‘I Spit on Your Grave’ Trailer and Images

Steven R. Monroe’s gruesome revenge thriller will hit limited theaters on October 8th.

The latest theatrical trailer for Steven R. Monroe's blood curdling revenge remake I Spit on Your Grave has arrived courtesy of Yahoo! Movies! The film opens in limited release October 8th, and stars Sarah Butler as Jennifer Hills, an assaulted woman who seeks to bring unholy Hell upon her tormentors. To watch the trailer, as well as see new photos from the film, check out the images and video below:

I Spit on Your Grave Photo 1

I Spit on Your Grave Photo 2

I Spit on Your Grave Photo 3

I Spit on Your Grave Photo 4

I Spit on Your Grave Photo 5

Praised by some as a feminist tract, reviled by others as exploitation, Meir Zarchi's 1978 film I Spit on Your Grave was met with a firestorm of controversy that continues to this day. On October 8, 2010, Anchor Bay Films will release the Zarchi approved remake, and is poised to be as much a hot-button talking point as was the original.

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 Jennifer to a nightmare of degradation, rape and violence. Left for dead, she returns for vengeance. Trapping her male attackers one-by-one, she inflicts acts of physical torment upon them with a ferocity that surpasses her own ordeal. When the carnage clears, victim has become victor.

I Spit on Your Grave was released October 8th, 2010 and stars Sarah Butler, Chad Lindberg, Daniel Franzese, Tracey Walter, Jeff Branson, Rodney Eastman, Andrew Howard, Saxon Sharbino. The film is directed by Steven R. Monroe.

Sources: Yahoo! Movies!

Share this story yet?

0 0 0 0 0


Comments (54)

  1. moviegeek

    Haha, I can't believe we're commenting about boogers. I have no life lol.

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  2. Phillip Wilcox

    @moviegeek For a booger it does need to be, otherwise just on a passing people will just percieve it to be just a booger on a wall and that is it haha - Unless maybe you threw some color around it as well just give it a little extra something LOL

    5 years agoby @phillip-wilcoxFlag

  3. moviegeek

    Fine, this is a framed booger. Better? Who said art had to be framed?

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  4. moviegeek

    I think you think I have a problem with violence..? NO. I don't mind a good scary film either. But there has to be more behind it, something worth seeing, not just the goriest footage ever! And 1 2 and 3 about me would probably be all wrong, except I can't compare myself to you since I don't know.

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  5. Phillip Wilcox

    Yes I agree @avatarsequal. 100%. No one did listen to them. I think MM is one of the most intelligent human beings I've ever heard speak. Can't say the same for the people that blame him though, and used him as a scape goat. Those people that blame violent movies and rock music like MM's music on violent behavior in kids, well, are not very bright. If a parent blames those things on their kids' violent behavior, then that's not taking responsibility for their own kid. Yeah i myself do not care for Michael Moore personally but, his doc*mentaries are very real and have a lot of truth behind them. I love his films.

    5 years agoby @phillip-wilcoxFlag

  6. Dan

    Eh, your last comment was deleted, but my response was to that, in case anyone is confused.

    5 years agoby @dan1Flag

  7. Dan

    Those kids were picked on relentlessly and had clueless parents. They needed therapy and a new set of wiser parents to fix their problems. But no, it wasn't MM or violent movies/games that did it. It was that noone was listening to them, as Manson explained in Bowling For Columbine (don't like Michael Moore, but that was one of the most lucid conversations that was had in that film).

