The Hills Have Eyes (remake)

[sinosleep]

Well I know of at least one other big time horror fan (Spellbinder) here and was pleasently surprised when I was scrolling through reviews on rottentomatoes.com the other night. Not only has this movie actually been precreened (when was the last time a horror movie was prescreened?) but it's actually at 75% on the tomatoemeter. Crazy, considering even the best movies have a hard time getting above 70% on rottentomatoes.

I thought from the teaser, to the full trailer, to the tv spots that all along this one actually looked like it might be a new horror movie worth watching for once and it looks like I may have thought right.

Either way I can't wait to see it.

[Caroline Forbes]

Looks really good - I was skeptical of remaking such a classic, but from the trailer it looks like they did a good job :)

[Jill Monroe]

I think the reason why this remake will go over so well is because of the tremendous advances in make up/special effects since the classic original. This is a Wes Craven classic at that and the original was REALLY good. This was made BEFORE the era of "nightmare on elmstreet" and "friday the 13th" but it featured several notable actors/actresses in the horror movie genre such as Dee Wallace.

The original was gritty and there was this tremendous sense of urgency and anxiousness you felt as the last two survivors fought for their lives against that terrifying family.

It'll be interesting to see what subtle differences they bring to the remake of this movie.

all i have to say is..THEY BETTER NOT REMAKE Last house on the left. That's ANOTHER Wes Craven classic that just needs to be left alone.

[Caroline Forbes]

I think they are remaking that actually.

Aside from the fact that The Hills Have Eyes looks sort of good...how do you really justify remaking Wes Craven? I mean, it's Wes Craven...

[Jill Monroe]

Wes himself gave a recent interview (in which among other things he confirmed that Neve Campbell was seriously considering reprising "sidney prescott" for Scream 4- http://www.screen-gems.net/showthread.php?t=1678) about this remake of the hills have eyes. He claims that many deep cuts had to be made in order to get the film an R rating (it was originally NC-17). He recognizes that many fans and critics dont see how its possible to "improve" on the original 1977 classic and that the original film is still regarded as very "shocking" to this day. He also claims that the goal of this film is NOT to up the ante on the gore and that the director has done a good job in making the film very suspensefull.

I never thought i'd see the day when they'd start "remaking" wes craven films...its like the idea of an artist covering a madonna song....the only person dumb enough to have tried it thus far was Kelly Osborne and she SUCKED.

[sinosleep]

I have no issue at all with remakes so long as they do a good job of it. The Hills Have Eyes so far has recieved good reviews and the fact that it was prescreened at all tells me more then likely it will be good.

[Caroline Forbes]

I never thought i'd see the day when they'd start "remaking" wes craven films...its like the idea of an artist covering a madonna song....the only person dumb enough to have tried it thus far was Kelly Osborne and she SUCKED.
Didn't Jessica Simpson cover one? That also sucked lol

Just out of curiosity - why does everyone think that prescreening makes a film good?

[sinosleep]

It's not that it makes a film good, it's that 9/10 times it ensures it's not TOTAL crap either. If you read any review of most any film that's not prescreened the VAST majority of reviews for it are horrendous. The reason being that producers think if they avoid prescreening then they can avoid bad early reviews that may dissuade possible viewers.

So since the REALLY bad movies don't get prescreened, then by default you can count on most movies that are prescreened to be good or at the very least decent.

[Caroline Forbes]

Except that you can get into the trap where they recut a film based on a thousand different viewpoints from the screenings...

[Clairvoyance]

I saw comercials and ads for this. Creepy. I MUST see it! :) *nods*

[Jessica Hamby]

I wanted to revive this thread because the movie is to be released on tuesday and im just hella excited. :D

I saw this in theatres... it was VERY scary [and sometimes a little painful to watch] I was actually IMPRESSED with this one... knowing that most horror remakes fall FLAT... with the trend of merely updating the classic into a long continuous line of 'dead teenager' movies with little or no suspense and simply blood guts and little parts to mke you jump... I was surprised to find THIS film both psychologically terrifying and suspenseful... and while is was incredibly GORY and the rape scene was particularly poignant.... I thought it was good OVER ALL and worth adding to my movie collection.

