|
Post by Vits on Jan 1, 2019 12:43:35 GMT
THE HILLS HAVE EYES 1977 4/10 THE HILLS HAVE EYES PART II 1984 1/10 THE HILLS HAVE EYES 1977 (about a family named CARTER who's being terrorized by cannibals in the Nevada desert) wasn't as scary as it could've been due to its low budget; THE HILLS HAVE EYES 2006 (about a family named CARTER who's being terrorized by mutants in the Nevada desert) squanders its big budget by not even trying to be scary. At least not in the traditional sense. The cinematography doesn't generate the right atmosphere and the gore is excessive. Luckily, this remake has better actors and, unlike the original, it has likeable characters (this version of BOBBY CARTER explains why he didn't tell his parents that he found their dog dead, and it makes sense) and a real ending (finishing on a cliffhanger isn't the same as finishing the moment the climax ends). 4/10 THE HILLS HAVE EYES PART II 2007 0/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Jan 2, 2019 2:35:04 GMT
While I don’t find the films to be scary. I do find the original and remake to have an effective intensity, more so raw in the original, especially the first campervan attack (in both).
The 1985 sequel in structure & style always reminded of a Friday 13th film. Simple slasher fodder without the original’s edge. The dog flashbacks are goofy. But I don’t remember hating it as much now like I did the first time I saw it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2019 2:50:09 GMT
They aren't scary so much as disturbing. The rape and fire scenes in the remake are especially unsettling.
|
|
|
Post by OffTheBoatPsycho on Jan 2, 2019 3:55:01 GMT
I preferred both the remakes over both the originals.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Jan 2, 2019 12:53:47 GMT
The original is nice and tense. Extreme but not exploitative. You can see Craven's sensisibilites starting to gel.
The sequel is a dose of silly nonsense. Hard to believe it was made around the same time as Elm Street.
The remake was surprisingly well done. Aja has just the right touch for the material. It's a shame his career post-Hills has been dead in the water.
The sequel to the remake is fine. The characters are dull, but the pace and the violence are unrelenting.
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on Jan 16, 2019 3:41:27 GMT
The remake is one of the best remake ever made.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 17, 2019 19:06:52 GMT
The remake is one of the best remake ever made. Really? It's ok, and certainly better than most recent shitty horror remakes, but it's nothing special and some of the most highly regarded classics films are remakes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 10:52:18 GMT
Remake - 7 out of 10 beers - well done Doug's transformation from weasel to hero is one of the greatest character transformation/arcs/development stories out there - whole movie theater I was at pretty much was cheering the final minutes. well done.
|
|