it was too scary for me. I felt like I needed to shower and read the Bible after that movie....whew. It was gross and dirty.
2006-07-06 05:01:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by ♣ 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
well..
I dislike the nowadays and boisterous remakes of classic horror movies as much as the next person but, ever since the news came that an update of "The Hills Have Eyes" was in talks, I had great expectations towards it. There are reasons for this rather enthusiast anticipation, actually. Unlike "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "The Fog", to name just two examples, Wes Craven's original 1977 screenplay was open for improvement AND Alexandre Aja would be just the right man for the job, as his own project "Haute Tension" is definitely one of the best horror films since the year 2000. That particular film wasn't really a masterpiece of plotting, but it was genuinely grim and barbaric and those are exactly the qualities a film like "The Hills Have Eyes" require as well. The new screenplay follows Craven's original fairly strict, except that the eyes in the hills aren't of members of an inbred family anymore but of an entire community of horribly mutated ghouls. Deep in the New Mexican deserts, a small village of coal miners once refused to leave the area at the time the American government decided to test nuclear weapons there, and now they still prowl the wasteland, assaulting travelers that dare to leave the main highways. The Carter family is next on the menu, and the mutants really don't care whether the victims are females, elderly folks or even newborn babies...
Alexandre Aja delivers the exact right amount of disturbing tension and really a lot more gore than you could possibly dream of. Much more than the overrated Eli Roth, this young French filmmaker is the new prodigy of horror. Strictly talking in terms of cinema, "The Hills Have Eyes" is also a more than decent production. The dialogs are fluently written and the characters are a lot more likable than in the original. By them I primarily refer to the members of the Carter family, as Michael Berryman's charisma as creepy Pluto remains unequaled. Altering the background of the desert-people into mutants was a pretty intelligent move by Aja, though. Despite being sadistic and utterly repulsive-looking bastards, these people are basically a sort of "victims" themselves, which brings a lot of extra depth and unsubtle social criticism in the overall simplistic story. I'm sure this film also had its share of flaws, like the editing being a little too MTV-ish perhaps, but the thrills and fast pacing were just too overpowering to have me bother about them. Kudos also to the terrific selection of songs, the convincing cast of actors and actresses and – last but not least – the personal trainer of those brilliant German Shepard dogs!
The original was Wes Craven's greatest B horror film was this harrowing low-budgeter that has gained quite a fan base over the years.
Charming, all-American family becomes stranded in the dessert wilderness and are preyed upon by a clan of savage hill-dwellers.
Violent, shocking, gory, and genuinely frightening, it's not hard to see why The Hills Have Eyes gained it's reputation as one of the most ruthless horror films of its decade. Craven's direction is well done, nicely exposing the raw and scenic filming locations. His story is also quite powerful. Craven gives us a taught, merciless tale of fear and survival that dares to break the audience's comfortable expectations! It has plenty of unexpected twists and a steely suspenseful climax. As with Craven's early film, Last House on the Left (1972), The Hills Have Eyes is a film about clean-cut,likable people who must become brutal animals to avenge themselves. It's solidly intense and very poetic.
The cast of unknowns turns in great performances. Lanier, Houston, Speer, Grieve, Wallace, and Vincent all make for a well identifiable American family. While Whitworth, Gordon, and Berryman make for perfectly scary monsters!
A startling and memorable thriller all around, The Hills Have Eyes remains one of Craven's greatest achievements and one truly relentless horror picture! Genre fans should not miss it.
2006-07-06 11:59:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by JoYbOy 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It was not scary, it was more disturbing than anything. No, I agree it was too...graphic.
I like horror movies that reign on a more cerebral level, such as the Exorcist (the original) No other movie has ever reached me to the core like that movie did. Most movies startle me, that one scared me.
2006-07-06 12:30:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by AutumnDays 2
·
0⤊
0⤋