Did anyone ELSE see this already?

[Foxfire]

I've never seen the original or remake, but I'm quite anxious to see both. You know its going to be gory with a director like Wes Craven. :D And thanks a lot lexi for spoiling that one scene *cough* editing with the spoiler tag. :raspberry

What exactly is the movie about?

[Jessica Hamby]

:rolleyes: Gimme a break. If you read it BEFORE I edited then why didnt you bust my ass about the spoiler THEN? I DID come back and edit, after all... once i thought about it and figured some people MIGHT think it was a spoiler.

For all of you who, like our friend Fauxfur here, are such tightasses that we couldn't get a greased toothpick up your exit hole, I'd like to smack a warning on this here post... what follows is a synopsis of the movie, courtesy of Movieweb.com. It MIGHT contain what could be construed as spoiler material... but it doesnt give away anything incredibly detrimental. Dont read it if you want to be completely surprised. :rolleyes:


The lucky ones die first.


In the annals of modern fear, few films have had as deep an impact as Wes Craven’s 1977 cult classic THE HILLS HAVE EYES. With its gritty, ferocious and relentlessly suspenseful tale of a vacationing family who suddenly face a desperate battle for survival, the low-low-budget but no-holds-barred film was resonant with both intriguing themes and outrageous shocks to the nervous system.

Now, inspired by the wild imagination of suspense-master Craven -- who serves as producer along with Marianne Maddalena and Peter Locke -- comes a contemporary reinterpretation of THE HILL HAVE EYES from the cutting-edge young filmmakers, Alexandre Aja and Gregory Levasseur, whose recent hit HIGH TENSION won acclaim and controversy for raising the bar on horror films again with its graphic, white-knuckle take on psychological terror.

Aja and Levasseur bring this chilling horror story of ever-intensifying dread hurtling into the 21st century, refashioning it with a raw, gut-wrenching realism and hard-driving visual style to terrify a whole new generation of filmgoers.

It all begins with a typically dysfunctional cross-country family road trip. It’s the wedding anniversary of rugged Cleveland police detective “Big Bob” Carter (TED LEVINE) and his chatty wife Ethel (Academy Award® nominee KATHLEEN QUINLAN) and to celebrate, Bob’s asked his extended family to cruise to California with them, hoping the joys of the open road might help fuse their frayed connections. No one is particularly happy about it. Eldest daughter, Lynn, (VINESSA SHAW) worries about her new baby’s safety and comfort while her husband, mild-mannered tech geek, Doug (AARON STANFORD), worries about close encounters with his father-in-law. Meanwhile teen daughter, Brenda, (EMILIE DE RAVIN) detests the idea of leaving her friends for a family bonding trip, while young prankster Bobby, (DAN BYRD) is anxious to entertain the family’s two German Shepherds, Beauty and Beast. Nevertheless, the entire clan piles into a weathered Suburban pulling Bob’s beloved ’88 Airstream trailer and heads west.

Then, Big Bob takes a detour. Suddenly, the Carter family finds themselves in a desolate stretch of desert, with nothing seemingly alive for miles. When they run into a little unexpected vehicle trouble, they realize they are in dire straits, far from help, with a relentlessly sweltering desert sun overhead. But even as they fight to survive the deadly desert, a far greater threat emerges. Now the Carters become aware that they are not quite as alone as they first thought. There is another group of survivors in the hills surrounding the desert: a genetically mutated, insatiably hungry, blood-thirsty clan -- the terrifying offspring of miners left behind in the days when atomic tests spread radioactive fallout across the desert -- who will stop at nothing to prey on the Carters one by one. Facing the very depths of savagery, the Carter family must pull together if they are to find any hope of returning to civilized life again...alive.

