel like a lot of people hear the name Polanski, and cannot remember a movie that he directed, with the exception of Rosemary’s Baby (or perhaps The Ninth Gate, unfortunately). I suggest starting with this film, and moving up his resume to get to know this filmmaker.