The Hills Have Eyes (2006) Official Reaction Thread

Discussion in 'General' started by Peter Vincent, Mar 7, 2006.

  1. soxfan666

    soxfan666 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,169
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Saw this last night and i liked it alot. I thought the music took away from the movie toward the end. That was my one big complaint. The final Doug scenes became less tense and somewhat corny because the music was so loud and in your face. I cant help but think that a movie that feeds off of tension and the feeling of what would i do in that situation should be music less. There is no background music in real life.
     
  2. Anybody else laugh at:

    The end when the hero is walking with the baby in one hand & the dog leagh in the other...he looked like something out of Land Of The Dead. I laughed my ass off...but the pre-screener audience I was in was cheering their heads off at the site of him.

    And yes as ReNeGaDe touched on, the democrat saved the day..another funny quip.
     
  3. KillerCannabis

    KillerCannabis Slow, Deep & Hard

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    So Cal
    I saw this last night and really enjoyed it. This is what Wrong Turn should have been. A raw and uncompromising vision of mutated freaks terrorizing regular people in a most brutal manner. I can't believe they got an R rating on this. Between the rape, burning and gallons of blood this was easily the best horror film I've seen in a theater since The Devil's Rejects. Sure there were a few moments that threw me off like the constant "someone's around this corner" scares and the overdone music toward the end, but overall Aja has done a great job. He took the original film and amped it up to 11. All the actors did a good job and it was cool to see Ted Levine in the Big Bob role. Robert Joy was great as Lizard. I just wish Billy Drago got more screen time as Papa Jupiter. I can't wait too see what those 3 cut minutes hold on the unrated DVD. 8.5/10.
     
  4. dmeister

    dmeister New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas City
    I bet the first thing he does when he gets home is to buy a gun.

    dmeister
     
  5. shift

    shift Hot as shit!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,463
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    - TeXaS -
    i hear that the rape scene is pretty intense. is this true? Is it really that bad??
     
  6. MorallySound

    MorallySound Mad Mutilator

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    7,848
    Likes Received:
    1,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Canada
    No. It's 99% offscreen, and it's barely suggested if it may even be a 'rape' scene. It plays out a bit like one, but not really.
     
  7. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,064
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada
    For those of you who complain about the needles jump scares in this film (Me being one of them). I wouldn't how much of that was Craven's Idea. I'm only saying that because I thought Aja did a good job in Haute Tension in showing restraint and avoiding many of the normal horror cliche's. I read an interview where Aja said there were a few things about the film that him and Craven disagreed about. I wonder if that was one of them?
     
  8. baggio

    baggio Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,521
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just last night I saw the original for the second time since it came out. And you know what? In my opinion it was a pretty bad movie. Even for a low budget 70's flick. I welcome a remake. This should be the criteria for all remakes. when the first one isn't good and a director or writer feels that he can honestly improve on a story. Then green light the project. Every other reason besides making it better, should be taken as a red light. And they must cease and desist from the project.

    This movie begged for a remake. and judging by some reviews here and critics in the papers this was a good move.

    back to the original: bad acting, bad dialog, loads of what just happened scenes. I will say it started kinda promising but it went downhill from there. My favorite is everytime they want to look out the trailer they open the door to look. Yeah forget about the fact that the trailer is covered in windows and the door is made of half glass and half screen.:lol:
     
  9. DefJeff

    DefJeff Franca Stoppi's #1 fan

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Messages:
    3,112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamden, CT
    This criteria is pretty dumb, honestly.

    Fist off, you'll run into the problem of "who says it isn't good?". I personally think the original one is great. Or did you mean because you don't think it's any good.

    Secondly, I'm sure alot of people -think- they can improve on some idea. Besides, being offered millions of dollars, it will take alot of willpower to stand up and say "You know, I DON'T think I can improve on this movie at all, I'm going to have to pass.".
     
  10. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,064
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada
    Actually in an Interview I read Aja said that if he was offered to remake the Texas Chainsaw Massacre that he would have probably turned it down because he considers it a masterpiece. He thought though with "Hills" there was room to work with.
     
  11. baggio

    baggio Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,521
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    pretty dumb? ok, so whats so dumb about remaking a movie that was done badly in the first place. It had a good idea, but the director or writer either didn't have the resources or knowledge to make it into a good film. This is a perfect opportunity to remake the film. (first off I want to say I'm really against remakes)

    and:"I personally think the original one is great"

    Ok, you liked the original but seriously:
    The Hills Have Eyes was a pretty bad film on all levels(see earlier post)
    It has I guess a drive-in sentimental value. But come on its a pretty bad film. Unless thats your thing, and you like bad films. I for one like a lot of bad chessy flicks too, its fun. I'm not trying to knock ya. But it is what it is.