[Jill Monroe]

ive seen the ORIGINAL (which was released in thes summer of the year i was born). Wes Craven is a genius, pure and simple. this movie was shocking, gritty and unexpected all the way around..and the title itself was a clever metaphor for the danger that lay OUT IN THE OPEN (which is usually not typical in horror films).

with such horror movie icons as Dee Wallace ("Cujo") , Michael Berryman ("The Devils rejects") and a YOUNG Heather Langenkamp ("Nightmare on Elmstreet") ...this film was cast with people who actually COULD ACT.

in the original, one of the most heart wrenching scenes is when:

several of the mutant cannibals burst into the trailer of the family they are attacking and kill the mother and her two daughters before stealing the baby

admittedly, i passed on seeing the remake because I dont believe Wes Craven films should be REMADE...i mean, WHO can actually top him? But he is a producer on the remake...and i've heard good reviews about the film so i may check out the remake on DVD.

[silverwolf]

I started to watch the original on AMC channel but fell asleep. It was like 3 in the morning. Anyhow.....it seemed like it would be a good one and the original looks like it will paticularly scary. That little girl freaks me out for sure. We shall see....

[sinosleep]

I thought that it was great, same as I thought of the Omen remake. While most remakes I've seen ARE crap, I'm not one of these guys that's going to can a remake on the basis of it BEING remake. I mean that doesn't even make any sense.

[Foxfire]

This movie reminded me immensely of Wrong Turn with a similar opening and the cannibals. But, this movie put the other gore fests on the map in regard to the original 1977.

As an avid fan of gore, guts, and horror I thought this movie was mild. Based on what I heard I expected truly nauseating scenes. I laughed at the beginning introduction especially the bodies dragged by the truck.

I thought more of the gruesome scenes was the lovebird. When I saw them in the beginning of the film it was predictable to know they would be killed in someway, shape, or form. I couldn't believe he just chomps down on the birds head LOL and then drains the shit out of it. Wes Craven is truly a fan of Ozzy Osborne it seems.

The death of Beauty was okay. I expected to see explicit disemboweling of the dog. My mother was saying she wanted to vomit. I saw it and I'm like "that's it?!"

The rape scene was another mild manner, I expected it. I think one of the worse rape scenes I viewed was on the movie An Eye for an eye. That scene was brutal, especially when he smashes the ice sculpture over her head and her mother can overhear her daughter screaming.

The one character reminded me of Sloth from Goonies LOL! "Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy you guysss." The make - up affects were good, I was pleased with them. I did expect more suspense though.

The father's death was interesting. I couldn't help but give credit to the tactical suit of these cannibals, by dividing and conquering. I liked the guy blowing off his head, especially when they showed it. Now THAT had Wes Craven written all over it. I also noticed the blood squirting scenes which were identical to Nightmare on Elm Street.

It wasn't a bad movie, I sort of felt like it was lacking in some areas. The need for survivor was nicely done here. And its obvious a sequel is coming at the end. That one guy never did kill that woman? She was rocking in the rocking chair when he found the baby.

I'll need to consort the original and see how I feel about that. I think this movie could have been done better, I would give it a C.

[Jessica Hamby]

LOL! You thought the violence and gore was MILD?!?! I was astounded and at the very least, completely grossed out [the first time, anyway. I didn't EXPECT any of it, though I knew it would be bloody, several things caught me unawares and were quite effective in repulsing me, lol]

I can't believe you thought the rape scene was mild. While it WAS on the unexplicit side, i.e., there was no nudity or overly suggestive shots, younger kids might not grasp what happened right away, I got the message LOUD AND CLEAR... and that scene gave me NIGHTMARES the first time i saw it. I thought it was terribly poignant, and they didn't even have to be incredibly graphic about it to affect me deeply.

Honestly Heather, LOL. What WOULD nauseate you?

