MovieChat Forums > The Hills Have Eyes (1977) Discussion > The remake of this......in fact about an...

The remake of this......in fact about any remake


I will never see them........

I've seen a few remakes and finally decided to stop because it never improves the experience for me........so what's the point?



Oh wait, except for Cape Fear

reply

I will never see them........

I've seen a few remakes...


That's an oxymoron if ever there was one!
So you've never seen The Thing?

Da Hitlist:
Gothika 6.5/10
Skeleton Key 5.5/10

www.myspace.com/reservoir_dog_dan

reply

The Thing is probably the best movie to bring up when someone pans remakes. I personally believe remakes should be judged on their own merit. I for one enjoyed the remake of Dawn of the Dead and I absolutely loved the original. In fact the remake was better than Romero's Land of the Dead sequel.
The basic fact if any remake is a piece of *beep* then it's beecause it was a bad movie not because it was a remake.

Good remakes:
Dawn of the Dead 2004
Night of the Living Dead 1990
The Ring 2002

reply

[deleted]

Oh come on the Japanese version was decent but the ambience created by the American version was much superior. The way they explored the character of Samara added to the story and made it a much better film.

reply

Yes I agree with you it was much more eerie in the American version....!!!!!!

reply

It's not just that... the entire atmosphere of the Japanese version was so closely aimed at Japan's culture that a lot of it was simply lost on Americans. (For example, they didn't bother to explain a lot of the movie's backstory, because they didn't need to- Japan's culture is a lot more accepting of supernatural concepts that they didn't need to explain why Samara could kill people with her mind, or why you were supposed to copy the video and pass it on.) The American version, however, geared the movie towards Americans, which, in my opinion, made the movie better. To claim the American version was bad is a lie- it's not the same as the Japanese version, of course, but it tells the same story in such a way as to scare and entertain us, not the Japanese.

reply

Hmm, do you think it was aimed specifically at Japanese culture because it was a Japanese film? Interesting. So by this rationale, do you think Japan should start re-making every American film ever made? I mean, they don't seem to be aimed at the specifics of Japanese culture do they?

reply

ya but sometimes the japanese versions are better for example the eye i loved the japanese version way better. the american one was pointless. and i liked how the jap version was more like ghost whisperer andd not a horror like the us tried to make it

reply

Not every remake from Asia is freaking Japanese, people. The Eye is from China.

reply

Well there's a fail for me... been thinking it was Korean. To be fair on myself; I watched it very late at night after many cups of coffee... and didn't bother watching it to the end.

reply

uhm they all look the same...let's be honest here folks...china, japan, they look alike...

"In the plus column though...she makes a hell of a cup of coffee..." - Max Shrek

reply

Anything with captions is the same to me and I hate watching a movie that is not even English speaking at all. Not going to bother with any movie that is not English. I care less that people think their other countries movies are better. The captions are just pointless to me. I rather not watch at all than see captions. Enjoy your caption movies!

I am a gore watching freak!!!

If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.

reply

Nope, the US remake of the Ring sucked out any tenstion, ambience, atmoshpere, whatever. I've seen worse remakes and at least they tried something different, but for me the original will always be superior. The clincher for me was the final TV scene. In the original it was a shocking plot twist and absolutely terrifying, but the remake held your hand throughout and the CGI just looked silly.

reply

The American version of The Ring is pretty much exactly the same film but with American actors. Both are great films.

reply

[deleted]

shmabadu: Sure, "The Thing" is one of the FEW really good worthwhile remakes, the others being "The Fly" and "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1977). In fact I think all 3 are better than the originals but most remakes today are pointless, even the remakes of Japanese horror have become dumb and predictable.
Your last statement is a bit confusing~if you meant to say that being a remake doesn't automatically make a movie bad then thats what you should have said. Ultimately though, the bottom line is simply this; if a movie is bad and pointless then it IS BAD AND POINTLESS regardless if it was made just once or remade 99 times.
...and your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Or the Fly? Btw, the remake of The Hills Have Eyes was one of the best remakes ever made and this is coming from a guy who can't stand modern horror remakes, with exception to Dawn of the Dead, which was also really good.

