|
Post by okeefe on Feb 26, 2006 21:18:24 GMT -5
Has anyone here seen the original? I'ts pretty good...creepy.. I ask you, why does this movie need to remade? Can't they just rip off the plot and rename it as was done with Wrong Turn?
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Feb 26, 2006 21:31:26 GMT -5
okeefe I'd say by definition this is a Mitchell's Movies topic.
|
|
|
Post by Melting Manos on Feb 27, 2006 14:45:22 GMT -5
Has anyone here seen the original? I'ts pretty good...creepy.. I ask you, why does this movie need to remade? Can't they just rip off the plot and rename it as was done with Wrong Turn? I don't necessarily think there is reason for a remake, but I'll give it a shot anyway. I was annoyed when I first heard about this being remade, but then I remembered the fact that I enjoyed the Dawn Of The Dead remake more than the original (Not a popular opinion, but I could care less.) so I'm going to try and catch this in the theater. By the way, I liked Wrong Turn. It seemed like a homage to The Hills Have Eyes/Texas Chainsaw Massacre and was entertaining. That's all I ask for in a horror film.
|
|
|
Post by okeefe on Feb 27, 2006 17:25:49 GMT -5
I see your point. I liked the DotD remake as well, and I didn't expect to. Wrong Turn wasn't bad. There's just something about low budget 70's horror movies I like...maybe their lack of polish? It would be nice if these major studios would come up with some good, original ideas for horror movies, rather than remaking the old ones.
|
|
|
Post by okeefe on Feb 27, 2006 17:52:58 GMT -5
I agree. MTV has ruined film making. Everything is jump cuts and jiggly cameras. Not everything needs to look like a music video. And, yeah, that little girl looks creepy. She reminds me of an old movie from the 30's called Freaks. They cast real circus sideshow freaks in it, and they exact revenge on some baddies who run the circus. It's great!
|
|
|
Post by Emperor Cupcake on Feb 27, 2006 21:43:55 GMT -5
I liked the original Hills Have Eyes a lot too, but I haven't decided if I'll see the remake. I generally avoid remakes like the plague, although I did like the Dawn of the Dead one (but NOT the Texas Chainsaw Massacre one). I'm just so pissed off and jaded about there being no original, genuinely scary horror films anymore, like the aforementioned Rosemary's Baby (which is one of my all-time favorite horror movies, and the book is great too) and The Exorcist. It seems like everything is being remade -- When a Stranger Calls, Stepford Wives, etc., etc. I even heard some idiot is remaking Dario Argento's classic Suspiria, which should be illegal or something.
On a related note, I saw a preview the other day for what appeared to be a remake of The Omen. Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by Melting Manos on Feb 28, 2006 16:20:03 GMT -5
I liked the original Hills Have Eyes a lot too, but I haven't decided if I'll see the remake. I generally avoid remakes like the plague, although I did like the Dawn of the Dead one (but NOT the Texas Chainsaw Massacre one). I'm just so pissed off and jaded about there being no original, genuinely scary horror films anymore, like the aforementioned Rosemary's Baby (which is one of my all-time favorite horror movies, and the book is great too) and The Exorcist. For the most part I agree, although I was really impressed by both of the Saw films. Some people might not have liked 'em, but they gave me hope that it is still possible to have a good, unique horror film come out every now and again. Tobin Bell was a great find for them and plays one of the best bad guys (Especially in part II) I have ever seen. I'd recommend seeing both of them if you haven't already. They aren't for everyone, but I loved them.
|
|
|
Post by Emperor Cupcake on Feb 28, 2006 20:17:52 GMT -5
I liked the original Hills Have Eyes a lot too, but I haven't decided if I'll see the remake. I generally avoid remakes like the plague, although I did like the Dawn of the Dead one (but NOT the Texas Chainsaw Massacre one). I'm just so pissed off and jaded about there being no original, genuinely scary horror films anymore, like the aforementioned Rosemary's Baby (which is one of my all-time favorite horror movies, and the book is great too) and The Exorcist. For the most part I agree, although I was really impressed by both of the Saw films. Yes, I did like the first Saw, although it was just a tad more implausible than I was willing to take. I haven't seen the sequel, because I also tend to avoid sequels like the plague. I didn't mean to say that there weren't ANY cool horror movies coming out lately -- I mean, I loved High Tension, Wolf Creek, and even The Devil's Rejects. But I didn't think any of them were scary the way, say, the original Haunting, or The Shining, were scary.
