A sequel to a remake of a video nasty doesn't sound like it's going to be a classic, and the straight-to-DVD I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE 2 is about as good as you'd expect it to be, i.e. not very. It's an unconnected sequel to the first film in which - once again - an attractive young woman is subjected to a horrific ordeal of rape and humiliation at the hands of a gang of thugs, before eventually enacting her revenge.

I despise rape sequences in films and am always tempted to fast forward through them. They go on for an age here, with the whole of the first hour taken up with the lead's ordeal. It's just unpleasant, and has zero entertainment factor. The film has a cheaper look to it than the first, with British leads standing in for American characters and filming in Sofia, Bulgaria, which makes it look as depressing as you'd expect.

Eventually, there's more extreme nastiness to come, but it feels tiresome and vindictive here. The film as a whole isn't as shocking or as disturbing as the first because you've come to expect it by now and it all feels very familiar and even the plot twists from the first are merely copied. The cast isn't too bad - Jemma Dallender already has form with the low budget British horror COMMUNITY, while Joe Absolom was once a bad guy on EASTENDERS - it's just that the pedestrian nature of the writing makes this a bore to watch.

Katie Carter (Jemma Dallender) is an aspiring model in New York. She gets a photo session from three Bulgarian brothers. When it turns creepy, she decides to leave. One of the brothers, Georgy, tracks her down and assaults her at home. A neighbor tries to help and is killed. Georgy rapes Katie and calls his brothers for help. She is drugged and transported to a basement sex dungeon.

There is almost an hour of torture porn and about half an hour of revenge porn. It's horror porn. It's porn porn. It is grotesque. It is degenerate. It is all that is expected from the Spit on Your Grave franchise. My biggest issue is the location of the basement dungeon. It can't be in the middle of the city. Somebody must have heard her screaming. Also it makes no sense that she is able to do what she does without knowing how to speak the language. The location needs to be a remote area. She could still find the helpful priest but the isolation would require her to be self-sufficient. There is also a missing scene of the box falling through the floor. It's a little bit of special effects but the movie needs to show the box falling. Without it, it took a few seconds to realize what's going on. Overall, this is what is expected whether one likes it or not. It is up to the audience.

Many Horror films often like to shroud themselves in mystery, both in the film itself (in regards to plot and story) and around it (cast, crew and such). This leads to many unsolved questions... Why did the eerie and disturbing Fred Kruger become Freddie the comedian in the 2nd film? Why did we have to wait all these years for 20 Days of Night to show us an actually frightening vampire? Why is cheap gore even considered Horror? And many more. To this list I can now add "why the heck would anyone want to make a sequel after the remake of I Spit on Your Grave, which was simply the perfect revenge film?"

I Spit on Your Grave 2 had no chance. It was doomed to be a let down after the first film. I find it virtually impossible to review this film objectively due to my utter admiration to the first film, since the sequel is lacking and wanting in every single aspect. Jemma Dallender is not a bad actress, her acting is simply annoying. Her exaggerated sobs ruined any and all chance of sympathy, especially after the excellent work done by Sarah Butler in the original. The story and plot are nothing more than a tribute to the first film, with the script feeling like it's been written by a high school student doing their homework assignment of "re-write a script while offering absolutely nothing new". Even the punishments and tortures extracted by the victim-turned-huntress are nothing more than a tribute, and are far less powerful, artistic and impacting. Seriously... Why?

Having said all that, it wouldn't be fair to say I didn't enjoy the film. Seeing monsters punished by the one whose life they tried to destroy always feels good, even if not as good as during the first film. The acting by the list of antagonists was not half bad, and I should specifically commend on Peter Silverleaf's character, which was an excellent addition and perhaps the only innovation compared to the first film. Also, in this film we finally see some police involvement, offering both a well deserved criticism to the manner in which authorities handle rape cases and treat the victims, and a different ending. In regards to the ending, it did add some necessary value to the plot and the overall predicament.

All in all, the more you enjoyed the first film, the less you are likely to enjoy this one. However, if like me you enjoy watching evil people suffer, and are looking for a slight addition to the overall story - I would definitely recommend this film. I guess succeeding in being not bad when having no chance of being equally good to begin with is somewhat impressive. I'm glad I watched this, but I would in no way object to the decision to skip it and move on to the 3rd, which is actually a sequel and far better.