reply

But the original practically screamed for a remake. Graininess aside, the film is just visually cluttered. Most of the time, you don't know aesthetically what's going on. It was a film waiting for a budget. I think the remake was a good thing.

reply

I think that it is the BEST remake ever.

reply

This is the type of discussion you will see on the message board for just about any film that has been remade or is in the process of being "reivented" or "reinterpreted" as some like to put it. This type of discussion is also seen on the message boards of other similar genre pieces i.e. Wrong Turn, Just Before Dawn.

The sad, all too obvious fact is, Hollywood is a greedy lot and the studios are running out of ideas. That's why remakes and direct to video career-killing sequels happen: they want to make money. What the filmmakers don't realize is, the movie going public is savvy and will not take kindly to their intelligence being insulted. Someone needs to buy them all a clue, because if this keeps up, eventually everyone will resort to just downloading bootlegged copies of their work off the internet.

reply

[deleted]

I like both movies equel, but I have to disagree with some people on here, the original did not scream for a remake. It didn't need a sequel, it didn't need a remake, so on.

reply

have to say i disagree and find the remake to be far superior

reply

Agreed. Wes Craven even liked the remake better. It made him come back and re-do the second one.

reply

The Ring / Ringu - Japanese version was more scary, but American was far better visually. First half of Jap. and second of US would make a perfect Ring :)

Hills - enjoyed both equally - original was more rough and disturbing, remake had better visuals (obviously), had Ted Levine (!), and had a nice explanation at the end.

The Thing and The Fly - it's soo cliched to use these two as remakes-better-than-original - c'mon, think of something else. How did you guys find The Omen (2006) ? I think it was pretty cool actually.

reply

[deleted]

Nope. They are both really good, but if I had to give an edge... it would be to the original.

Doug Roberts: What do they call it when you kill people?
The Towering Inferno

reply

I would usualy agree with you but the remake of the hills have eyes is actually better than the original!!!






-We've survived yet again-
-We've lost yet again-

reply

What about Ben-Hur and the Maltese falcon? These remakes went on to become undisputed classics!

"It rubs the lotion on it's skin, or else it gets the hose again." - The Silence of the Lambs

reply

[deleted]

They HHE remake is actually pretty good - you might like it! I'd say the same for TCM, but they are the exceptions to the rule.

reply

I also really enjoyed The Magnificent Seven http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054047/
Which is a remake of Shichinin no samurai http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047478/

Enjoy!

reply

[deleted]

I also really enjoyed The Magnificent Seven http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054047/
Which is a remake of Shichinin no samurai http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047478/


Pixar's A Bug's Life also tells the same story...but with bugs. and it's an excellent, underrated film.

There is nothing wrong with remakes.

I'll repeat that.

There is nothing wrong with remakes.

However, when a remake fails to capitalize and improve on the original story and film quality, a problem does arise.

John Carpenter's The Thing greatly improved on the original film and turned out to be an amazing film in and of itself.

If there is no possible way of improving a film, a remake ends up being pointless and inferior. See Halloween and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre for examples. The originals are too damn good. The characters and settings, music, various shots, cinematography and scare factor are too famous and well-known that it is literally impossible to remove them from our minds in hopes of replacing them with the same thing, but new, different, and ultimately worse.

Watch the original horror film The Eye. It is perhaps the most frightening movie that I have ever seen. The remake takes all the good parts of that film and turns them into garbage. Same deal with the TCM remake. It literally took everything that made the original so classic and great...and did the complete opposite.

The whole idea of remaking a film *should* be to improve on a flawed concept, or generic and banal execution of a very good concept. This is clearly not the case. It's all about money.

