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.