|
|
|
Post by losingmydignity on Mar 9, 2006 19:24:04 GMT -5
I was really let down by the original Hills Have Eyes. I never really thought it was particularly disturbing or interesting. And I heard the remake takes out the few elements (baby peril!) that gave the first one some edge....
|
|
|
Post by Bix Dugan on Mar 10, 2006 15:33:57 GMT -5
I remember seeing the original in the 70s. (1970s!) It introduced me to Berryman, who later showed up as the mutant biker ( & teacher ) in Wierd Science. He did a lot of movies, even One Flew....
|
|
|
Post by Melting Manos on Mar 21, 2006 16:13:50 GMT -5
Has anyone here seen the original? I'ts pretty good...creepy.. I ask you, why does this movie need to remade? Can't they just rip off the plot and rename it as was done with Wrong Turn? I don't necessarily think there is reason for a remake, but I'll give it a shot anyway. I was annoyed when I first heard about this being remade, but then I remembered the fact that I enjoyed the Dawn Of The Dead remake more than the original (Not a popular opinion, but I could care less.) so I'm going to try and catch this in the theater. By the way, I liked Wrong Turn. It seemed like a homage to The Hills Have Eyes/Texas Chainsaw Massacre and was entertaining. That's all I ask for in a horror film. I'm speechless. I saw The Hills Have Eyes remake on Saturday and I absolutely LOVED it. I have never seen a better remake of any film, period. I found out after seeing it that Wes Craven hand picked the director (Alexandre Aja) to remake The Hills Have Eyes because he liked Aja's work on a film called High Tension. I've never seen that film, but I will now have to because I thought he did a phenominal job with this one. Craven has said that he felt the material could be done better, and wanted to see someone else's take on it to see if that could be done. I feel they succeeded with what they set out to do. I feel this movie bettered the original on every conceiveable level and that is ultra rare for a remake. I'm still against Hollywood remaking everything nowadays, but this is one of the rare cases where something more enjoyable than the original was created and I love them for that. I felt the addition of the whole "nuclear testing site" storyline was great, and the casting was much better in this film. This is definitely not a film for everyone, but for any horror fan like myself who loved the original, I think you'll be quite pleased if you give it a chance. I don't want to go into too much detail here about what I loved specifically about certain parts of the film (A little too graphic for this board methinks) so I'll post a link to the review I did of it in my blog the other day. blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=18527338&blogID=100076079&MyToken=012568a3-1214-48b0-a5f0-62e2414d9563I have a new addition to my top 20 films of all time and I am 100% serious about that.
|
|
|
Post by Melting Manos on Mar 21, 2006 16:29:52 GMT -5
For the most part I agree, although I was really impressed by both of the Saw films. Some people might not have liked 'em, but they gave me hope that it is still possible to have a good, unique horror film come out every now and again. Tobin Bell was a great find for them and plays one of the best bad guys (Especially in part II) I have ever seen. I'd recommend seeing both of them if you haven't already. They aren't for everyone, but I loved them. I think what horor films try to do these days, and often with success, is to show real psychos and real evil that human beings are capable of - this was started with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and it looks like new The Hills Have Eyes is doing the same type of thing. And I can see why they use the gritty MTV-style look - but I think it's fallen into a trend, and I think it's possibly the easiest kind of horror film you can make in the modern age - where science triumphs over myth - which is why I propose a great, psychological horror movie on extraterrestrials instead of human beings or supernatural monsters. I don't mind that one bit as long as it's done well. I felt The Hills Have Eyes remake was done very well and I loved it. To each his/her own though.
|
|
|
Post by Wild Rebel on Mar 21, 2006 16:39:06 GMT -5
I dispair at these remakes of movies the likes of this one, Night of the Living Dead, Texas Chainsaw, and Last House on the Left... That the original versions of these films were independents that couldn't get rated. Or they could only afford one copy per region so it played at one little theater or drive-in (independently owned) in town...had at most a two inch ad in the corner of the movie page of the newspaper....you heard about it in whispers in the cafeteria at school like it was a dirty secret. And since it was only playing at the one theater you saw it with kids you knew. They weren't just movies - they were shared events. And because they were horror films they were kind of like roller coasters....you were doing something your parents wouldn't approve of and showing you weren't scared. Going was a way of proving to everyone you knew that you weren't a kid anymore. All of that's gone now. And I hate to think what kids are using now instead of these movies.