    5 years agoby @dan1Flag

  8. Phillip Wilcox

    Well it's obvious that we both have our different views on this entire topic (and sub-topics). Well, if you're gonna wipe a booger on a wall and consider it art you HAVE to frame it LOL. Otherwise it's just a booger on a wall haha -- Two thoughts came to mind when reading your last message, well actually 3 thoughts: Number 1.) You must be an over bearing parent who monitors every little thing your kid watches on tv or at the movies. 2) If not a parent then you must be a conservative (or a mormon lol yeah, i went there) and 3.) You must be at least 20-30 years older than I am (most older people, MOST, are the only ones that tend to call violent films like this one a "pile of garbage") Or maybe a collection of all 3. Now you're probably right when you said I must be immune, definitely not diseased lol, but yeah you're most likely right. I mean I was watching action movies by age 3 and then it got bumped up to horror films by 10 and up. So really, it takes ALOT for something to shock me now days. I'm pretty sure I have become desensitized by all the violent films I've seen through my life. But the "evening news" as you mentioned never made it any better you see. As a matter a fact, I blame the news, and not movies. Movies, we all know movies are fake. The blood is kero syrup with red dye, hacked off limbs are just prosthetics filled with goop inside, the innards are a collection of a bunch of other stuff. So, you saying that violence in cinema is morally reprehensible and garbage when its used as entertainment. But dare I say the same for your precious daily evening news? Does the public really need to know about REAL murders and rapes and gang violence happening not far from the safety of our homes? If you haven't noticed, the news is just as bad. They've turned it into a entertainment circus -- "A violent child molestor set free and now may very well be living amongst you. Coming up on Channel 5 News at 10!" Come on! Sounds just like a horror movie trailer, setting you up and getting your attention to watch, to keep you glued to the screen! And what do people say? Just like watching a horror movie trailer - "Ooh! I need to see that!" -- Is there no rating system for the news? And yet we let our children watch the news, but it's oh so bad for children to watch horror films (THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY FAKE) because it could rub off on them, give them bad ideas! Oh no it couldn't the news at all!" Because why everyone? That's right it's suppose to be "informative". We live in a f*cked up society. Not sure I can even call it a civilized society at that. The character of Ollie from the film Stephen King's The Mist had it right, "As a species we're fundementally insane." --

    Anytime there's a story about a serial killer or a story about someone that killed someone else in an extreme manner, and it's plastered all over the news, we as a society will flock straight to the news and are to that story, like a moth to a flame. We're attracted to things that shock us. Its in our system, we want that feeling of "Show me something I'm not suppose to see". And the media does hold the status a serial killer the same as a status of a celebrity. There's sex and violence everywhere. There's violence in cartoons like Tom And Jerry for crying out loud! lol. They're constantly hitting each other with frying pans and burning each other with things. But no, you wanna believe that all kinds of violence is seperate and has its own little category, cuz Kick-Ass is apparently a whole other story from I Spit On Your Grave lol. Come on, wake up.

    And yes there IS much more to a violent film. You just choose to see what you wanna see. You've already made up your mind about what the film is and isn't because there are violent acts in it and there's some blood. I mean, do you do this very same things when it comes to books? Do you read the back cover or the inner sleeve and if the description mentions anything about it having lots of violence or any brutal violence at all in it you immediately put the book back on the shelve cuz you automatically know for a certainy that there's just nothing but meaningless violence so there must be no actual story? I mean, do you do that for books as well? Would you call that book a pile of garbage also and assume it's got no complex characters or other alterior motives from multi-layered characters and sub-plots? Just curious. Cuz you pretty much fit the description and sounds like someone who judges a book by its cover. Just wondering.

    5 years agoby @phillip-wilcoxFlag

  9. moviegeek

    I felt strongly :P

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  10. Dan

    Good f*cking lord, you two.

    5 years agoby @dan1Flag

  11. moviegeek

    By 'expose', I didn't mean 'not shield'. Parents, of course, can't make their kids pretend, or vise versa, that there isn't some pretty sick stuff in this world. I agree, kids should, in moderation learn of this, through careful approach. WHAT I MEANT was that parents don't need to have their kids watch FAKE replications of the violence (or sex, or assault, or drugs, whatever) all around. These things exist and parents must realize and acknowledge this, allowing their ever-growing children in on it. BUT there is NO NEED to have kids WATCH perverse and awful things for themselves, regardless if its fake or not. They will, yes. Eventually they will, either on the news or in movies (my point exactly) see some things they otherwise won't need to. Answer me this: if film never existed, would you have ever seen castration with your own eyes? Or rape? Or even a murder? Hopefully, no. Filmmakers have the choice to show this in their movies, and that is fine. But that is why there is a ratings board to say, "hey, if people want to watch this, they can. But children cannot unless they have parents who are okay with it and want to watch it with them." There is nothing wrong with that. To say that a parent who approves of their child watching something like this is now unfair by the MPAA standards is false. They can, just with a parent. Nothing wrong with that. Just like your niece, while you were there with here, was asking you questions about Scream 2, parents can let their kids watch this, and the MPAA wants the guardian to be there when they do.

