What's new

The Hills Have Eyes Unrated - The Version to Die For (1 Viewer)

Ruz-El

Fake Shemp
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
12,539
Location
Deadmonton
Real Name
Russell
I haven't seen the movie yet, but so I'm sort of skimming as I don;t want any major spoilers, I thought I'd comment on this:


I'm enjoying the current horror films that are lacking the fun factor and relying on shock and gore. I find it refreshing to the genre and a nice step away from the self referential/ironic horror of the 90's. The one thing that you always hear is "what they don;t show you is more effective." I have to disagree to an extent. There are so many instances where the film makers wanted to do the effects, but didn't;t have either the money or knew it would never get past the censors, so they didn't shoot. I think a lot of the "what they don't show you" aspect comes out of neccesity (neccessity being the mother of invention?? something like that). It's just that now, with CGI and the KNB gods have the ability to do what they couldn't in the 70's at an affordable rate, and with DVD being such a big part of a release, studios are willing to film the gore as they know they can still put it out as a marketing device.

Not to take anything away from TCM and Halloween mind you. TCM is so hellish in its intensity that adding gore could make it nigh unwatchable. Halloween always played more like a Hitchcock than an all out horror film in it's mood to me.

I really can't wait to get my hands on this "Hills" now! great dialog!
 

Ryan L. Bisasky

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
398
also, i beleive that the original cut of craven's hills have eyes was way more violent, but had to be trimmed by the mpaa to get that r rating.
 

Adam Scott

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
177
Real Name
Adam Scott

Thanks a lot for the kind words, Scotty! I did not care for the original either, and I think Aja does indeed show potential. Enjoy the DVD!
 

Adam Scott

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
177
Real Name
Adam Scott
"I haven't seen the movie yet, but so I'm sort of skimming as I don;t want any major spoilers"

That's why I didnt put too much in the writeup, as I know many people havent seen it yet! You can go ahead and read if you like; there is nothing major that is divulged there, plot-wise.

"I'm enjoying the current horror films that are lacking the fun factor and relying on shock and gore. I find it refreshing to the genre and a nice step away from the self referential/ironic horror of the 90's."

Thats what I was saying, and I agree.

"The one thing that you always hear is "what they don;t show you is more effective." I have to disagree to an extent."

Well, in terms of old classics like Carpenter's Halloween and pieces of horror cinema like that, its what they didnt show that made the whole film; perhaps nowadays it doesnt work as well, but back then, somehow, films like Halloween and TCM just worked because of Tobe Hooper and Carpenter and guys like them relying on other factors to create their "mood."

"There are so many instances where the film makers wanted to do the effects, but didn't;t have either the money or knew it would never get past the censors, so they didn't shoot."

Could be true; but for the most part, I think its in the director's style where he chooses to rely on another factor for effect rather than running out of funding for the F/X.

"I think a lot of the "what they don't show you" aspect comes out of neccesity (neccessity being the mother of invention?? something like that). It's just that now, with CGI and the KNB gods have the ability to do what they couldn't in the 70's at an affordable rate, and with DVD being such a big part of a release, studios are willing to film the gore as they know they can still put it out as a marketing device."

Interesting point. CGI has indeed gone too far IMO.

"Not to take anything away from TCM and Halloween mind you. TCM is so hellish in its intensity that adding gore could make it nigh unwatchable."

Absolutely. Although some scenes -- especially with Grandpa and that hammer with the pail at the end -- are pretty gooey...

"Halloween always played more like a Hitchcock than an all out horror film in it's mood to me."

Yes; most of the time, Halloween does not feel like horror....but Carpenter's pacing had a way of getting under the viewer's skin by setting up camera angles, shadows, detail that made it "horriffic" in another way.

"I really can't wait to get my hands on this "Hills" now! great dialog!"

Indeed, do.....you'll love it...and tell us what you think!
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
I agree with most of what you wrote Adam. I think something like HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER walks that "line" but doesn't cross it and that's why the film is so scary. HILLS just made me feel as if I were being the one tortured and I remember walking out of the theater feeling as if I had been beaten with a hammer. :) It's funny but I went out on a date tonight and the woman told me she had taken her 13 year old daughter to see this film. They both enjoyed it but agreed that it was too violent.

I'd give it a 2.5/4. I really wanted to like it but it stayed too close to the original, which I feel is right up there with HALLOWEEN in regards to a "scary film". Thinking about it, I might not be so hard on the violence had this been an original film. I think I was somewhat letdown that the original delivered the scares through the atmosphere and mood while this one here went for the violence.

Either way, I'll certainly get the DVD to see the unrated version.
 

