Loading...
Loading...

I Spit on Your Grave is a 2010 rape-revenge horror directed by Steven R. Monroe, written by Stuart Morse from Meir Zarchi's screenplay for the 1978 original, and starring Sarah Butler as Jennifer Hills. It runs 108 minutes, was made for two million dollars, took around five hundred and seventy thousand at the box office, and was shot in and around Shreveport, Louisiana. I found it a deeply uncomfortable watch, and I want to be precise about which parts of that discomfort the film earned and which parts it simply inflicted.
Let me split this into two, because it is functionally two different films with a hinge in the middle.
The first half is, to my genuine surprise, competently made. The cinematography is decent, the sense of isolation is real, and the suspense is constructed with some actual craft. It builds dread properly rather than cheaply, and by the time things turn, the atmosphere has done its work.
But the reason it lands is not the filmmaking. It is the subject. As a man, I have never once in my life worried about being alone in a cabin in the woods. It has not crossed my mind. That thought has never occupied a single second of my attention. And for an enormous number of women, that exact scenario sits somewhere near the front of the brain permanently, as an instinctive calculation made by default, because of the world we have collectively built. Watching a film that is constructed entirely on top of a fear I have never had to carry is an uncomfortable experience, and I do not think it should be a comfortable one.
Then the assault happens, and it is simply bad. I am not going to describe it, I am not going to catalogue it, and I do not believe there is any value in my doing so.
The second half is where this collapses entirely.
Jennifer survives in the woods. The same woods that these men are actively combing through, day after day, searching for her body. She is out there for roughly a month, and the film turns her into something closer to a forest spirit than a person, materialising and vanishing at will. Critics at the time noted the same thing, describing her as becoming almost supernatural in that stretch, and while I can see the intent, the effect is that the film stops being grounded in anything.
Then there is the physical implausibility, which broke the entire back half for me. Jennifer begins incapacitating grown men and moving them into elaborate, purpose-built torture arrangements. And without wishing to be unkind, Sarah Butler is a small woman. There is no reading of physics in which she is single-handedly dragging fully grown men across forest terrain and suspending them from structures. Every time it occurred, I fell further out of the film, and by the end I was watching a series of set pieces rather than a story.
Do you agree with this review?
Reviewed on September 20, 2026
A beautiful woman from the city, Jennifer Hills, rents an isolated cabin in the country to write her latest novel. Soon, a group of local lowlifes subject her to a nightmare of degradation, rape, and violence.
The deaths themselves are designed so that each man's fate corresponds to his role in the assault, which is at least structurally deliberate. In practice it produces a run of increasingly baroque sequences, including the notorious one involving garden shears, which I am not going to detail. Then something else happens, somehow worse, and the film ends.
The thought I could not shake throughout was that this was very obviously made by men. So I checked, and it is true at every level of authorship. The film is directed by a man, written by a man, and adapted from the screenplay of the man who wrote and directed the 1978 original. There is not a single woman credited anywhere in the creative authorship of a film whose entire premise rests on a woman's worst-case fear.
I do want to be fair on one significant point. Sarah Butler initially declined this role because of its content, and only accepted after reading the complete script and concluding that it contained a genuine character arc and what she described as a feminist edge. She is comfortably the best thing in the film, she committed to an extraordinarily demanding role, and she went into it with full awareness of what she was doing. That deserves acknowledgement and it complicates the criticism in a way I think is worth sitting with.
But the fundamental problem was identified by critics at the time better than I can put it. This film invests far more intensity in the revenge than it ever does in the emotional reality of what was done, which lands it squarely in torture-porn territory alongside the Hostel and Saw films. Once the machinery of vengeance starts, the film's interest in Jennifer as a person evaporates, and what is left is a series of elaborate deaths staged for an audience that has been given permission to enjoy them.
The points I am awarding are entirely for the first half. Nothing that follows has earned any.
The Verdict
2/10 โ Not Recommended
2025