|
|
|
Post by Melting Manos on Mar 21, 2006 17:14:15 GMT -5
I dispair at these remakes of movies the likes of this one, Night of the Living Dead, Texas Chainsaw, and Last House on the Left... That the original versions of these films were independents that couldn't get rated. Or they could only afford one copy per region so it played at one little theater or drive-in (independently owned) in town...had at most a two inch ad in the corner of the movie page of the newspaper....you heard about it in whispers in the cafeteria at school like it was a dirty secret. And since it was only playing at the one theater you saw it with kids you knew. They weren't just movies - they were shared events. And because they were horror films they were kind of like roller coasters....you were doing something your parents wouldn't approve of and showing you weren't scared. Going was a way of proving to everyone you knew that you weren't a kid anymore. All of that's gone now. And I hate to think what kids are using now instead of these movies. I don't see anything wrong with the original filmmaker deciding to give a young filmmaker a chance to make his work better, and actually having said young filmmaker succeed in doing so. I hated the remake of Texas Chainsaw, but this film was extremely well done so there is a difference there in my opinion. I see your point about these being classics that you do not want to see remade, but I have to say I enjoyed this film so much more than the original that I'm glad it was done. Having said that, now that a remake has (in my opinion) been made that was far superior to the original, I think it's time for Hollywood to stop with the remakes because the probability of this happening again is quite small.
|
|
|
Post by Melting Manos on Mar 21, 2006 18:26:12 GMT -5
I don't see anything wrong with the original filmmaker deciding to give a young filmmaker a chance to make his work better, and actually having said young filmmaker succeed in doing so. I hated the remake of Texas Chainsaw, but this film was extremely well done so there is a difference there in my opinion. I see your point about these being classics that you do not want to see remade, but I have to say I enjoyed this film so much more than the original that I'm glad it was done. Having said that, now that a remake has (in my opinion) been made that was far superior to the original, I think it's time for Hollywood to stop with the remakes because the probability of this happening again is quite small. I thought it was basically a rip-off of Straw Dogs. Anyway, I think the reason why the original Hills Have Eyes and the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre were better is perhaps because something about the new one's doesn't make you believe what's going on as well as the originals - the originals were filmed in a documentary style, with grainy film and it all looked almost like a snuff film - while the new versions, though filmed in a gritty style of their own, are more "Hollywoodish" for lack of better word, with obvious emotional cues in the music, which is absent from the originals, making it more unsettling IMO. Also, the lighting - this is one of the most important aspects of film, and yet it is constantly overlooked - the lighting in the originals was natural, and something about that natural lighting brings you into the story in a way that the lit-up-like-a-Christmas-Tree Chainsaw remake couldn't. In other words, I honestly think that these two movies were brutal and nasty enough to the point where they can't really be made more brutal or nasty without risking going completely over the top - like the new remakes. I see your point about the lighting when concerning The Texas Chainsaw remake. That really did make a difference, and took away from the overall effect for me as opposed to the far superior original. As far as The Hills Have Eyes remake is concerned, I liked the visual style and it did not seem "too slick" or overly lit which was very surprising to me. I have come to find out this director is a huge fan of 70's horror, and made sure the visuals were done with that spirit in mind. I also don't see where this film went any more over the top than the original, other than the fact that you see Ted Levine's character burn, as opposed to it being implied as it was in the original. That added to the film for me so I don't see it as a negative. There were a few additions, but all of them added to the film. I am going to maintain that The Hills Have Eyes remake was not only done better than the original, but turned out to be one of the best horror films I have ever seen. Remake or not. I've been a fan of the original since I snuck a viewing of it in 1985 at the "way too young for this type of film" age of nine and it scared the hell out of me. I was already a budding horror fan at that age though, and I loved it for that. I'm not here to tear the originals down in any way. I've been very vocal about the fact that I'm getting tired of all of the remakes being done myself. But having said that, I'm going to admit when I think a remake has topped the original and this most certainly has in my opinion.
|
|