Hills Run Red

Discussion in 'Slashers' started by unstoppable, Jul 5, 2009.

  1. unstoppable

    unstoppable Guest

    I have been waiting for this forever. I hear it comes out in sept. of this year.
    Love the idea, but the whole movie inside a movie has been done to death. Cut, Scream 3, etc...
     
  2. Paul0889

    Paul0889 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2002
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i've been reading some VERY positive reviews for this. some of which are so positive that this seems like it should be heading to theaters. i'm definitely looking forward to this.
     
  3. fceurich39

    fceurich39 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,828
    Likes Received:
    507
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ira's Toys store
    will be getting this on dvd come sept 29th
     
  4. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
  5. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    WTF!? That's ridiculous!
     
  6. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Yeah I don't know, but hey, sometimes less is more, ya know? So we'll see. The cuts could have been for the better (like wisely cutting down the sleeping bag scene in F13 Part 7. One brutal whack was much more effective than like seven).
     
  7. chrismac87

    chrismac87 Zombie Eater

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Took the words right out of my mouth.

    What's worse about that article is it almost teases you by suggesting an unrated version will surface eventually, then the director goes on to say it's now a new policy with Warner and it won't happen. :bs:

    This just irks me on so many levels, I was planning on picking this up, now I'm not so sure. Granted he states the film is still very violent and gory, but 10 minutes of footage ain't no small chunk of change...we've seen movies with a mere 5 minutes or so edited back in and sometimes it's made all the difference! Now we're missing 10 minutes? And it's gore? And the studio releasing it now has a no unrated policy? Is anyone else here experiencing deja vu?

    I'm expecting in the next 20 years, the footage will somehow be lost, and we'll hear stories of the cut footage and what it was like, then some day an uncut micro chip version will be released with the "surviving" footage edited back in after years of online petitions and emails to the studio.

    Oy vey. Some people just never learn...
     
  8. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    I just meant in general, how Warner will never put out an unrated movie!
     
  9. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Exactly! Feels like we're going back in time. Censorship is never a good thing and I have a feeling this will screw over some releases later on down the road.
     
  10. chrismac87

    chrismac87 Zombie Eater

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    28
    You'd think by now studios would learn...I mean it's been proven, it's not like they're still experimenting with the idea; unrated versions of films, especially horror, do much better business than their rated counterparts.

    I mean how many people do you know that bought THE HILLS HAVE EYES or DAWN OF THE DEAD rated? Or any other film they had a choice on for that matter?

    I'd think with the economy being in such rough shape as it is, there would be less room for new policies that would potentially slash the sales of the release, pardon the pun, in half. I guess since the general public isn't going to know about the cuts that were made, and I'm sure many horror fans are still planning on picking this up, it isn't going to harm it enough but down the road, who knows what other release this policy could mess up?

    Just baffles me that studios can still be this jaded and downright idiotic. They know what works and what doesn't, why is this still an issue!?
     
  11. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    I'm kind of calling bullshit on the Unrated bit. They apparently had that policy years back, but it didn't stop them from releasing True Romance uncut on VHS, DVD, etc. Not to mention the Natural Born Killers Unrated Director's Cut is coming out on blu soon. If this is a new policy, it won't last. Just like it didn't last before.
     
  12. bloodthrill

    bloodthrill New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Around Indy
    Just read about this myself...and I'm shaking,I'm so pissed right now.

    I'M calling Bullshit-Less is never more in a throwback to 80s slashers called "The Hills Run F***ing Red"! I'm thoroughly disgusted with Param-ooops,I mean, Warner Bros and their sh**y policies..jump off the moral bandwagon,idiots-you just lost my DVD sale,and it sounds like quite a few others will be giving this hacked-up P.O.S. a pass as well.Your poor judgment in these tough economic times will only leave you with scads of unmoved,unsold copies-you should've just lied,and claimed the original version was awarded a Hard 'R'-I would've rather been deceived,and never known what butchery (ten freaking minutes!) took place on a moron's whim.

    I would've actually enjoyed a movie I've been anticipating for months,(and gladly shelled out hard-earned money for it,despite others simply ripping copies on-line).F*ck you,WB,and all of the corporate BS decisions that'll run you into the ground with the horror crowd.We're very fickle people,you shouldn't screw with us too badly.Congratulations,you've just graduated to a new level of stupidity.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2009
  13. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    I would disagree. While the zombie movies and giallos were quite violent and explicit in their uncut forms, I think basically any slasher from the 80's that had to have gore cut would probably be able to get an R these days with no problem, Friday the 13th Part 7 included. Anything that needs 10 minutes of gore cut these days is definitely a product of today and far removed from the light-hearted slasher fare of the 80's. That said, I still want to see this, but I'm still bummed about Warner's decision. It seems to only be coming out on DVD anyway and I have made a decision to stick to blu now, so maybe when it comes to rereleasing this years down the road they'll give us the uncut version.
     
