Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

  1. #1
    Rick

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Derek Zoolander center for kids who can't read good and wanna learn to do other stuff good too
    Posts
    3,716
    Rep Power
    363

    Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes


    The title is pretty self explanatory, both are two impressively enjoyable horrors, but which Hills Have Eyes flick trumps the other? The 2006 movie was a new and blood soaked take on Craven's ominous original (which had one of the freakiest horror scores I've heard might I add), and in my eyes, safely stands on its own as one of the more prominent remakes of the last decade, at least within the horror genre. Meanwhile, the original is a classic within its own right, with its freakishly powerful realism and cheesetasticness, something that made it one of the best and most charming horrors of the 70's.

    For me it's a tough one to call, I watched both again recently and while the original didn't seem as scary as the remake, the time period in which the original was made is important to note given how audiences have become so desensitized to older horrors. Based on pure horror film making, while I dig Craven, I have to hand it to Alexandre Aja. His remake contained great pacing and the type of delivery I would want in a film of that premise. Craven's original was great and is a film to be cherished by all fans of the horror genre, but when compared to Aja's remake, it seems very underwhelming.

    On a side note; pending on the success of these threads, I'm hoping to make the "Original vs Remake" concept a semi-weekly thing. The topics won't be based on just horrors either by the way, I'll be choosing films from different genres. Thankyahh.

  2. #2
    I Am Not Your Daddy
    Big Papa's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,648
    Rep Power
    3875

    Re: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

    Tough call. Its been awhile since I've seen the original. I do quite like the remake. I thought they did a really nice job of updating it, putting some genuine scares and creepiness in rather than just violence and gore. I would probably have to we-watch both to give a real accurate assessment...

    Nice idea for threads.

  3. #3
    Evil Admin.

    Jim's Avatar

    Status
    Online
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    39,775
    Rep Power
    17012

    Re: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

    It's been a few years since I've seen Craven's, so I'll need to go back to give it another view. From what I remember, it's a pretty great gritty movie. There's something about these older films that make the revenge ending far more sweeter. I may feel the same about the remake down the road, but the original feels very dated.

    The remake is one of these rare exceptions that not only succeeds in being a worthwhile remake, but has some more replay value than the original. While the revenge isn't quite as fulfilling, the acting far surpasses the original. Seeing Emilie de Ravin in just her bra definitely gets a thumbs up from me as well.

    I'll rewatch the original and come back into this thread, but I'm sure my opinion won't change. The Hills Have Eyes have produced two awesome movies (And two horrible sequels), but the remake is the superior film (Original sequel surpasses remake sequel though).

  4. #4
    Evil Admin.

    Jim's Avatar

    Status
    Online
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    39,775
    Rep Power
    17012

    Re: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

    Quote Originally Posted by Roxy View Post
    For me it's a tough one to call, I watched both again recently and while the original didn't seem as scary as the remake,
    I'd have to disagree. Just finishing up the original rewatch, I thought it had a few really good moments in terms of the scare factor. Everything with Bob at the gas station and baby's fate being up in the air, created a scarier film for me than the remake. Part of the benefit of having an older movie is that the modern restrictions aren't there. Despite already knowing how the movie would turn out, the baby's fate isn't as obvious as it was with the remake. I just can't see a mainstream movie killing a baby in the 2000's.

    The aspect that I enjoyed the most about the original is the backstory. Personally, I dig the idea of Jupiter being the bastard outcast of the gas station attendant before being left out in the desert where he slowly created his inbred family. More than anything, it made me want to see a Hills prequel to see all of this occur. All of the little hints (Not exactly subtle though) of Jupiter and his gang doing these sort of attacks before is just screaming for a prequel. Finally, all of the obscure little sound effects made for a great score.

    Still, the remake is surprisingly better by a lot. The best new addition was seeing what happened with Doug when he went to find help. I suppose it's not a huge problem in the original since not much happens, but he was gone long enough that you sort of forgot about him. Speaking of Doug, there's far more character development with him. Early on, you can sense that he's the outcast of his new family. Despite being married to the oldest daughter, he hadn't entirely been accepted as one of the family members. All of the interaction between Doug and Bob showcases that sub-plot including the issues of Doug being a liberal in a gun happy family. By the end of the movie, Doug has earned his place in the family (Or what's left of it). Bob's mockery of Doug being a pansy makes Doug's transformation into a ruthless killer far more impactful. Besides just the average acting being far better, the character of Brenda was actually bearable as opposed to the original. 77's Brenda wan an overly annoying girl who wouldn't stop screaming and was the one family member who I wouldn't have minded dying. Emilie de Ravin's Brenda was tolerable and I cared about her surviving.

