(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmovies.apple.com%2Fmoviesxml%2Fs%2Ffox_searchlight%2Fposters%2Fthehillshaveeyes_l200512221654.jpg&hash=e91d99cd08d9493ff4ce12c3a133b21a041fc96e)
Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/thehillshaveeyes/)
Release Date: March 17, 2006
Cast: Dan Byrd, Emilie De Ravin, Aaron Stanford, Kathleen Quinlan, Ted Levine, Vinessa Shaw, Robert Joy, Billy Drago, Tom Bower, Ezra Buzzington
Director: Alexandre Aja (High Tension)
Premise: A hapless family makes a detour to a desolated desert to visit a silver mine they've inherited where they are preyed upon by a disturbing clan. Based on the 1977 Wes Craven film.
If the movie doesn't feature the same style of editing as the trailer (which is a rip off of the Texas Chainsaw remake trailer with some of that freeze frame or slowing down of the film towards the end), this could be good. Nothing new, but it could generate some real creepiness. We'll see. I like that it's a very direct story, with no need for twists, and no need to not show the killer's face. Hell, maybe the killers will have some personality for once in a long while. Creepy mutants are going to kill everybody, simple and clean. That's all I need.
At least it'll be better than When A Stranger Calls.
Where's Michael Berryman, damnit?!...
New Poster
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.movieweb.com%2Fgalleries%2F3346%2Fposters%2Fposter1.jpg&hash=4815edfd5c72402ec30f39cdacd3e4c3dd34db81)
and a gory spoiler short clip http://theluckyonesdiefirst.com/
At least the actress doesn't look hilariously un-scared like in the first poster. Except now she looks like Princess Superstar.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB0009JK1CY.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg&hash=f31bc7624ea008945588e0684e6d990ad41b61e9)
I guess I'll rent the original one of these days. I might be crazy, but I liked "Haute Tension" both as a horror movie (minus the ending) and as an over-the-top allegory on repressed sexuality (ending intact). :shock:
I'm not much of a Wes Craven/horror nut (I think The Shining is a great "horror" film like I think 2001 is a great "sci-fi" film, whereas I don't get at all excited over the Friday the 13th or Star Wars series--I guess if Kubrick doesn't rescue it from genre convention, I'm not very interested), but I've always heard great things about the '77 version, and it really sounds like something that transcends genre. I think Peter Travers once mentioned it in the same breath as an old Neil Jordan little red riding hood-based horror film. . . . Has anyone seen the original? Comments?
Quote from: godardian on March 04, 2006, 12:14:34 AMHas anyone seen the original? Comments?
The original still holds up today. Very tense and scary. Like the original Texas Chainsaw or Halloween or Evil Dead, etc., it's the limitations of the budget that bring the creativity forward to find the horror in the filmmaking; like in the photography and editing.
Quote from: MacGuffin on March 04, 2006, 12:26:58 AM
Quote from: godardian on March 04, 2006, 12:14:34 AMHas anyone seen the original? Comments?
The original still holds up today. Very tense and scary. Like the original Texas Chainsaw or Halloween or Evil Dead, etc., it's the limitations of the budget that bring the creativity forward to find the horror in the filmmaking; like in the photography and editing.
...yes, I remenber now liking the first
Halloween, too. And I think
Carrie is great, too, if not really a "horror" film. Anyway, I'll have to see if I can check out the original
Hills.
I looked on IMDB, and the Neil Jordan scary movie is
The Company of Wolves. And it's got Angela Lansbury! :shock: Have you seen
that?
Quote from: godardian on March 04, 2006, 12:32:52 AM
I looked on IMDB, and the Neil Jordan scary movie is The Company of Wolves. And it's got Angela Lansbury! :shock: Have you seen that?
The Company of Wolves is amazing. Probably the best example of a grown-up fairy tale that's ever been put on film. Loaded to the brim with sexual allegory.
the original Hills Have Eyes is good. not up there with Texas Chainsaw Massacre but worth seeing. get the 2-disc edition if you buy the DVD. it's loaded with great extras.
Quote from: polkablues on March 04, 2006, 01:17:10 AM
Quote from: godardian on March 04, 2006, 12:32:52 AM
I looked on IMDB, and the Neil Jordan scary movie is The Company of Wolves. And it's got Angela Lansbury! :shock: Have you seen that?
The Company of Wolves is amazing. Probably the best example of a grown-up fairy tale that's ever been put on film. Loaded to the brim with sexual allegory.
Seconding that without hesitation. Like polka says, sexual allegory galore(y). With
Riding Hood I guess it was just a question of finding it, and amplifying it in the right places, but this treatment that definitely should be given to more fairy tales :) We're all walking around with these practially universal images of the same stuff; interpretations of fairy tales. So someone - especially someone as competent as Jordan - visualising them without resorting to juvenilia, but instead re-inforcing those "primary" images with what they always lacked (but which always seemed to be in there somewhere, hiding behind all those other grown up aspects like oft-extreme violence) - sexuality, is bound to hit those strange strings (the stuff that touches deep and scary places). Doubtlessly a fiilm to revisit and refresh.