Michael Allred

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
1,720
Location
MI
Real Name
Michael
I haven't enjoyed a horror remake this much since "Dawn of the Dead."

"The Hills Have Eyes" was the kind of sadistic, gory frightflick that I've been needing to see for some time now.

The packaging sounds cool but VERY similar to the 2 disc "Saw."
 

Adam Scott

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
177
Real Name
Adam Scott
"I haven't enjoyed a horror remake this much since "Dawn of the Dead.""

ABSOLUTELY my thoughts, too, Michael. This remake was right on par with the remake of Dawn, which has been the best of "the bunch" so far.

"The Hills Have Eyes" was the kind of sadistic, gory frightflick that I've been needing to see for some time now.

The packaging sounds cool but VERY similar to the 2 disc "Saw."

I agree about what you said regarding the sadistic nature of this film, and not being a fan of SAW, I didnt realize there was a "blood packet" package available for it, so it surprised me when I picked this Hills Have Eyes To Die For version and saw this "squishy blood" on the cover -- VERY cool for a collector like we all are!
 

Chris Tedesco

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 26, 2002
Messages
421
Real Name
Chris
Damn, watched it again last night. I can't believe that's the same dude from XMen II and III. Wow, good cover up and pretty good acting. I didn't know until someone told me.
 

Matt Stone

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2000
Messages
9,063
Real Name
Matt Stone
I finally got around to watching this, and while I did like it, I tend to agree with Michael Elliot on it's place in the horror genre. I'm glad that we're getting back to "harsh" 70's style horror movies, but I think most of them are starting to rely on gore over atmosphere. The over-use of CGI gore also bugs me, but that's just a small nit-pick. I'm not sure I agree on the "fun" aspect, as I don't find TCM, Last House, or Halloween to be that fun, per se, but I definitely agree with what you are getting at. Those films (maybe not Last House) all come across as art films instead of schlocky horror. Halloween relies on camera work and lighting to create its atmosphere, and it does an excellent job. I'm not saying that the sadistic gore found in the Hills remake isn't as scary, I just don't think it has as much longevity as something like the original.

On a side note, I thought Aaron Standford did a hell of a job. Very Straw Dogs...especially with the broken glasses. His arch from whiney-liberal-pussy to Bruce-Campbell-wannabe was a little by-the-book, but his performance sold me on it. Great job.
 

Adam Scott

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
177
Real Name
Adam Scott
"I finally got around to watching this, and while I did like it, I tend to agree with Michael Elliot on it's place in the horror genre. I'm glad that we're getting back to "harsh" 70's style horror movies, but I think most of them are starting to rely on gore over atmosphere."

Hey Matt,

Indeed, in places, it seems like they are beginning to rely on gore over atmosphere; in this case, however, I think this was going for a straight-up, hit you over the head shock gore approach, and they succeeded -- unlike the ridiculous, campy attempts in remakes like House of Wax, Amityville Horror and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Hills Have Eyes was coming out punching like "yeah, this is gory -- but thats what the hell its supposed to be!!"

"The over-use of CGI gore also bugs me, but that's just a small nit-pick."

Yes, in certain areas of certain modern horror shlock, I would agree. You can see where it was used in abundance here in Hills Have Eyes, but for some reason it did not distract or annoy me.

"I'm not sure I agree on the "fun" aspect, as I don't find TCM, Last House, or Halloween to be that fun, per se, but I definitely agree with what you are getting at."

You agree with what I am getting at or Michael? Well, at any rate, I agree, these aforementioned films in your above paragraph do not equate to "fun" and I think the classification of horror in the context of what we are talking about has taken a bit of a wandering turn; "horror" films that are somewhat "fun" can be perhaps instanced as, say, the remake of House on Haunted Hill and The Haunting, or perhaps, say, Return of the Living Dead....THOSE are fun. Halloween and the original Chainsaw Massacre I would not call fun, more "artsy horror," as you point out below, as they are absolute STUDIES in the art form that is terror.

"Those films (maybe not Last House) all come across as art films instead of schlocky horror. Halloween relies on camera work and lighting to create its atmosphere, and it does an excellent job."

Absolutely.

"I'm not saying that the sadistic gore found in the Hills remake isn't as scary, I just don't think it has as much longevity as something like the original."

Thats what is said about most remakes vs. the originals (just take a look at fan defense threads regarding the original Dawn of the Dead, where diehard enthusiasts claim Romero's vision was a long-living, survive-the-ages political statement rather than horror film), and that is probably so for the most part. These remakes wont have the longetivity of their predecessors, but sometimes, just rarely -- as in the case of Dawn of the Dead and Hills Have Eyes -- the reimagined versions can be more entertaining.

