What happened to the little girl? - I Spit on Your Grave (2010) Discussion

[–] DarkHallows 10 years ago

I think Jennifer killed her. When she says "imagine if someone did something like this to her" it implies that Jennifer did the same thing to his daughter in retaliation.

reply

[–] Rabbit_with_a_Gun12 10 years ago

Did you get that from the Directors commentary on the DVD or that's just your personal opinion? If its true, this girl really lost it.

God has a hard on for marines because we kill everything we see. He plays his game, we play ours.

reply

[–] hubble-hallow 10 years ago

Its up to us to use our imaginations. I hope she killed the girl....then went back to the sheriffs house and killed his wife. An eye for an eye.

reply

[–] mjjmolina 10 years ago

How is killing the little girl in any way a form of justice or even revenge on the Sheriff?

reply

[–] siltom1962 10 years ago

It's not an eye for an eye. An eye for an eye would mean the girl doing exactly the same thing to them that they did to her. As far as I can remember there was no scene where they killed her husband and child, you idiot.

reply

[–] whitespirit26 9 years ago

You're a weirdo, hubble. She had no reason to kill the girl or wife, what the hell would be the point if the sheriff never knew?

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

eye for an eye would just be her anally raping her attackers. Your advocating killing twi more innocent women (one of which is a child) is an eye for an eye??? WTF? You clearly don't know what an eye for an eye really means. Your sound more like your into killing mosquitoes with canons.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9521) 2 months ago

This movie is a work of fiction. The girl was never killed in this story

reply

[–] siltom1962 10 years ago

It doesn't imply that at all.

reply

[–] blairbitchproject 9 years ago

Um, I guess its open to interpretation because I didn't see it that way. I just took it as her bluffing to pour salt in the wound per say, he was going to die anyway so she just needed him to think his family was dead too...

reply

[–] mjjmolina 10 years ago

I don't think she killed the little girl. That's just my personal opinion. I'm basing this off the character's development, motivation, and the context of the movie. Namely, there is no reason to kill the little girl. It serves no function to the woman and her quest for revenge.

Some might say she'd kill the little girl as part of her revenge against the sheriff, to make him suffer. However, I think if she would have killed her for those reasons she would have brought back tangible proof to reinforce it (bloody dress, severed digits, scalp, etc). Instead she left him with a vague implication that was mild at best.

reply

[–] BulmaPunkRocker 9 years ago

I totally agree.

I think Jennifer's idea was to make sherif believe she hurt his daughter, to bring him some emotional pain, not just physical.
She probably left the girl on a safe place so she could return with her mother.

Now, I don't know if she actually wanted them to see the horrible video-proof. Maybe she sent the cassette on purpose to avoid the wife and daughter to see it and again, to cause emotional disstress on the sherif.

It would be terrible for the wife, and kids, to live knowing that, it could lead to suicide or worse.

Please excuse my terrible redaction, english is not my native language.

reply

[–] Special_Agent_Kato 9 years ago

Maybe she should have held onto the video, if she got caught she would be able to prove why she did it. I suppose sending it did cause stress and conflict within the group. At first he thought Stanley had sent it then Matthew. Although meeting the Sherriff's wife and daughter was maybe a bad idea, his wife had seen her and knew he was stressed when he heard about her being there, even knew her name.

reply

[–] andrewsk8s 10 years ago

I don't think she killed the girl. Just my read on Jennifer. There was no sign of revenge spreading beyond the principles directly involved.

Purely speculation, but it might have been better "revenge" on the sheriff to just show the young daughter (and pregnant wife) what kind of man he really is i.e. show, broadcast or upload the video, since the sheriff clearly wanted to be seen as a nice, god-fearing family man, at least to his family.

"As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster"

reply

[–] Rabbit_with_a_Gun12 10 years ago

That would be the ultimate damage weapon to his family. Death is one thing but to know your father raped and left a women for dead. That daughter will never look at her father the same way again, maybe men in general.