    Now onto your second paragraph. "And most times, the filmmakers aren't trying to ONLY entertain, some violent films are like a mirror...of society upon itself" That is your quote; nothing is out of context. Firstly, what the %*@* is entertaining about a picture like this? To use all of the reprehensible things in this world as entertainment is sickening. What Hollywood has done is not educate or raise awareness to the nastiness everywhere. They have made us immune to it. And... "To make us see how vile and evil some people can really be...just in a stylized, cinematic way." Erm.. What educational value or mental improvement do you gain from EVER hearing how evil people can be? I could think of lots of disgusting and repulsive evilness to show in a movie, and what do I gain from hearing some other FICTIONAL filmmaker's take on it? It's unnecessary. I don't feel like copy-and-pasting you whole last half of the paragraph starting with "The Ancient Romans..." Yes, I realize people get a rush out of things like this. And, you know what? It must suck to be so immune and diseased from everything bad around you, that you can get entertainment out of vile garbage like this. You yourself said that movies like this can be a mirror to society today and that they can show us how evil people are. If they are THAT REAL in nature, then how dare it be compared to something so trite as a rollercoaster. Do you watch the evening news, hear about a woman being raped and murdered, and say, "Oh! I would love to see a movie about that!" Why? Because you can reassure yourself that it was fake. We're coming to a point where I wouldn't be surprised to see a type of Gladiator-game come back. People have lost all sensitivity to violence that we are born with. And it isn't just by living in this world. It's by exposure to entertainment that trivializes it all.

    Third paragraph. You should write a book lol. I love your last sentence of the paragraph. I couldn't agree with you more. And 'hero' is just the word that I was using for 'protagonist'. Movies don't always have to be made about good people. Public Enemies was about a bank robber. :P You held my attention here until you said: "In ANY violent film, you HAVE to look much deeper than all the blood and guts up there on the screen, my friend. Because believe me, there is much more. There are motives, there are complex characters, and most of all, the story." Okay, there are motives. Revenge. Yeehaw. I don't see any other motive except synonyms of the same word. Complex characters...? Where? Do tell. And the story, yes. It exists. You say there is a lot more than blood and guts on the screen, and you make it sound like there is a better side to this movie? Like beyond the nastiness, there is redeeming qualities and things we could learn? Interpreted correctly or not, this is not true. The characters, their motives, and the story they are in are just as repulsively sadistic as the violence itself. There is nothing redeeming about it.

    Kick-Ass IS a whole other story. That movie is just as violent as the next movie, but it involves children. That is a whole other realm of sadness. Will people see that dressing up as superheros when you are 11 and being violent will get you beaten to a pulp. Sure? But who really, while watching that movie, was thinking that. ESPECIALLY kids.

    Back to our art discussion. If someone scrapes a booger on a wall and you look at it and cringe, is that art? It was made by someone and caused you to have a reaction. If so, such is this film.

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  12. Phillip Wilcox

    First it's not the parents who need to expose their kids to those things. But it's there, in plain view for everyone to see. We can only keep the kids away from it for so long before they have to leave the house. It's out there, in our cities, amongst conversations of their friends, on every street corner. It's just the world that human beings have created, it's human nature. If everything was one sided, like just good happening all the time, it'd be a completely different world we'd live in. But this is the world we live in. We cannot have the ying without the yang. Just as there is light there is also dark. Good/evil. Although i think it's safe to say that a lot of people would LOVE to live in that world of just sunshine, ice cream, dandelions and skipping through the meadow holding hands lol but unfortunately, that's not our world. We can't hide from it, just as we can't hide our children from it forever....

    And I JUST said in my previous message that filmmakers are trying to get across in those types of films for the most part is...sh*t i'm not even gonna re-write it, i'll just copy and paste and put it in quotes..."Sometimes, violent depraved content in movies are so appauling that any human being with a brain will automatically know that the writer/filmmaker isn't saying those things are good, they're saying those things are bad. And what's being done has dire consequences and results." That is the CLEAR message that people should take away from these kinds of violent films. And most times, the filmmakers aren't trying to ONLY entertain, some violent films are like a mirror, it's a way to reflect society unto itself. To make us see how vile and evil some people can really be...just in a stylized, cinematic way. The Ancient Romans did it over a thousand years ago when they would all gather in a stadium and had people thrown in with lions or other people, just to watch them get torn to pieces - all the way to 18th century with the Grand Guignol theatre in France where people of all social status would gather to see this "plays" put on of just gruesome acts of violence, where eyes would be scooped out or legs and arms would be hacked off. It's that blood lust that human beings have engrained deep within our psyche, to see that sort of stuff. There are just some people out there though that are more sensitive to it and therefor are more prone to be against it. The horror genre fans are the people though that accept it and turn it into something where it's the same as going on a rollercoaster ride, the scary film is their rollercoaster ride. Something to get their adrenaline rush....