"On a side note, I thought Aaron Standford did a hell of a job. Very Straw Dogs...especially with the broken glasses. His arch from whiney-liberal-pussy to Bruce-Campbell-wannabe was a little by-the-book, but his performance sold me on it. Great job."

I could not imagine this film working out if there were more "A-list" people on the casting list; I mean, Spielberg went for Cruise on War of the Worlds, and he kind of worked there, but can you imagine a Cruise-like lead for Hills? :eek: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes
 

BrettGallman

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 11, 2002
Messages
1,392
Real Name
Brett
I just got finished watching this this about 2 hours ago. It was just as violent and entertaining as I remember it in theaters. It's not the classic that the original is, but still very good in its own right. Much like the aforementioned Dawn of the Dead remake, except I would say that this added political elements unlike that film. For the most part, those political elements fall flat, but it doesn't end up hurting the movie too badly. In the end, it's just a heck of a bloody thrill ride.

The Dolby Digital track did not disappoint in the least, as it created a great atmosphere for the movie from the opening shot. I especially liked the use of the surrounds to hear the wind rustling and objects moving. The LFE kicked in at just the right times without sounding overcooked or dominating the track. Picture quality was excellent as well, especially daytime scenes; the clarity was just stunning to my eyes.
 

Adam Scott

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
177
Real Name
Adam Scott

I agree with the first paragraph of yours, Brett, aside from thinking the original was a classic (which I know a lot of people and film scholars do), and agree that this was, in essence, a bloody thrill ride.

I am surprised in your findings of the Dolby Digital mix on the release, though; I definitely thought it could have used a bit more punch and dazzle -- but, as I said in the original post, do not get me wrong -- it's not "anemic" or "weak" in any way (as I have heard many a Dolby 5.1 surround track in kind)...the usage of the surrounds to portray the wind whistling through the desert, the strange calls of the demented hill people from behind (or, if you have in-ceiling surrounds like me, above) you, the awesome directionality of the track (listen closely when Aaron calls to his wife for his jacket when the two sisters are talking outside the camper...it is almost as if he is right there in your listening room somewhere, calling off from behind your right shoulder)....all those elements are there, plus room-shaking LFE at times, during crucial scenes like the camper attack and the final shootout with Aaron and Robert Joy on the cliff.

For some reason though, the track required me to utilize more overall volume gain on my system than usual for modern releases like these, and dialogue seemed to be on the hushed side, not as bright or in-your-face as I like my dialogue, such as on Warner/Morgan Creek's Exorcist: The Beginning; that DTS track has the most aggressive, forward dialogue track I have ever experienced in home theater. At any rate, it was my opinion that Fox could have done a slightly better job on the audio -- only slightly better -- but I am also ULTRA critical of my surround tracks on my discs. They dropped stellar DTS tracks on Speed, Die Hard, Day After Tomorrow, Man on Fire, Predator...Hills Have Eyes could have definitely benefitted from a higher bit rate audio scheme.

And something that always bothered me about the way Fox does their keepcase labeling on the rear of their discs...much like the annoyance of Warner and their "Presented in the 'Scope' Aspect Ratio..." instead of giving the actual ratio numbers of the transfer...they label their audio tracks weirdly as it is sometimes misleading; on Hills Have Eyes, there is a Dolby Digital logo on the bottom of the back of the box, where the specs are, but the actual grid that houses the names of the available audio tracks reads "DOLBY 5.1 SURROUND" with the squares indicating which channels are utilized in the mix...now, home theater enthusiasts know that 5.1 indicates discrete channel algorithms, but putting the words "Dolby" and "Surround" together suggests to me, without adding the word "Digital" after "Surround," that the studio could have put a "Dolby Surround" track on here, which of course would mean two channel surround, decoded via Pro Logic II, etc.; just a bit misleading to me.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott

Fun was probably the wrong word. I think they're "fun" because they are scary and rich in atmosphere. They try to play with the viewers inside fears rather than using gore for a shock value. HILLS, HALLOWEEN and TCM all use the "mental" scares more than the gore and I think that's why they've lasted so long and will continue to get new fans with each generation. I think when gore hit the horror genre with F13, fun is a needed thing. I don't think any of the 80's slashers were ever mean spirited or was their intent to really "shake up" the viewer. They seemed more like cheap little films with mindless violence and T&A for young boys. The "fun" comment was more like walking out of the movie having a good (scary) time.

