Okay...so now I've seen Hills Have Eyes 2006...*spoiler free baby*

[MinionZombie]

I was interested in seeing this flick and really intrigued to see if it really was a violent as it was being touted (Hostel was a limp fest alright)...and well, it DEFINATELY is as violent as they say ... now I really want to see the unrated version on DVD...if they get away with THAT much with a hard "R", then the unrated version must be absolutely insane.

I never really felt the violence was there just to be there - it felt right, in a bizarre kind of way. I was talking about this with my friend on the ride home and she agreed that horror flicks are getting much more violent these days. I think it's a reaction to current events. The classics of the 1970s reacted to the brutality of Vietnam - now we have 9/11 and Iraq, we're kept in a constant state of apprehension and fear by our governments - this flick gets to the root of that and tries to purge some of that terror-spin fear with a bucket-o-blood - to follow up the 'cock tease' (if you will) of 'terrorism is everywhere' with some 'safe' violence. It's going back to the old days of extreme violence to confront the fear we've been challenged with in real life.

Now - it did rely quite a bit on the visual aspect, and *sigh* LOUD NOISES!!!! instead of the good old Manfredini-style violin-stab - see the "twinky" moment early in the flick. They really do try to yank you out of safe suburbia at the gas station - perhaps too brutally (i.e. that toilet).

I was surprised the script wasn't an atrocity too, it was actually quite well done. It was definately very comfortably situated within the realm of the horror genre - but it was great to see a victim with some f*cking balls for once! It was rather unnverving to see the 'nuclear family' (no, not the Jupiter clan) literally being torn apart - usually horror flicks tear apart a bunch of unrelated friends.

All-in-all for a horror remake at this time in cinema history, it was quite good. Nice to see Craven himself involved - I believe it was Craven's idea to do the remake, perhaps adding validity to my Vietnam/Iraq nuclear family of then & now argument. Not all remakes are bad - the original "Hills" wasn't that fantastic in the first place, it was alright, but not great.

Oh yeah, it was interesting to see that four people left the cinema after the imfamous trailer home attack scene (which wasn't quiiiiite as bad as I thought - the rape scene was more lecherous looks and non-descript wrestling - i.e. no thrusting or nudity)...actually about 10 minutes after that scene, they must have debated it, lol - but they actually left. I've rarely seen that happen, but the last time I was at the cinema the same thing happened - 3 people swiftly walked out of Land of the Dead once the intestines started flying, ha!

[Cody]

yeah man well i thought the film was bad ass i just want to see how the last scene at the end who was that

[jdog]

i saw it last week and thought it was good for a remake.
very violent flic with good story and decent effects.
cant wait to see it again on dvd

[deadpunk]

I thought it sucked. Sorry. It relied way too much on violence, and not enough on anything else.

I don't even qualify this movie as Horror. It was shock value theatre, nothing more.

[losherman]

I was interested in seeing this flick and really intrigued to see if it really was a violent as it was being touted (Hostel was a limp fest alright)...and well, it DEFINATELY is as violent as they say ... now I really want to see the unrated version on DVD...if they get away with THAT much with a hard "R", then the unrated version must be absolutely insane.

I never really felt the violence was there just to be there - it felt right, in a bizarre kind of way. I was talking about this with my friend on the ride home and she agreed that horror flicks are getting much more violent these days. I think it's a reaction to current events. The classics of the 1970s reacted to the brutality of Vietnam - now we have 9/11 and Iraq, we're kept in a constant state of apprehension and fear by our governments - this flick gets to the root of that and tries to purge some of that terror-spin fear with a bucket-o-blood - to follow up the 'cock tease' (if you will) of 'terrorism is everywhere' with some 'safe' violence. It's going back to the old days of extreme violence to confront the fear we've been challenged with in real life.

Now - it did rely quite a bit on the visual aspect, and *sigh* LOUD NOISES!!!! instead of the good old Manfredini-style violin-stab - see the "twinky" moment early in the flick. They really do try to yank you out of safe suburbia at the gas station - perhaps too brutally (i.e. that toilet).

I was surprised the script wasn't an atrocity too, it was actually quite well done. It was definately very comfortably situated within the realm of the horror genre - but it was great to see a victim with some f*cking balls for once! It was rather unnverving to see the 'nuclear family' (no, not the Jupiter clan) literally being torn apart - usually horror flicks tear apart a bunch of unrelated friends.

