Day of the Woman (1978)

I watched this movie after seeing it sited on a list by The Rolling Stone as one of the most contrversial and gruesome movies made. there must not be that many gruesome horror movies out there because this movie was extremely boring with run time being wasted on shots that lingere on to long as if they had tension. the rape scenes werent convincing at all and the kills in this movie weren't satisfying nor disturbing and poorly done. the acting is sub par aswell. i became interested in disturbing horror movies after extremely enjoying cannibal holocaust, and after seeing this and other movies like this i now realize that most movies in this genre are awful and holocaust is an exception.

I was interested in seeing this movie if only because Roger Ebert said it was the worst movie ever made. I was interested in seeing what other people thought of what would be considered the worst ever made. I wonder what Mike Nelson thinks of this? Anyway, this movie is of course horrible and it's not just because it's a disgusting violent film. The acting is terrible. There's this one really obnoxious guy who sounds like Woody Allen. Even the way the story is told is terrible. All the action stops at literally the last three minutes of the film making it horribly paced. It can be very unsettling watching these graphic rape scenes. The characters are just plain stupid. Near the end, the rapists have no problem meeting up with the girl again. Aren't they afraid of what she'll do seeing as how they raped her? There was no male genitalia shown although we did get to see the woman's crotch a lot. Even the box cover says that the woman gets revenge on five men even though there's only four men. Are the creators of this movie so stupid they can't even count? It's a horribly ugly mess with nothing but an excuse to show horrifying images. There's no character development or purpose in the entire film at all. It shows up on a lot of worst ever lists even though the overall score both here and RottenTomatoes isn't that bad! *

Anyone who watches this movie has a decision to make--is it trash or genius? If you are reading this review, you probably know the plot--a woman is gang-raped in the woods, again and again and again. She miraculously survives and decides on revenge. If you are able to sit through the movie, more power to you, because it is ugly beyond compare, a brutal exercise of twisted psychopathy.So is it art or trash? The amazing thing about this movie is that it may be both. If you like, you can go to the movie and get sick pleasure out of all the violence. Heck, I heard it was a controversial film and watched it out of curiosity, so I am as guilty of this as they next person. The film does not disappoint--it is brutal beyond compare, to the point where Roger Ebert could justifyably label it the worst movie ever made.And yet, the problem is that some scenes, especially the gang rape, have an air of truth to them that forces a reconsideration. Sixteen years later, Stephen Spielberg would make Saving Private Ryan, the first war movie that really showed the battle scenes in a realistic way, with soldiers getting burned, blown up and mutilated in all of the gory detail. Similarly, the rape scenes in this movie are impressively done and strike the audience as a realistic and sympathetic rendition. We probably all need to conceive of rape in the visuals set forth here.And as a result, this is a movie that is literally trash and genius at the same time. This is probably why the film was so controversial. There have been plenty of gratuitously violent movies, but only a few that do the violence in such a way that we are truly appalled. We would not be this offended unless part of what was going on was true.

Since it's release in 1978, "I Spit on Your Grave" has become one of the most controversial films ever made. The films explicit content sparked a global conversation over whether such depraved imagery and realistic violence can be used to portray a deeper message or if it is simply an exploitative tactic, used to draw in disturbed individuals who get off on seeing others get hurt. There doesn't seem to be a concrete answer as even many vocal proponents and detractors of this film have changed their opinions throughout the years. The film is about a young woman named Jennifer, who vacations at a cabin in upstate New York. One day, Jennifer is attacked by a gang of local men who beat and rape her in the middle of the woods. Jennifer is then raped two more times. Once on her way to the cabin, and again inside the cabin. The rape scenes are brutal and realistic, demonstrating the vicious reality of sexual assault. The second act of the film shows Jennifer getting revenge on her rapist by brutally murdering them. She manages to hang one of her attackers and castrates another, leaving him to bleed to death. The climax features Jennifer chasing her last two attackers in a motor boat and using the boats blades to chop them into pieces. Jennifer's revenge is satisfying as you see the men who raped her powerless and in fear just as she had been. For a revenge movie, "I Spit on Your Grave" is unrivaled. It's vicious in its approach both during the initial attack and the revenge. Jennifer's brutality is seen as completely justified after bearing witness to her assault. Not even the most pacifist of viewers would dare criticize her decision, at least not to her face. This is not a movie to watch more than once, as multiple views would cheapen the initial shock value and detract from the films message. Turning it into a sadist fetish rather than a depiction of an inhuman act. My biggest criticism stems from the fact that there are three different rapes scenes. After the first rape, the second two come off as unnecessary and simply trying to rub in a point that had already been made. The logical defense of this would be that she was raped by a different man during each encounter, thus making each of her later victims guilty of the same crime. This falls apart by the fact that they could've saved time by having the rapes all take place one after another in the same scene. This was probably done to expand the running time of the film. However, this choice unfortunately cheapens the impact of Jennifer's rape, making it appear drawn out and at times ridiculous. I don't think this movie is simply an exploitation film, meant to attract depraved miscreants. There is substance to the brutality presented, it's just cheapened by the excess.