God has a hard on for marines because we kill everything we see. He plays his game, we play ours.

reply

[–] mogwai996 10 years ago

I was surprised that Jennifer didn't send another copy of the tape to the sheriff's wife with a "Watch Now" note on it. She said before they didn't have a recorder that would play the tape back but she could have gotten one, and that, would have been the ultimate revenge, but to answer the question, no I doubt she killed the little girl because she was innocent.

reply

[–] iheartnormi 10 years ago

I was surprised that she didn't convert it to DVD or VHS...who has small cassettes anymore? If she really wanted the family to see how horrible he is she would have done that.

reply

[–] agent_spalko 10 years ago

I don't think she killed the girl. She just made the sheriff believe that she did it. Killing her is somehow morally not justifiable. She only tortured and killed her tormentors.

I was only wondering why they didn't show the girl at the end.

reply

[–] Balberith 10 years ago

I don't think she killed the girl either. Killing a child would make the viewer lose all sympathy for her. Everything else she did was perfectly fine with me.

"A real man would rather bow down to a strong woman than dominate a weak one"

reply

[–] Special_Agent_Kato 10 years ago

This film seems pretty messed up. I've only seen the 70s one, in it she just killed the four guys involved, no innocent people.

reply

[–] Suki_Akbar 10 years ago

Well, then actually watch the movie to decide for yourself. If you watch the 2010 remake, you'll find that there is nothing to confirm that she killed anybody other than the men who participated in her rape/attempted murder.

Protect wildlife.
Save the trees.
Wipe your ass with Owls.

reply

[–] Special_Agent_Kato 10 years ago

Does she send Johnny's wife a parcel and letter in the remake? The letter saying, "I give you till the next full moon to order of your workers away from the filling station.
In the box you'll find a special gift: Johnny's favourite toy. He cried when I took it away from him.
Leave the filling station now or more boxes will follow with more Johnny.
Signed Jennifer Hill, Natural born daughter of Roose Bolton, Lord of the Dread Fort and Warden of the North."

reply

[–] Ike_McAdoo 9 years ago

no, because this wasn't Game of Moans.

reply

[–] klondike99 9 years ago

Why not. I would imagine she went back and killed the wife as well. She proved to be a homical maniac. and will surely go to jail for a long time if she doesn't kill his family. At the end the sheriff said I will rape you in hell, which inferred that she killed an innocent as well.

reply

[–] Snake_MacReady82 9 years ago

There is no direct indication that she actually killed the kid, so I doubt she did. As for the wife being able to identify Jennifer, I seriously doubt she gave a *beep* about being caught, as long she got revengence first.

Thit and thpin!

reply

[–] Balberith 9 years ago

I do not believe she killed the child.

"A real man would rather bow down to a strong woman than dominate a weak one"

reply

[–] pentacleman 8 years ago

Exactly. When one becomes a vengeful, emotionally scarred sociopath, one only tends to care about the end of one's quest, not what comes after that.

It's also about motive. I strongly doubt that Sheriff Storch ever breathed one word to his wife about his connection to Jennifer, even while Jennifer was threatening him over the phone and using his daughter as a hostage of sorts; how would he explain that relationship without incriminating himself? "Oh, Chastity's teacher? Yeah, I know her. A few months back, me and the boys beat seven shades of stuffing out of her and gang-raped her repeatedly out in the woods. Johnny had some weird fascination with seeing her teeth or something, I dunno. Just a bunch of guys having fun with an out-of-towner, really. Then I tried to kill her, but I guess she survived. She's probably pretty ticked off at me about that. So what's for dinner?"