    As for your "hero" comment: In revenge movies there are no heroes, contrary to what you may have yourself believe or have heard. The so called "heroes" are portrayed as complex characters with many layers. And it also makes you think, if something as horrendous and terrible happen to yourself or one of your family members, how far would you in fact go, DESPITE how you feel NOW about revenge. Putting yourself in that mindset, how far would you go to seek the justice you feel the bad people deserve?? And to think so high and mighty and say "I would NEVER go that far." is to deny the fact that you're human. You're still a human being with emotions, so that proves that in these movies, these types of revenge films and violent movies, not everything is so cut and dry, and black and white. There are many shade of grey. Heroes are never TRULY heroes unless they are purposely depicted that way in the story. In this film, I Spit On Your Grave, the character of Jennifer Hills never claims to be a heroin or nor any of her acts of revenge are out of heroism, she only seeks retribution. In ANY violent film, you HAVE to look much deeper than all the blood and guts up there on the screen, my friend. Because believe me, there is much more. There are motives, there are complex characters, and most of all, the story. Most of the time, the violence is just a means to an end. I always felt that the feelings of revolt are only the ignorance of only seeing what you wanna see.

    And Kick Ass is not a whole other story, cuz we're talking about violence in cinema and the affect it might or might not have on children and whether they'll imitate it or not, right? Doesn't matter what film it is, violence is violence, no matter how you slice it. The whole point I made could pertain to I Spit On Your Grave just as is much as it could pertain to the extreme violence in Kick-Ass.

    5 years agoby @phillip-wilcoxFlag

  13. moviegeek

    Well Kick-Ass is a whole other story :p

    ...and isn't "I Spit on Your Grave" (the movie this story is about lol) about a woman who gets harassed and raped by men, and then she takes revenge on them in vile gruesome depictions? Correct me if I'm wrong there.

    If so, then how can you say that the filmmakers are saying that the "hero" of our story is doing something wrong? They are creating a character that is supposed to be the hero and go against the evil being depicted. I don't care so much about violence from villains in movies. Villains are villains and we aren't supposed to like them. But when the hero of the story is doing the same, if even worse acts of torture to the men, what message are the filmmakers trying to get across? That violence is the only suggestion? These types of movies are revolting in nature and should be viewed by no one. Who cares if its fake or not? How is it entertainment to watch people be butchered and assaulted by each other?

    And I like the point you brought up about how kids, regardless of age, will be exposed to evil nastiness in one way or another, and if we speak to them, not condescendingly, then it will be better for their future. I agree, that is true. But why do we need to expose it to them at all?

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  14. Phillip Wilcox

    Did in any way, shape or form say that it is ok for a kid to do and say whatever they want? lol NO. Like I've been saying this whole time. It is the parent's responsibility to teach their children about right and wrong, and just talk straight with them, and not be so condescending when they do. Which they tend to do when they talk to their kids. Sometimes I over hear parents talk to their kids and they tend to sound so patronizing. Just because the kids are kids. But if parents can just be straight with them and be completely honest and not sugar coat things, and trust that the kids will make right decisions, they might just be able to have the mind set to watch to watch anything or a violent film and not automatically walk out of their house, go pick up a gun and shoot someone just because they saw it in a movie. When parents teach their kids, they should have faith that what they taught them enough times will actually have a positive affect. But you know what, people can try to hide their kids from violence, drugs, sex, etc. til they are blue in the face. The fact remains that their child will end up being exposed to these things when they get older anyway. So whether they learn of it when they're 10-13 or learn of it when they're 15-18, they will learn of these things. And a time will come in their lives where they will have to make a decision about right and wrong, or what they should or shouldn't do. Sometimes, violent depraved content in movies are so appauling that any human being with a brain will automatically know that the writer/filmmaker isn't saying those things are good, they're saying those things are bad. And what's being done has dire consequences and results. And the film Kick Ass is a prime example of that message. The filmmaker wasn't trying to say "Hey kids! You should try and be a superhero it's really cool!" The filmmaker was saying "You know what, superheros are cool for comic books, but look what happens when you try to become one for real. You get stabbed in the gut, get hit by a car and end up in the hospital for 6 weeks." lol

