Search the Community

okay, this has been gradually annoying me further. first of all, in the late sixties, night of living dead was made, and this depiction of violence onscreen made people see what else they could get away with, like depicting rape (which the movies i'm ranting about were missed by several years). so, depicting rape in a movie nowadays, forty-five years after their first depiction is nothing special, and thus movies invented solely to depict rape are not "special", meaning remakes of this and last house on the left (which itself has two remakes, more or less) removing any justification to remake them to begin with. so going back a while, even the original i spit on your grave was a bearer of obvious problems, even the tagline "this woman has killed [number] men, but no jury would convict her" - this is obvious bs. someone who went back and murdered people who did some wrong weeks or months ago is clearly guilty of pre-meditated murder. even if she killed them in self-defense, some juries would question how she needed to kill a group she overpowered all by herself, or how she would've know they intended to rape her, but besides noting the movie's mindset was very goofy from the time it started. but the issue is with these clearly pointless remakes and how they manage to be even more ridiculous than you'd expect in the 80's, there wasn't as much political correctness so portraying a retard as an evil person was accepted, the remake changes this with ridiculous results. in the remake, the retard member of the group is literally forced to have sex with the female victim who gets treated as a victim - the others would've slit her throat otherwise -and is shown to be absolutely devastated afterwards. somehow, being forced with have sex with doesn't seem to make him a rape victim since the movie reverts to following its predecessor and she murders him along with the guys who are actual rapists. it should be noted, the director, even in the syfy movies he made, did include much more character depth and such than you'd normally find in a modern movie, so that he intended to portraying a rape victim (woman, not retard) as becoming a villain. i wasn't convinced, but it was possible note: despite the first director being a massive feminist, he knew that to get the audience to empathise with someone who commits horrific murders. the remake? near everything happens to the protagonist offscreen. then there's the second movie in the series, which iirc shares a director with the remake, isn't so much a problem - the rape victim from this movie is't unsympathetic, except for a bit when she reports her rape but doesn't even her mention her friend who was murdered trying to protect her. i'd even ignored that a female leader of a human trafficking ring (the franchise's one female villain) gets to live and get off scott-free, until now, but- i recently the promotions for the third movie airing on tv firstly, the detestable protagonist from the remake is back, still going on about the group she killed deserved it (even the retard who was forced to have sex with her it seems) second, there's a cop saying about how it has to proved that perpetrators are guilty of rape before being punished, and brace yourselves i'm not making this up the cop has Hitler's hair HITLER'S HAIR what a brilliant, mature statement about those who argue people accused of rape aren't automatically guilty. and yes, this retroactively makes it much more likely for the remake's attitude the man forced to have to sex with was commiting rape by being forced to have sex was exactly as it appears on the surface. can't wait until i spit on your grave movie 4, where i'd assume they have the protaginist rape a man, then kidnap and torture him for months for being raped.