    So what exactly did the recent or not so recent slew off remakes in hollywood horror or non-horror improve on the original? Bedsides maybe in the FX department.


    Also I'm not talking about turning down money, because more than half of the time these remake projects are the writers and directors ideas. It not Studios knocking on directors doors saying hey I want you to remake so and so and heres a boat load of money to do it. Its the other way around. The writers and directors come up with an idea of a remake(because they can't think of any other ideas) and pitch to studios to make a movie. I know in this case Wes Craven personally hand picked Alexandra Aja to direct the remake.
    And he was glad to do it. I don't think money was such an issue in this unique case.
    Plus studios shell out the money because they see that another so so horror remake worked so why not this idea. They are not personally comming up with the movie choice ideas. they leave that up to the directors and writers.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2006
  12. baggio

    baggio Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,521
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    great point. obviously money not the issue.


    Hills Have Eyes was no masterpiece. It was a different kinda piece.
     
  13. rhett

    rhett Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    9,415
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Somehow you have missed the entire intent of Jeff's post by countering his opinion with your own masked as fact rather than opinion. I won't pander by explaining to you that film is a subjective art form that lies in the eye of the beholder, but I do question your ignorance in deeming it a bad film as if it were as proven as the periodic table of elements.

    It is clear you dislike the film, but it is obvious the film has endured over the years. More than a piece of "drive-in sentimentality", it has been the subject of much film criticism and at higher levels of discourse like in schools and libraries. There have been countless books and articles written on the film and its themes, so clearly there is more to the film than mere bad movie curiosity.

    The film is of course celebrated in fan circles too, you needn't look any further than the Aja vs. Craven poll to see that indeed it still has quite the following compared to this lauded remake. You don't like it, a couple other board members don't like it, but somehow your opinion is the only one you seem to accept as valid. It's clear that Jeff enjoys the film as more than your demeaning classification of it as a "bad cheesy flick", and there is no reason to put him down for doing so.

    Not only is your view of other people's opinions naive and shallow, but so too is your concept of Hollywood. In an ideal world the writers and directors would have their pick over ideas and concepts and follow them through to the final product, but this isn't even close to how it works in Cali. For one, I doubt writers and directors, if given free reign over whatever idea they wanted to develop, would pick so many remakes as their choice projects. Remakes sell right now, and that's basically the only thing studios are letting through the gates. So right there, even at the start of the creative process, writers and directors are prohibited from making anything that isn't already a brand name. Not exactly the creative utopia you've envisioned.

    I'd venture to guess that the horror genre is in many ways the most restrictive genre for creative decisions. So many films seem to be governed by checklists: we need this many jump scares, this high of a body count, this many breasts, and we need them every X number of minutes. It is such an easy formula to view that no doubt producers will have their hand in dictating exactly what direction the finished project goes. Look at the recent slew of Michael Bay remakes...there's a reason they all look and feel similar, and it ain't the director. Studios are constantly looking through their vaults for horror classics to revisit, and I'm pretty sure that almost all of the remakes that have come out today have been studio-driven rather than director-driven. Romero had to fight for over a decade to get LAND OF THE DEAD made, so do you think all these first-time writers and directors like Zack Snyder and Andrew Douglas come barging into Hollywood's doors with remake ideas that are instantly approved?

    Maybe it is different in Aja's case, but I highly doubt it. Looking at all the producers behind it, its similarity to Fox Searchlight's WRONG TURN doesn't seem so much a coincidence as it does a conscious decision by Fox to carve their own little backwoods niche.
     
  14. MrKateB

    MrKateB Asshole Extraordinaire

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    Ummmm...yeah...what he said..

    I just got back from seeing this tonight, after debating whether to "support" another remake or to just get out and see a new horror film having not gone since "The Fog" remake came out. I went to be entertained and to be hopefully creeped out etc., and I got both in spades.

    I was way too young to even DREAM about seeing this film yet (the original), my affinity for horror had yet to begin, but I was already intrigued by it having viewed choice scenes from all of the 70's television horror product and being both terrified and mesmerized...I remember the ad being creepy, and my sister had a piece of newspaper that was used for wrapping up something fragile...On that newspaper was the ad for Dawn of the Dead, which was playing with Hills Have Eyes at the drive-in. I remember being drawn to that ad, seeing that tiny trailer, and although I could barely make out the people standing in front of it, what I knew was that they were in trouble, and that we had a trailer too, and I had a family that looked like that, and dogs etc. I was creeped out by the ad alone, and when I finally saw the movie, was pretty disturbed by it.