So without knowing that crucial connection between Sheriff Storch and Jennifer, Mrs. Storch wouldn't have much cause to suspect Jennifer -- this (supposedly) good, wholesome teacher -- of foul play. One day, her husband went out somewhere to speak with Miss Hills about their daughter's progress in school or whatnot. Then Mrs. Storch never heard from either one of them again. Maybe they both got caught, murdered and buried by some random serial killer. Maybe the alligators got them. Maybe Jennifer seduced him and he told her that his wife and daughter meant nothing to him anymore, so they went to Canada to start a new life together, and Mrs. Storch will be getting divorce papers in the mail any day now. Who knows?

reply

[–] francesca-marie 10 years ago

Doing anything to the little girl wouldn't serve any purpose. Our lead is traumatized and looking for revenge. Harming the daughter doesn't accomplish that. However, leading the sheriff to believe that in his last moments would do enough. If she's going to kill him anyway, there would be no point.

reply

[–] Special_Agent_Kato 10 years ago

I watched the film now. Doubt she did anything to her. Sherriff had to die not knowing if anything had happened though.
Maybe it would have been better if she hadn't gone to meet his wife and kids. She could have left town and probably not been caught. Now his wife knows what she looks like.
Or maybe she should have given the him the same treatment as she gave Johnny, then sent his wife his favourite toy in a box saying he cried when she took it away from him.

reply

[–] Moriarty88 10 years ago

Just finished watching this as well and while I was wondering what she did with the girl, in no way did it seem that she killed her. Id say she left her somewhere. i think she was just making the sheriff think she did.

:
In Your Box Office . com

reply

[–] Mousebear 10 years ago

It was enough for Jennifer to know that the sheriff was wondering what she had done with the kid, she didn't need to harm the kid or the wife, and she was too nice a person to bring innocent people into the equation anyway.

reply

[–] Balberith 10 years ago

Right! Jennifer was too decent and honorable for that.

"A real man would rather bow down to a strong woman than dominate a weak one"

reply

[–] RRPounder 10 years ago

She would have killed the girl in front of him if she did.

reply

[–] Balberith 10 years ago

Quite right! She just wanted to punish those that did her harm.

"A real man would rather bow down to a strong woman than dominate a weak one"

reply

[–] Bobby Briggs Briganza 10 years ago

too decent and honorable

?? No she wasn’t. We can understand her desire for revenge, but it was not at all decent or honorable. Nor did her actions before she was assaulted suggest she had any remarkable qualities - she was a little bit selfish and entitled, if anything.

Your film gods: Lee Van Cleef and Laura Gemser
Chili-P

reply

[–] Suki_Akbar 10 years ago

You lost me. Where the hell in this movie gave you the impression that she was "selfish and entitled" in any way? Please elaborate. She was just a young, outgoing woman who was nice to everyone. There was nothing unlikeable about her to indicate that she deserved what those scumbags did to her. Even if she was bitchy, there still would be no excuse.

I'm guessing that you're one of those sick fücks who gets a kick out of seeing helpless women getting raped and abused. You probably think it's okay to blame victims because somehow in your deluded mind they did something wrong to deserve what happened to them; I pity you if you feel that way.

"I wanna kiss you in Paris,
I wanna hold your hand in Rome..." 💋

reply

[–] mpcpot 9 years ago

Yes, she killed her.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chriscaulder 9 years ago

I don't think so, honestly.

She had no reason to.

I think she told the sheriff's wife they were going to the park (so Jennifer could lead him there), but in reality, she probably just dropped the little girl off somewhere before she went to the park, possibly at the school, as it seemed to be sometime in late afternoon, when the sheriff got to the park. Also remember that there were no vehicles at the park, except the sheriff's. So she probably dropped Chastity off, and then left the car somewhere near the park.

Again, had to be in early or mid-afternoon, as there was still plenty of light, as the took revenge on the sheriff, and when Matthew woke up.

So yeah, she probably just dropped the girl off and made up some excuse like "I just remembered I left the stove on" or something... (trademark movie excuse)... dropped her off at some coffeeshop, school, etc. Drove near the park, left the car somewhere, and ran to the park to hide.

Someone mentioned the wife knows what she looks like, so she might get caught. Not likely... the sheriff killed the landlord of the place she was renting, and before that, mentioned to the landlord that she "skipped town. Crazy woman."

The wife will never see Jennifer again.. as she'll be back in NYC, satisfied about a job well-done.

I enjoyed this remake. Big-budget remake of the no-budget original. Both are quite good.

-Chris
http://youtube.com/chriscauldermusic
http://oustedrecords.bandcanp.com

reply