MovieChat Forums > The Hills Have Eyes (2006) Discussion > A remake that is actually better than th...

A remake that is actually better than the original


While this movie isn't great, it is one of those rare remakes that actually exceeds the original. It stays close to the original (including some of the same dialogue) but exceeds it in every possible way, not bad! I've actually seen it a couple times now, never thought that would happen. This remake I'm sure was another cash-in remake effort by Hollywood, but regardless, it's an entertaining film, which is more than I can say for the majority of remakes in recent years. Plus, you can't go wrong with Ted Levine.

Movies I really enjoyed in 2011 - 1. Bellflower 2. Hanna 3. The Artist ....That's it, folks!

reply

I like the original but i agree that this remake is a huge improvement and one of the best remakes out there

http://w11.zetaboards.com/horrormansion/index/

reply

I also agree.

reply

Totally agree, a rare treat.

reply

As much as I rant against remakes, it kills me to admit it, but I agree too.

reply

I agree too. In all honesty, I hate the original. This one was gorier, had far more likeable protagonists, hateable, truly evil villains, much creepier music, and a grand, stark presentation of the desert environment. Great, underrated even, especially for a remake.



If you are a 100% fan of Judas Priest, proudly copy this and make it your signature!

reply

I strongly agree simply because the remake ACTUALLY had an ending, while the original just ends abrupt...

reply

I think this remake is far superior to the original. I'm suprised at the low viewer rating, I think this is a very well concieved and directed horror film, probably the best of the last decade.

Who's High Pitch?

reply

Overall I thoroughly enjoyed THE HILLS HAVE EYES, I've probably seen it about 5 times now. But it fails in comparison to the original and Aja's other film HIGH TENSION. Better than most of the recent crop of remakes.

reply

Well, I liked the original better. I feel the characters were more likable and so I could feel more sorry for them when they had to suffer through all their terror. The family in this one was kind of annoying at times. I feel Bobby was very obnoxious, Doug tried to act like he knew everything all the time, and Brenda acted like a spoiled brat complaining all the time so I didn't feel quite as much sympathy for the family because they annoyed me. And the killers in the original actually had personalities and were developed characters rather than faceless, voiceless mutants so I liked the villains better in the original as well. This is one of the better remakes, but I don't like it as much as the original.

I've been waiting for you, Ben.

reply

[deleted]

I agree 100%, I also didn’t like the radiation explanation in the remake which painted the killers as victims.

reply

What? This trashy remake with zero likable characters is better? I don't think so

reply

Agreed. This film was a terrific remake. Wes Craven is at his best when he's allowed to oversee his own work.

I also give a thumbs up to Last House on the Left. Quite the decent remake.

reply

I too agree that The Hill Have Eyes remake is better than the original.

I also think that Evil Dead and The Dawn of the Dead remakes are better than the originals too.



Who understands Chinese? I don't understand Chinese.

reply

[deleted]

I disagree; I really liked this remake (one of the better ones made, imo) but I definitely prefer the original.













"Speak of the Devil, and He shall appear."

reply

[deleted]