People in Hollywood need to wake up to reality and realize that a much quicker and foolproof way of lining their pockets would be to put out a quality product. Something many people would want to see, and not just a niche of ignorant teens who go to the movies just to go to the movies, and not to see their product in particular.

reply

The remake of this is not as bad as many of the remakes.

reply

Hah! I didn't realise A Bugs Life was a remake of Shichinin no samurai (The Seven Samurai). And of course we have the excellent series Samurai 7 to add to the list of remakes.

Oh, and The Lion King? *cough*Hamlet*cough* Or if you want to skirt controversy it was a remake/rip-off of Kimba The White Lion.

Have to say I did not like The Ring. It felt like a Sunday afternoon, easy-watching movie. Ringu is the only film that has EVER left me terrified of the dark.

I did, however, enjoy Sam Raimi's The Grudge, and found it to be much superior to Ju-On.

Speaking of Sam Raimi and remakes; Evil Dead 2 anyone? Remaking your own films FTW!

reply

Why can't Hollywood remake BAD movies?

FU** TWILIGHT!

reply

I guess.

reply

I liked Peter Jackson's take on "King kong"

khou van je voor altijd, cutiepie <3

reply

HEAT is a remake of LA Takedown.

The Ten Commandments was a remake... of The Ten Commandments.

12 Monkeys was a remake of La Jetee.


reply

The Departed is a remake of Infernal Affairs. I've seen and liked both but The Departed was better, I think.

reply

The Thing and The Fly are the only remakes I've liked better. But someone (like the third or fourth poster) said Dawn of the Dead. Yeah right. The original is like one of the top five best horror movies ever. If you think that remake is better you have no business on these boards.










I did sixty in five minutes once...

reply

Remakes that are better then the originals~
The Fly
The Blob
Night of the Living Dead
The Thing,even though it's not really a remake.
The Hills Have Eyes.

The ones I really dislike were~
Dawn of the Dead
Black Christmas

reply


Night of the Living Dead wasn't better than the original! Are you mental!
--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...

reply

I prefer Savani's version over Romero's,it's just a little slow paced for me.IMO Romero didnt get it right until Dawn.
Yeah,Yeah and I know the guy came up with the formula,but lately it's something he seems to have forgotton.

reply

Blasphemer!

Gather the villagers! And tell them to bring their torches!


Move along. Nothing to see here.

reply

Just so you know, regardless of what blind little fanboys say. The remake of The Hills Have Eyes is a solid film, by an amazing director.

The only reason The Hills Have Eyes is a cult classic is because Craven is the director. It's one of his weakest films. This is one of the very rare instances where a remake was NEEDED, and succeeded. Refusing to watch a movie simply because you're a fan of the original is kind of silly, but it's your life, remain ignorant of whatever you want.

reply

The only reason The Hills Have Eyes is a cult classic is because Craven is the director. It's one of his weakest films.
There's a mislogic in your thinking. The Hills Have Eyes was Craven's second film, following The Last House on the Left. So it was this film that in large part created his fanbase. And many of us think it is his best film.


Move along. Nothing to see here.

reply

I'm not sure how the order of which the films were released relates to my post at all. You like it, that's cool, but I, and many like me think it's one of his weakest, barring Cursed, of course.

reply

I was responding to your claim that fans of this movie are fans only because it is a Wes Craven movie. I am pointing out that it had fans before Craven became a cult-following favorite, and that it is one of the movies that established that following.

FYI, The Hills Have Eyes and Last House on the Left are my two favorite Craven movies. There's a rawness to them that I think is just about perfect for horror movies.

But, yes, to each his or her own.




Move along. Nothing to see here.

reply

I haven't seen Cursed, and will see the original Hills Have Eyes this week, but for me, I though The Last House on The Left is easily the worst Craven movie I saw, and amongst the worst movies I ever saw period. I though the remake of Last House though was excellent, and obviously a trillion times better than the original. The remake of Hills I thought was extremely effective. Now that I am reading the comments on the original, though, I am pessimistic regarding the original.

Bill Foster: I'm the bad guy?...How did that happen?

reply