    Both movies have their positives, but the remake was far superior.

  5. #5
    I Am Not Your Daddy
    Big Papa's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,648
    Rep Power
    3875

    Re: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

    The more I think about it, the more I think the remake is pretty underrated. It has some moments than genuinely make you uncomfortable - the attempted rape, the burning father, the stolen baby. I find that not enough horror films do that - they either go for a scare or gross you out with gore.

  6. #6
    Crotchety Old SMOD

    Fuji Vice's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    TARDIS
    Posts
    17,810
    Rep Power
    13167

    Re: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

    I've got the original and the remake near the top of my pile of movies to rewatch, so I'll chime in on this as soon as I get that done. However I will initially say that the remake IS underrated by most and was a decent film for sure.

  7. #7
    Evil Admin.

    Jim's Avatar

    Status
    Online
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    39,775
    Rep Power
    17012

    Re: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

    I don't see how the remake is underrated. It's often credited as being one of the best horror remakes and one that may actually be better than the original.

  8. #8
    Crotchety Old SMOD

    Fuji Vice's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    TARDIS
    Posts
    17,810
    Rep Power
    13167

    Re: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    I don't see how the remake is underrated. It's often credited as being one of the best horror remakes and one that may actually be better than the original.
    I would say an aggregate score of 5.3 out of 10 on Rotten Tomatoes and an average Metascore of 52/100 is underrating it. Not that I put much stock in that but it is an average of basic opinion. Personally I feel that it would at least merit a 7/10 from me but then again I haven't rewatched it yet.

  9. #9
    Evil Admin.

    Jim's Avatar

    Status
    Online
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    39,775
    Rep Power
    17012

    Re: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

    Eh, I don't take those sites seriously. The only site's opinion that matters are the ones you're on since you can have a good idea of what the people are like. From WC to the horror boards I'm a part of, the Hills remake is regarded highly.

  10. #10
    Crotchety Old SMOD

    Fuji Vice's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    TARDIS
    Posts
    17,810
    Rep Power
    13167

    Re: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

    Yeah, it's more of a personal thing, I like to see how badly movies I enjoy are treated across the majority of the interweb. It's my own personal form of torture. Glad the opinions, on this site at least, are more to my liking as well as being informed.

  11. #11
    I Am Not Your Daddy
    Big Papa's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,648
    Rep Power
    3875

    Re: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

    How something is "rated" can be hard to gauge, I think. I look at the remake as underrated because I haven't seen too many people talk about it as an above average horror flick, just a really "solid" remake. I guess it depends on where you look, though.

  12. #12
    Rick

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Derek Zoolander center for kids who can't read good and wanna learn to do other stuff good too
    Posts
    3,716
    Rep Power
    363

    Re: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    I'd have to disagree. Just finishing up the original rewatch, I thought it had a few really good moments in terms of the scare factor. Everything with Bob at the gas station and baby's fate being up in the air, created a scarier film for me than the remake. Part of the benefit of having an older movie is that the modern restrictions aren't there. Despite already knowing how the movie would turn out, the baby's fate isn't as obvious as it was with the remake. I just can't see a mainstream movie killing a baby in the 2000's.
    The remake seemed far scarier than the original. From a personal stance, at least. When I initially watched Aja's take I had to turn it off half way through (I was twelve at the time) cos there were certain moments that became too chilling to watch. The original has that realistic, 70's, horrific-esque factor, but for me it's not a movie that stands the test of time. I dug the savage visuals of the remake as well, Craven's was raw, but there was something ugly about the remake that made it so frantically terrifying to watch.

  13. #13
    Evil Admin.

    Jim's Avatar

    Status
    Online
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    39,775
    Rep Power
    17012

    Re: Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

    Quote Originally Posted by Roxy View Post
    The remake seemed far scarier than the original. From a personal stance, at least. When I initially watched Aja's take I had to turn it off half way through (I was twelve at the time) cos there were certain moments that became too chilling to watch. The original has that realistic, 70's, horrific-esque factor, but for me it's not a movie that stands the test of time. I dug the savage visuals of the remake as well, Craven's was raw, but there was something ugly about the remake that made it so frantically terrifying to watch.
    I may give the remake another watch. It may have something to do with the fact that I saw the original first, but that stayed with me longer than the remake. Knowing the end result of the movie due to seeing the original first (Albeit some changes), there wasn't scared feeling that you get when you don't know what's going to happen with the remake.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •