I really like Ted Levine (the dad). He was in one of my favorite tv shows, Monk. He was also in two of my other favorite movies, Silence of the Lambs ("It puts the lotion on or it gets the hose again") and Wonderland.
Yeah right the first one is way better because it was an original idea the remake was almost shot for shot the same damn film with cgi gore...the idea of the inbred hill family was far more believeable then ugly stupid looking mutated monsters. Michael Berryman is the ish! Wes Craven is the ish! I even think the original hills have eyes 2 (1985) is better then the remake and that movie sucked but at least it was its own film. This thread makes me sick.
I do agree that The Hills 2 remake is dreadful. I have to give the original another chance. Saw it way long ago when I wasn't the viewer I am now. Might have a different opinion on it after all this time.
Meh, I've seen the original many times and still take the remake over it in terms of sheer brutality. That doesn't mean I'm saying the first one is bad at all. Just that I prefer the remake, rough film to watch. The original was good, and like you said Joey, was great for it's time. Not bashing it, or Wes Craven, one of my favorite directors. Just out of the two, I'd take the remake.
Post by Tony Hates Everything on Mar 6, 2012 15:03:05 GMT -5
I love both no lie but the remake was just great the unrated version.... someone had said and I don't remember where for all I can recall it could be a previous post here but they said the hills have eyes remake was basically made for a mutant rape porn fetish. Now it is just quote from that persons entire rant but that was basically the quote that summed up the entire post but it started up a entire conversation about horror films now just being about sick twisted fetish people would like to see basically a soft core porn and at a certain point with certain movies I agree that they go to far to prove a point the hills have eyes is on that border with the remake.
No more so than I Spit On Your Grave or The Last House on the Left, and I mean the originals. Films were pulling the exploitation thing way before this remake, just saying.
I don't look it as soft porn, but more this is what would probably happen if this movie were real. That's why the remake disturbed me as much as it did. The original was tame compared to this one IMO. Good film, but tame.
Post by Tony Hates Everything on Mar 8, 2012 0:36:42 GMT -5
Both films mentioned in that discussion also including the Halloween remake for its rape scene... honestly did these scenes add to the film? I would say no but did they make the movie better yes they did make you more involved in the characters and feel the pain of the victims... So while I feel these movies take things sometimes to far I feel they add something occasionally... Yea tony just had a debate with himself LOL