  14. NaturesMistake

    NaturesMistake Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That's retarded, but I smell a scam. The unrated version will come out, they just want you all to fret over it and think about a film you may have not cared about in the first place.
     
  15. fceurich39

    fceurich39 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,828
    Likes Received:
    507
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ira's Toys store
    all they cut out was actually just dialogue not actual gore but after seeing the movie from a friend who works at blockbuster it is freakin brutal for an R-rated film i hope i can find this in stores come the 29th
     
  16. CaptHowdy

    CaptHowdy Guest

    I too have a hard time believing it was all gore they cut out...thats a TON of screen time. Most kills get trimmed by mere seconds.
     
  17. Paul0889

    Paul0889 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2002
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well i watched this last night, and i hate to say it but i found it rather disappointing. lets start with the story and acting...both were great actually, the whole plot was interesting, i liked the whole movie within a movie idea. sophie monk was teriffic, as well as newcomer janet montgomery. she's has one of the best sceams/crys i've heard, and i can't wait to see her in wrong turn 3. tad hilgenbrink was much better in this than in lost boys 2. william sadler, who had a lot less screen time than i thought, was great as usual, but i wanted more of him. and babyface...i loved his look! he was fucking scary

    now the disappointing shit...the kills! god i read countless reviews on how this was a brutal gorefest. did they see the unrated version or something? don't get me wrong, the movie sure is bloody, but the body count is low for one, and most of the violence is so quick, and on top of that, there was some really shitty CGI. the "tree kill" in the movie, which i'm guessing was supposed to be the top kill, sucked! i mean really you gotta see it the cgi was terrible, i dunno if that was worse or the arrow double impalement in wrong turn 2. i did notice one other crappy looking death, but all in all i was mostly disappointed with the gore in this one. one last problem, the movie is WAY too short, clocking in at about 80 minutes.

    all in all, it was a very decent flick, that was way better than H2 and Jennifer's Body, the two last horror flick i saw in theaters, but i definitely didn't think it was as great as a lot are saying online.
     
  18. hots4

    hots4 Dogs In White

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,044
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83
    i saw this tonight and enjoyed it quite a lot, with reference to the so called 10 mins of cuts, i was looking out for scenes that looked cut and i just did not see any, i really can't see where the 10 mins could be, the kills are there hell they may be a few frames shorter than before but could not see where any major stuff could be missing, the only place i could imagine stuff missing was from the 'film sequence' towards the end, or maybe an entire sequence was edited out, but apart from that the rest of the film looks 'complete' to me, could this just be a way to get people talking about the movie, i'm sure time will tell.
     
  19. bloodthrill

    bloodthrill New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Around Indy
    Excerpt from recent interview with director,Dave Parker:

    "Once Babyface was ready for filming, the carnage began. It was a film born for the unrated title.

    "When we shot the movie we were told to go for broke," Burnett said.

    But later, with filming complete, the studio started to backpedal.

    "We had some things that really made the studio nervous," Burnett said. "And when we were making the film, they made the decision not to release anymore unrated horror films."

    One concern of the studio was the growing young horror audience, partly buoyed by the success of the "Twilight" series.

    "As a horror fan, I do not like to see things that are neutered,” Burnett said. “But I also understand that when you are a multinational corporation and you have to answer to your stockholders, you also have to make sure that the product you are putting out is palatable to the general public."


    True,some of the trimming likely consisted of non-violent scenes,but there was obviously some additional grue chopped out..what,the studio was offended by particularly-suggestive dialogue,thus ordering an 'R' rating from the initial Unrated?

    And as for the studio's attempt to drum up publicity for an unknown movie by deeming it too gruesome to be released without cuts....they've clearly pissed off a lot of people aside from myself,and killed a lot of interest by admitting it was being censored.

    Had they wanted the extra attention,they would've pulled the reverse,and released it to DVD unrated, with only a prior mention of an "R".The front could read,"more unearthed gory footage too shocking to preview", or something,an announcement to generate positive interest.Why a film can include "Graphic Violence,Sexual Content,and Nudity" on a warning sticker,yet not feature the whole movie despite the advisory label designed to keep away the weak-kneed is beyond me. When it comes down to it,WB chickened out,and because of the increasingly-negative reviews popping up,they've lost another paying customer.That is all.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2009
  20. Reverenddave

    Reverenddave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2000
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not only is it cut, but there's no Blu-Ray! Screw that. I'm not spending money on a cut SD DVD.
     

Share This Page