All-in-all for a horror remake at this time in cinema history, it was quite good. Nice to see Craven himself involved - I believe it was Craven's idea to do the remake, perhaps adding validity to my Vietnam/Iraq nuclear family of then & now argument. Not all remakes are bad - the original "Hills" wasn't that fantastic in the first place, it was alright, but not great.

Oh yeah, it was interesting to see that four people left the cinema after the imfamous trailer home attack scene (which wasn't quiiiiite as bad as I thought - the rape scene was more lecherous looks and non-descript wrestling - i.e. no thrusting or nudity)...actually about 10 minutes after that scene, they must have debated it, lol - but they actually left. I've rarely seen that happen, but the last time I was at the cinema the same thing happened - 3 people swiftly walked out of Land of the Dead once the intestines started flying, ha!


should be fun to check out minion, thanks.

[dogma789]

post deleted.

[deadpunk]

it had a few rare moments of suspense, but overall I thought it was a bit predictable.

[glsjaw]

ya, i would say it was predictable but you would almost expect that from a remake.

[MinionZombie]

Or from many, many horror films - the slasher flicks of the 1980s were anything but original, they were all essentially the same movie with a couple of slight tweaks.

Ooh, another thing I really liked about Hills 2006 - Robert Joy (Charlie from Land of the Dead). I tell you, he couldn't have gotten further away from Charlie...seriously, his character "Lizard" is absolutely psychotic and is genuinely terrifying. The KNB make up was fantastic - it made him visually iconic and individual. For some reason he kept reminding me of Bruce Dern in "The Burbs" though...I think it was his voice, sounded similar, lol. But damn, Robert Joy really busted a nut as "Lizard" - legend.

[DaDeadGuy]

I saw this movie a few days ago and I can't get over how well it was done. I love the original Hills Have Eyes, but I have to say I think the remake is better. I wasn't expecting it to be as crazy as it was, and the shots were great and the acting was superb. I so can't wait for the unrated version to come out on dvd.

[bassman]

Or from many, many horror films - the slasher flicks of the 1980s were anything but original, they were all essentially the same movie with a couple of slight tweaks.

Ooh, another thing I really liked about Hills 2006 - Robert Joy (Charlie from Land of the Dead). I tell you, he couldn't have gotten further away from Charlie...seriously, his character "Lizard" is absolutely psychotic and is genuinely terrifying. The KNB make up was fantastic - it made him visually iconic and individual. For some reason he kept reminding me of Bruce Dern in "The Burbs" though...I think it was his voice, sounded similar, lol. But damn, Robert Joy really busted a nut as "Lizard" - legend.


I'm one of those fans that agrees with that and I can't believe you mentioned "The Burbs". I thought I was one of the only people on the face of the planet that likes that movie. I've always liked that film....also watched it too many times to count and it never gets old.

[MinionZombie]

The Burbs is classic 80's viewing. Funnily enough on the ride home my friend and I got talking about it and I mentioned that film and she went nuts as it's such a classic, she too thought nobody appreciated it - but it's one of my all-time favourite 80's movies...perhaps my favourite Tom Hanks film as well, when I think about it.

[bassman]

Nice to know that there are other "Burbs" fans out there.

I would really like to find a DVD for that film. I'm sure you've probably got one on R2 but I can't find a R1 disc of "The Burbs" anywhere.

Yeah, I would say that "The Burbs", "Turner and Hooch", and "Dragnet" are all my favorite Tom Hanks films. All of which are 80's films.

Yet another reason why I say that the 80's was the last decade of a good number of good films. Sh*t started going downhill in the 90's and has increased this decade...

So back the "The Hills..", Would you say it's worth a $10 movie ticket or wait about three or four months for the DVD?

[MinionZombie]

Hmmm, I'd say it's worth the money. I didn't feel at all ripped off, hell, it was worth the money just to see four people walk out disgusted! lol.

Again, my old method of not expecting anything, going in with a clean-slate-mind is best for the viewing experience. I'd definately agree with the Total Film review this month which gave it 4/5 stars.

And as for The Burbs, actually I don't have it on DVD. I was thinking about it at one point, but the disc had no extras at all so I thought why bother. I've got an old recording of it from BBC1 - adds to that 1980s flavour, watching it on a deteriorating VHS :D :cool:

I think it's one of those films which has been forgotten by DVD - but perhaps a good edition will come out soon.