[Foxfire]

LOL! I have a strong intake for gore and guts, I can even eat while watching someone be hacked up. Maybe I'm just slightly sadistic because I think about how I would murder someone if I was mentally insane and what not. Or if I was shooting a movie, what would be over the top. lol I'm probably going to freak you out with that statement.

I've seen so many movies with gore, guts, and blood. Explicit rape scenes really get to me like the one in An Eye for an eye. Every time I watch it I have to fast forward.

In order for me to be totally grossed out I would have to watch those movies that were banned. I think the ones with the death scenes or something. One of my colleagues, Jim, he loves gore movies. He recommended Hostel and the Hills have Eyes. You wouldn't think by looking at the guy he would like them, especially since he's so business - like as a lawyer.

He was telling me this one movie he saw back in law school about a guy getting his testicles ripped out or cut off and then hung by them. Another scene was a woman was hung by her nipples. LOL! That's some crazy shit right there.

I love to be grossed out but its highly difficult to do so. Its so amusing how so many women become skirmish. Its like the typical reaction from most women.

The finger getting cut off is OLD, the disembowelment is cliche. I guess that's why I love Predator. Who would think to skin a person and collect their head for a trophy. I'm picky about the movies I watch. It has to have suspense, blood, guts, gore, and good acting. I've seen some BAD films.

Hills wasn't bad though, I just expected it to be so much based on the hype. I was sort of disappointed. I think they should have sliced the baby up, I think that would have grossed me out especially an infant.

[Jessica Hamby]

:igitt:

I have a strong stomach. Usually gore gives me the creepy crawly skin feeling.

Most of the gore was on the baddies and, while graphic [imho] didnt bother me too bad. It was the violence on the family that bothered me most... probably because i could identify with them. They were the poster-family for modern america and the dynamics of their relationships with each other and as a whole reminded me a lot of my own family.

I couldn't believe the father was the first to go. And in such a manner... I was like DAYUM!

I can't BELIEVE you wanted them to kill the baby! how horrible! :p

I'm probably the worst person to watch that movie [or any horror flick] with, unless you want a running commentary. I spent a lot of the movie going "LOOK OUT BIG BOB! NO Bobby! Don't run after the dog, stupid! WAKE UP BRENDA! OO, SCREAM BRENDA!!!! AH, FIGHT BRENDA, FIGHT! BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF THAT SLIMEBALL! NOT WITH THE FUCKING PILLOW! *gasp* *gasp* NOT THE BABY, DON'T SHOOT THE BABY! YES DOUG, KILL THAT BASTARD!"

[Foxfire]

I'm never going to a movie with you LOL! I remember when I went to see Jeepers Creepers with a friend of mine I kept jumping from the suspense and she made fun of me. But when we went to see Jurassic Park 3 she jumped and she was holding onto my arm for dear life LOL! And Jurassic Park wasn't even scary just suspenseful.

I wasn't implying they kill the baby, that would be horrible. I was speaking from a film - makers point of view to screw with the audience. Its rare to see a baby be killed or tortured, I think that would flip out people.

There are so many things I would have done differently if I was one of those characters. I would have placed the dead mom and sister into the Blazer and set that on fire, not the tire wheel LOL! If you want people to notice you via smoke you need a large explosion.

And when that one guy found his baby, I wouldn't go for the baby right away that puts you in a vulnerable position. I would have killed some of those creatures first and then taken the baby. Or hide the baby in a safe place and then kill. I wouldn't try to grab the baby and get out LOL.

If something killed my family members I would want their hearts. I'm overly protective of my family though, so if someone hurts them I take revenge in the most hurtful of ways.

And that thing in the wheel chair, I would have smashed his face in immediately, fuck asking questions at least the second time. I liked how the dog got to him though.

I too was surprised the father was killed off first. I thought that cell phone guy would be first and then that one sister whose selfish. I did think one of the men should have stayed with the family with the second male going for help or whatever.