Quote from: RedVines on March 04, 2006, 11:03:24 AM
the original Hills Have Eyes is good. not up there with Texas Chainsaw Massacre but worth seeing. get the 2-disc edition if you buy the DVD. it's loaded with great extras.
yeah craven's got a few good early ones, LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT was unexpectedly terrifying at a couple of parts for me. this was real good too, as i remember, i saw it back when i was like 11 or something. i had a very brief but heavy horror phase in sixth grade.
the original is WAY better than Last House On The Left. i'm going to try to see the new one on thurs for free and then i can alleviate my guilt about wanting to see ANOTHER remake.
http://www.filmfocus.co.uk/newsdetail.asp?NewsID=648
This is an article about the cuts made to the movie
**Spoilers**
Now having seen it, I can't imagine it being any gorier that what it already is. I really enjoyed this one all the way through. It is extremely brutal and some parts really hit you in the gut (trailer siege, fight in the house, fight in the hills). I am really looking forward to seeing Aja's future work. I posed a link to a clip a few posts up and for those who have seen the movie now, you should check the clip out because it is a little bit longer (like 5 sec) than what you will see in the theater.
I really can't believe that Pyro is the same guy in this, totally unrecognizable, and he is the best character in this even though he has the most screen time. I believe I read somewhere a reference to Straw Dogs, the glasses are a big reference, but whatever the case, I can understand the reference. He goes from being a wimpy no balls husband to a covered in blood survivalist trying to save the remainder of his married-in-to family. Good stuff. I would say that the little brother is my next fave. Really liked the set up he made for the trailer. Really hate it when people run with a gun and shoot behind them at the same time.
There is one part when the camera is following the little girl and it totally reminded me of Sutherland following the red coat in Don't Look Now.
this was a lame remake. I'd love to write a letter to every horror genre filmmaker saying GORIER DOES NOT MEAN SCARIER OR BETTER. this makes the original seem like Disney. but the original was smarter and I think much better. the remake has some good stuff in it and Aja is a very good filmmaker. the opening credits were the most creative part of the whole thing. but this is just nasty and unnecessary.
well thanks to a wicked case of bedbugs and having to evacuate my apartment for many hours yesterday i ended up seeing this as well though i figured it would probably be worth waiting for a rental. so again, aja continues to infuriate. he gets it right for the entire film except for the beginning. i guess its better to have a suck beginning and then the film get good then have a good film and have the ending suck, so atleast he's making some headway. but the first 30 minutes or whatever of the film are almost a complete waste of time. its almost funny how much of a contradiction he is as a director because the way he stages things when the shit finally does hit the fan is so wild and unpredictable he really feels 'dangerous'. like 'yes, i will do anything to hurt you, it can be quick, it could be anybody' which is a great quality to have as a horror filmmaker. so its extremely unfortunate he also falls into the most predictable cliches like spending the entire beginning of the film executing about 50 fake scares. there is no story or character development there is a brief introduction and 60 second intervals between the next BOO! but the characters have no reason to be freaked out yet because nothing has happened to lead them to believe they should be in danger. so even though we as an audience have more information it really just goes on for far too long.
but when the shit finally does hit the fan it becomes an entirely different film and a pretty great one. like i mentioned his way of doing things is one that makes you believe everybody could die, and thats the danger you want. if you know who your heroes are the film is paint by numbers. but having the chaos happen in a truly unpredictable way and the heroes emerge organically is just fantastic. so pretty much the film is great from there to the end, (with the exception of one hero dropping a shotgun at the feet of a villain he's just dispatched. by that point he DOES realize hes in a horror movie and theres no excuse for such stupidity in todays world. i realize he's completely out of it by that point but really thats just lazy writing.) the other problem with the film is just the story itself. a family driving through the desert just doesnt seem as believable today. i mean i guess it happens but it just seems like more of a 70s freewheeling thing then it does something that ANYbody today can relate to. so its just something you've seen SO MANY TIMES before, crazy hillbillies in the middle of nowhere kill everyone passing through. its just kitsch by this point. and i'm not saying that the film needs to be like about the internet or something to be relevant today or that they should've tried to update this film, i'm just saying its existence as a remake of this story was flawed from the start. but overall worth watching for horror fans. the first 1/3 sucks, then he takes some things too far which you do feel are in poor taste, but by the end its worth it. still better than most of the shit horror films out there today. i guess i should also mention the audience i was with was pretty rowdy/terrible "Yeah! Kill all the white people!" (not making that up), so i will have to see it again on dvd at which point i will undoubtedly enjoy it more.
sidenote mpaa rant: oh, are movie theatres worried about the box office? hmmm... heres an idea, when a horror film comes along like this one where the director goes on record saying he had to cut a bunch of shit out and this isnt really his cut of the film, why do you expect me to spend 10x as much money to see a film in the theatre when the better version will be on dvd? why am i paying more to see a censored version? and especially in cases like this where it really is the DIRECTORS CUT not just extended with 5 more wacky minutes of unfunny shit! now, just think of releasing two versions to theatres... R Rated (for pussies, useless) and UNRATED (too extreme!). which do you think is going to start making more money? by doing that you're taking away the power of the UNRATED: VERSION YOU COULDNT SEE IN THEATRES marketing tool which has been gaining enormous strength. so, thanks but no thanks big brother, next time i'll wait for dvd. :finger:
The Hills Have Sequels
Anyone Craven more?