    5 years agoby @phillip-wilcoxFlag

  15. moviegeek

    Oops, "but IN guidance..." not IT

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  16. moviegeek

    Oh my word. Parent: see there's a child getting raped in the movie, don't do that of course. I'm sure kids
    would NEVER replicate seeing the people in movies do drugs, drink, rape, etc. Sure, kids won't kill because they saw it in the movies. But do you think they might possibly replicate the lesser of two evils. If parents think it's okay for their kid to see a movie, the R rating allows the parent to see it with the kid. Good for your niece if she is fearless. It isn't the job of a parent to let your child have the responsibility he or she wants. Kids need to grow up, but it guidance from their parents. You can't just let them loose to do and say whatever they want. Scream isn't exactly pornographic in nature :p. But don't you think that 8 year old boys who watch hardcore pornography have a lesser view of women? Oh, of course not. Give kids credit because they are smarter than that. A parent can let their kid watch it because that is what the world is like and you had better get used to it now. That is not parenting, it is neglegence, a quality that becomes more and more frequent in society today. A quality I do not envy.

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  17. Phillip Wilcox

    lol That is really not my decision to make. If some 10-13 year old wants to see it, I'm not in any position to say whether that's right or wrong. If the parent is fine with it, cool. If they are not fine with it and don't want their kid watching a violent film like that, then that is the parent's right to keep their kid from watching. My 5 year old niece visited this past weekend and actually wanted to see the Scream movies with me, like it was acually her idea to see the movies. She loves scary movies! Her mom is fine with it as long as her kid doesn't get nightmares. And trust me, my niece does not get nightmares, the kid is fearless lol. The point is we were sitting there watching Scream 2 and I turned to her and said, "You know killing is bad right?" and she turned to me and said "Yeah killing is bad." And she actually asked me "Is all this not real?" I said "Yep, it's all fake in these movies. In the movies, the real people don't actually die." -- My point to this is that adults have to give more credit to children than what they are actually giving. Because a lot of adults think kids are not that smart, cuz they're kids. But they are, they are very savvy and smart. And if an adult or parent can just sit with a young kid and talk to them and tell them what's what, and talk to them about right and wrong and have faith that that kid will make the right decision, then I think a parent could be more comfortable with letting their child decide for themselves what's bad and what not to copy from movies if they do watch violent films.

    5 years agoby @phillip-wilcoxFlag

  18. moviegeek

    Yes or no question: should kids watch 'I Spit On Your Grave'?

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  19. Phillip Wilcox

    Ok i grew up watching violent, vile, gory, sometimes depraved films my entire life. Have I ever been convicted of a crime? No. Have I ever played pretend with my friends when I was a kid? Who hasn't?? But movies are not responsible for our actions. As Woody Harrelson said in an interview about Natural Born Killers - "I don't think anyone sits through a 2 hour movie and decides they're gonna become a serial killer." Again, movies are not responsible for our actions. You know who's responsible for our actions? We are. Do children have impressionable minds? Definitely. But when it comes to children, it's the parents that is to watch over their children and teach them what's right and what's wrong and what shouldn't be mirrored in real life from what they see in the movies. I mean do you really think a screenwriter or a producer or a director sits there on a set or in a location and contimplates how the scene they are about to shoot will affect some random child 100 miles away? Of course not. And they shouldn't. Because they're not the parent of that child, and that child is not their responsibility. That screenwriter, or producer or director is in the business of entetaining. And there shouldn't be responsibility attached to entertaining. As adults we are only responsible for our own person, and that is the bottom line right there. That's all there is to it.

    5 years agoby @phillip-wilcoxFlag

  20. moviegeek

    It's not that a parent needs to worry about what movies are appropriate for their children, it's that there needs to be a guideline so that kids can't just go an wath whatever it is they want. If all 10 year olds grew up on the saw franchise because they could see them with no restriction and it was the cool thing to see, whether you want to admit it or not, what you watch can affect your mind, especially as a child.

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  21. Phillip Wilcox

    @moviegeek It's not always left up to the director when they're saying either take these things out or your film won't get a "rating" there for won't be released in theatres. I've heard enough situations like that occur from directors. And it's not right. And why would a parent need a rating system to let them know what and what not to let their children see? I think a parent can decipher the difference between an action film with sex in it and an animated film or family film just by seeing a trailer. It is not a "guidline system". There should not be any censorship, of any kind. I mean really, who are these people to tell an artist what to create and what not to create??