    For me, what I'm getting at is that the original film IS a classic, and it WAS quite a shocker in it's day. It was not necessarily panned or thought of as bad any more than most horror product was, but rather it was kind of the "you gotta see" movie for QUITE a long time. And, it never went away. For an independent, low budget movie put together by mostly newbies to the industry, starring a cast with mostly very little experience at that point, I think that it is a testament to it's quality that it is still discussed today in many circles. Although I do share the opinion that remakes are by default unnecessary, I am willing to say that in some rare cases, a remake can be a tribute too if done well. Does this mean that it makes the original obsolete? To me, only to the people that allow it to be so. Does it take anything away from the original? Again, to me, not at all, because no matter how good or bad it is, it will never BE the original, and it will always be true that the original came first, and you could never have the new version without knowing that the original came before.

    Anyway, blah blah.. I was entertained by the new one thoroughly, thought a few scenes here and there could have been done better, some of the lines were kind of silly, but I was equally disturbed by this one too, just for different reasons. I really got the feeling that they had not tarnished the original at all. The accident set up was different, but in this day and age I think it would take most folks a lot more than low flying jets overhead to freak them out, and most folks would probably purposely flatten the little radioactive bunny (who might have been in on the whole thing--perhaps it was Ruby's pet?) rather than risk their whole family in order to avoid hitting it etc. Anyway, that was different and other things were different, but I didn't think that the filmmakers were trying to say "Look here! This is SOOOo much more better than yours...Your trash that was so terrible I 'm wanting to be associated with it"...I definitely got the feeling that this was being done by a true fan of the original.

    Similarly, none of the actors were doing "caricature" performances of the original cast, but rather emulated their performances in a way that seemed kind of respectful. Whether or not that was behind that maybe not, but Ted Levine is a decent enough actor, I've only seen a few of his films, and he seems like a definite pro rather than hack. Kathleen Quinlan has made some bad movies (which she was usually the only bright spot in), and some VERY good movies, budget non-important either way, but she has had a long successful career, and I'm sure that she can be more than choosy about what she does. Emilie De Ravin is currently on a very high profile show but I don't think she deserves to be lumped in or considered to be of that "WB Young and Hip" group, and I think she's got potential, and Vinessa Shaw has endured, I only remember seeing her in Hocus Pocus back in 93, but I know that she's made some interesting films and her career seems to be going well too...Robert Joy is a pretty good character actor etc., and I think that he too wouldn't show up in something unless he thought the property was worthy. All of the actors did well, but to me that doesn't take away from any of the originals, and although I haven't seen the older son much since that movie, the others have all continued in the business, and to this day I don't think any of them were "bad".

    Anyway, in a VERY long winded way, I guess I'm just saying that I have absolutely no bad feelings towards the new film, or the people who made it...I really think that in this case, there IS room for both, and I will be getting this one, and will get more than my share of viewing out of it, and I do own the original, and will continue to view that one too whenever I want to experience the very different feel I got from that.

    EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion, and hopefully that is something that we will never forget. Just because one doesn't agree with another, that should never be a reason why the other should be thought of as less valid.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2006
  15. baggio

    baggio Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,521
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is exactly that my opinion


    read it again. What part of I like cheesy flicks too, didn't you understand. And what part of I'm not knocking ya, didn't you understand?

    And oh ya where exactly did I say I hated the film? I said it was a bad film. And I clearly once again stated that "I like bad chessy movies too".
    Its a bad silly flick. It is what it is. I can't believe there isn't anyone out there that can't see that there is loads of humor to that movie. From the acting to the scenarios. its a fun bad movie. you just have to laugh at alot of the film. But in my opinion which it is not, is scary. A little thrilling maybe but not scary. And oh, yeah tell me you never laughed at the Sonny Bono looking guy. Come on his whole character is hilarious.
    wow, get up on the wrong side of the bed?

    Your intitled to think of what ever you want, I will think of whatever I want.


    Yep, kinda already stated that. thats the rave now. But its the writers that present the idea of a remake to the studios and they green light it. Trust me no studio is saying you know what needs to be remade Friday the 13th. Chop Chop, someone bring me a script on a platter.

    and lastly
    not I disagree with your criteria, or something like that. but your criteria is dumb.
    well that was considered as a shot. which I responded to. very civil I might add.

    and you taking your shots too. with words like ignorance, shallow, naive.