There will be a sequel to Fox Searchlight's recent horror remake The Hills Have Eyes. According to Fangoria, Wes Craven, director of the original and producer of the remake, is scripting the sequel with his son Jonathan.
"We want to continue the story of the miners," Craven revealed. "This time, a group of National Guard screw-ups come face to face with the mutants on their last day of training in the desert. We will take the audience underground [into the mines] as well. The studio, Fox Searchlight, wants the sequel out a year to the day after the last one, so we have to deliver our script in a matter of weeks."
Alexandre Aja, who is busy on The Waiting, declined to pen the sequel. "So my son and I decided to write it ourselves, and we are hard at work," Craven advised Fangoria.
The Hills Have Eyes 2 will film sometime this summer.
MacGuffin's Rule For Making A Bad Horror Movie: If you are rooting for and want the 'hero' characters to die, you've succeeded. Hills followed this rule.
I had some high hopes for this because Aja was at the helm and although I hated the ending, I was impressed with High Tension. So I felt he could do for this remake what Zach Synder did for Dawn Of The Dead. Sadly and unfortunately, this was not the case. In fact, Aja seemed to move the horror genre backwards. The film is SO full of cliches and fake scares that this was like Bad Horror 101, where a character must slam the window hard unnecessarily when another character is looking at something of concern in the distance. These characters, both good and bad, are incredibly stupid; the only smart one was the dog. Moments that should be tense come off (un)intentionally laughable. For example, a woman has been raped and bloodied, screaming at the top of her lungs (which she should have been doing to get her family's attention, but that's beside the point) and she is asked, "Are you okay?" The sister has half her brain blown out all against the wall, and she's told by the husband, "You're gonna be okay." This also brings me to how no one seems to die in this film. The mother has her stomach shotgunned, a force that tosses her across the trailer, and she's still alive. A mutant is blown up inside the trailer by the propane and he still is breathing and laughing long afterwards. How Can All This Be?
The real rape was done to Craven's original.
If someone is pissed about the spoilers, consider me doing you a service. Anyway, it's not like you couldn't see them coming a mile away.
Quote from: MacGuffin on June 21, 2006, 01:57:43 PM
A mutant is blown up inside the trailer by the propane and he still is breathing and laughing long afterwards. How Can All This Be?
al-Zarqawi was hit by a two 500lb bombs and yet he was still alive. How can this be?
Quote from: MacGuffin on June 21, 2006, 01:57:43 PM
MacGuffin's Rule For Making A Bad Horror Movie: If you are rooting for and want the 'hero' characters to die, you've succeeded. Hills followed this rule.
I had some high hopes for this because Aja was at the helm and although I hated the ending, I was impressed with High Tension. So I felt he could do for this remake what Zach Synder did for Dawn Of The Dead. Sadly and unfortunately, this was not the case. In fact, Aja seemed to move the horror genre backwards. The film is SO full of cliches and fake scares that this was like Bad Horror 101, where a character must slam the window hard unnecessarily when another character is looking at something of concern in the distance. These characters, both good and bad, are incredibly stupid; the only smart one was the dog. Moments that should be tense come off (un)intentionally laughable. For example, a woman has been raped and bloodied, screaming at the top of her lungs (which she should have been doing to get her family's attention, but that's beside the point) and she is asked, "Are you okay?" The sister has half her brain blown out all against the wall, and she's told by the husband, "You're gonna be okay." This also brings me to how no one seems to die in this film. The mother has her stomach shotgunned, a force that tosses her across the trailer, and she's still alive. A mutant is blown up inside the trailer by the propane and he still is breathing and laughing long afterwards. How Can All This Be?
The real rape was done to Craven's original.
If someone is pissed about the spoilers, consider me doing you a service. Anyway, it's not like you couldn't see them coming a mile away.
Thanks for letting me know; I was actually considering renting this. Oh well.
mac's next recommendation: DON'T RENT NIGHT WATCH
BUY IT?
YES
from the new EW...
Quentin Tarantino said "I'm excited about all of the horror movies that are coming out-- the explosion of ultraviolent horror movies. The best movie I saw this year was the Hills Have Eyes remake. I'm not a huge Wes Craven fan and I always thought the first one was overrated anyway. The new one is really creepy and really good. It eats apples off the head of the original!"
Quote from: Tarantinoscarry movees rox!!111!!1!
Seriously, though... what scary movie hasn't been a disappointment lately? What movies is QT talking about?