    5 years agoby @phillip-wilcoxFlag

  22. moviegeek

    There should be a rating between r and pg-13, and there should be an adult rating. But the mpaa does not tell directors what to cut out of their movies. They simply give them a rating with the explanation and the director can choose to edit as needed before resubmitting. Children don't need to see graphic footage and that is why the ratings are eatablsihed for. If an adult thinks their kids can see the movie, they are more than welcome to take them. It is guidelines.

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  23. Phillip Wilcox

    @moviegeek Psh, guidlines. No, they censor. They hold the final say and decision on what goes into the final cut of a film (which shouldn't be), and if the director won't comply with the "suggestions" of the MPAA, they have the power to not have that film distributed and released in theatres. Because evidently if the film doesn't get "rated" then it can't be released to the public. That is not simply setting "guidlines". That is censorship. And you're right, they don't make the right decision 90-99% of the time. Why? Because the board of the MPAA are a group of Parents! lol Yeah that's right, parents. It's those group of parents that watch the films, rate and make comments on them. I mean they have no thorough knowledge or even appreciation of film much less, they just make decisions based solely on what they would or wouldn't let their own kids see. Not cool. They don't speak for the rest of the public. I've heard more than a handful of stories from directors about the MPAA's so called "Guidlines". Alot of their suggestions are just plain ludacris and absurd. And, really, the "Rating System" is by far one of the most stupidest things I've ever been a witnessed to. I'm aware there are quite a bit of people that don't agree with me and that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, i'm sorry, to tell the director to trim 3 frames out of a scene of violence, or to limit the number of thrusts in a sex scene or the film will no longer be a "PG-13", it will get an "R" rating, is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

    5 years agoby @phillip-wilcoxFlag

  24. Dan

    I bet you guys are having an argument that people had when the original came out.

    5 years agoby @dan1Flag

  25. moviegeek

    @Phillip The mpaa does not censor anything, btw. It just gives guidelines for viewing. I don't think they make the right decisions anlot if the time however.

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

  26. Err

    looks like a fun cringe-worthy little bit of revenge.
    i only ever saw a part of the original, and what i saw was like an expose on bad acting and pointlessness.
    i've always meant to watch it all the way through but never cared enough to get around to it.

    5 years agoby @err2005Flag

  27. T.Clark

    Cell, for the love of God, stop copy and pasting from Wikipedia. Come up with some original thoughts for once in your life.

    5 years agoby @insertusernamehereFlag

  28. Phillip Wilcox

    @moviegeek There was this film back in 2002 called The Champagne Club. If you haven't seen it, you must. Anyway, there was a couple of lines of dialogue in that film that has always stuck with me, and also that reflects our discussion. The main character, almost at the teathered end of his rope asks a question to one of the female characters. He asks "How do we know that we're free from art?" And the female character leans forward and replies "When you can look at a piece of art, and feel absolutely nothing."

    5 years agoby @phillip-wilcoxFlag

  29. Phillip Wilcox

    @moviegeek What is the point of Cinema if it always has to be what you think is "Good Cinema" - Whatever that means lol. Film IS like a blank canvas, and to judge true creative artistic expression by what you personally think something is made in "good taste", then that's not respecting the artist themselves who created what they did that made you feel the way you do in the first place. This is exactly why I am completely against the MPAA. It's censorship that should be abolished. I mean what gives a few people the right to put borders and fences around free range ideas and creative thoughts?? To have people say "Yes this is acceptable" or "No no, no way, you either edit this (or censor that) or your film will never be released in theatres." There is no room for morale in imagination or ideas. To Me "Good Cinema" means anything and everything you can imagine or conjure up in thought or ideas, and then having it realized and imprinted on celluloid - without "official judgement" on what can and can't be in that film that the filmmaker poured their heart and soul, and blood, sweat and tears into and struggled to make for so long. Art by definition IS "1.human ability to make things; creativity of man as distinguished from the world of nature." - Regardless of what is thought to be a "pile of garbage" or not. Art still IS, therefor trumping any kind of negative opinion or judgement. The fact that it made you feel what you feel is proof enough that it is Art.

    5 years agoby @phillip-wilcoxFlag

  30. moviegeek

    and @Phillip Art does not trump and positive or negative view on it. Regardless of what kind of art it is, choice, morale, and mind trump any form of created art.

    5 years agoby @moviegeekFlag

From The Web