    Alrighty then. Again wrong side of the bed?
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2006
  16. DefJeff

    DefJeff Franca Stoppi's #1 fan

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Messages:
    3,112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamden, CT
    I love it when people try to play the innocent role. "Who ME? all I did was play by the rules nicely." :cry: It's like the male version of Tawny.

    I'd say dumb, naive, ignorant and shallow are all accurate descriptions. But hey, that's just my opinion.
     
  17. RyanPC

    RyanPC Guest

    No, it's not. And that is my opinion.

    I respect your opinion, of course, even if I don't agree with it. But to say that every bad film needs to be remade is just ludicrous because not everyone will agree on which films are bad and which are not.

    And as far as your responses to DefJeff's and Rhett's posts go, I'm sorry, but you seem to have zero reading comprehension skills.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2006
  18. Cujo108

    Cujo108 Guest

    With Aja behind the camera, this was the only new remake I cared to see.

    The acting was fine, Ted Levine being the standout. No surprise there. Stanford also impressed me quite a bit in the Doug role, while Emilie de Ravin does fine herself, and her sunbathing scene is one of the higlights of the film. The kid playing Bobby was pretty annoying though, and his facial expressions cracked me up.

    The acting on the mutant side of the equation is pretty much what you'd expect I suppose. Lizard and Big Brain are well acted, but Billy Drago's Jupiter is more amusing than anything. I liked the hulking Pluto. Definitely a menacing figure, though I thought the scene of him throwing Doug through a window by the leg was too much. The gas station guy was weak, especially compared to John Steadman in the original, whose emotional explanation of Jupiter to Big Bob made for one of the original's best scenes.

    I loved the look of the picture. Aja captured that really well. The gore is nice and brutal as well, and for the most part, the mood is appropriate. The addition of the test town was a nice touch, and I loved the nuke crater.

    I had to laugh at some of the ridiculous character logic. One of my favorites was when
    Bobby marches, gun in hand, after the mutant that took his mom's body, only to find Jupiter chowing down. Instead of shooting him, he tucks tail and runs, firing randomly behind him.
    One that was more annoying than funny was how the mutants
    conveniently left Doug's bat on top of the meat freezer they put him in.
    The over the top music at the end cracked me up too.

    One of my favorite aspects of the original was how Craven had Beast become the hero of the film. In the remake, Beast is a little less utilized, which was slightly disappointing. Doug's butchering of the mutants was very enjoyable though.

    In the end, it is in no way a match for Craven's classic or Aja's Haute Tension. Despite it's flaws though, it was an entertaining popcorn horror film, which is more than I can say for 99.9% of remakes these days.
     
  19. shift

    shift Hot as shit!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,463
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    - TeXaS -
    ok boyz.... Shift's going out to watch it 2night. Wish me luck!! :D
     
  20. aoiookami

    aoiookami Demon Fetishist

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Endsville, Canada
    I'm not sure what to think of it. To best describe it I just felt empty when leaving the theater; no real moments that made me excited, scared, I didnt laugh or feel sad; for me it was just a demonstration of gore effects and nice cinematography. The mutant designs were rather underwhelming and kind of boring, and the big one reminded me of Sloth from Goonies if anything.

    I also found I couldnt enjoy much of the second half because
    the amount of what Doug went through and still kept going was way beyond the realm of possibility to the point of being rediculous. I know its a horror movie and everything....but c'mon; you walk through the desert with little water in your body after seeing your familiy masacred, get thrown through walls and windows, get the end of a bat to the head, get your fingers chopped off, get knocked out, get stuck in a freezer with rotting body parts, run through the desert some more with no water, get slashed by spikes, get your head bashed into the ground multiple times, then go on to the walk through the desert again carrying a baby and holding onto a dog's leash. Please. It was just too much.

    Also the ending was very, very underwhelming and cliche. As well,
    so it ends with 'another' mutant watching them; are we to assume they are gonna be killed? So what? They're still in the middle of the desert with no water and one guy is half dead, its not like there was any indication they were gonna get out anyways for the 'oh no, they're still in troule!' ending to work...

    Good gore, and it looked great, but there wasnt enough filler for me to make it ultimately satisfying. Dissapointing for me.

    edit; oh, and 'Big Brain' (I'm assuming, the one with huge head) looked like Rubber Johnny. :p
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2006

Share This Page