I will certainly rewatch TENSION and the remake of HILLS but I think I would have given them a higher rating with less violence. Again, that line to cross is a very small one and I think both films would have worked more had they taken a few steps back. OR, work that "mental scares" a tad bit better in the graphic violence. The "eye" scene from Fulci's ZOMBIE and the graphic violence in various Argento films is very graphic but the directors builds up that atmosphere and "mental shock" to the point where what's on screen doesn't have to be as violent as HILLS but the final impact is a lot stronger. Heck, I'd say the Quint scene in JAWS is another prime example of the mental violence being a lot stronger than what we actually see on screen.


**I probably should have mentioned that I think HILLS is the second best horror film of the 70s. I know this is considered a classic of the genre but I personally feel it's still underrated because I feel it's a lot stronger than TCM, which seems to be more respected of the two. I also feel it's a lot better than the way-too-violent and unpleasant LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT.

If there's one thing I think we can all agree on is that the remake is still a lot better than HILLS HAVE EYES 2, which I just bought even though it's one of the worst horror films ever made. :)
 

Matt Stone

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2000
Messages
9,063
Real Name
Matt Stone

Oh yah! I remember watching it for the challenge a couple years back and being mystified. It's really more of a ripoff of the F13 flicks than the first Hills, with Ruby's character carried over from the original as the heroine. The film had so many flashbacks to the original, that even the dog (Beast) got a flashback. Hands-down the stupidest thing I've seen in a horror movie, and maybe the worst horror movie I've ever seen.

As for the classic status of the original...it reminds me of the Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction argument. Whichever you saw first, you tend to prefer. I saw TCM and Last House a few years before I watched Hills, so they really stick out in my mind. That being said, as I've watched the original Hills more times, it really is a great film. Craven showed significant growth between Last House and Hills (much like Rob Zombie between Ho1KC and Devil's Rejects). I don't know if I'll ever be able to say that it's a better film than Last House or TCM, but it's definitely at the same level. I still put Halloween above all of them, but that's just me ;)
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,427
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Didn't Craven only do Hills Part 2 because he was broke (pre-Nightmare On Elm Street) and needed the money?

No matter how bad it is, how many movies can say that they have a dog's
flashback in it? NOT ENOUGH. :)
 

BrettGallman

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 11, 2002
Messages
1,392
Real Name
Brett
In the pantheon of Craven films, The Hills Have Eyes ranks second behind Nightmare for me. I've always wanted to see Hills 2, but there's no OAR release in Region 1. I mean, I've heard it's terrible and all, but I just gotta see it. I think Craven actually did it after NOES, and IMDB backs me up on that, so I don't have any idea why he made it.

And Adam, regarding the audio track and dialogue: I'd agree that it is a bit on the hushed side, but as you said, the directionality of the track is really good. I never found myself turning the movie up at any point, but I never turned it down either, which is usually a sign of how aggressive or loud a track is.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,427
Location
The basement of the FBI building
It was shot before A Nightmare On Elm Street but sat on the shelf until 1985. It was probably released when they figured they could make some money on it but putting "From The Director Of A Nightmare On Elm Street!" on the poster.
 

Adam Scott

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
177
Real Name
Adam Scott
"In the pantheon of Craven films, The Hills Have Eyes ranks second behind Nightmare for me. I've always wanted to see Hills 2, but there's no OAR release in Region 1. I mean, I've heard it's terrible and all, but I just gotta see it. I think Craven actually did it after NOES, and IMDB backs me up on that, so I don't have any idea why he made it."

Brett,

Interesting information on the sequel to Hills Have Eyes; never knew this existed, but you know what is even more interesting? Did you notice how at the end of the Aja remake they set it up for a sequel as well, where the three survivors are in the middle of the desert, with one of the dogs (I am uncertain if it was Beauty or Beast, I think Beast), and then the view scope becomes one of another of the hill people looking at them through binoculars, and it ends abruptly like that? I thought it was a clever, untypical ending and it seems to have set it up for a continuation; then again, there have been films that have done that in the past too and a sequel was never made, like Joy Ride.

But I never saw the sequel to the original Hills, and to me, the concept is not unlike "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2," with Dennis Hopper, which to me was just plain ridiculous. Then, the whole series got turned into a silly, stupid "franchise" with "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The New Generation" or whatever that stupid film was with Matt McConaheghey; I PRAY they dont do this with Hills....

"And Adam, regarding the audio track and dialogue: I'd agree that it is a bit on the hushed side, but as you said, the directionality of the track is really good."

Indeed; the engineers at Fox Searchlight really did a commendable job on placing ambient audio cues in JUST the right places....the sound of voices calling out over your shoulders from the surround channels, wind blowing, even the gentle clanging and squeaking of the weird poles and stuff in the gas station attendant's shack in the very beginning of the film....excellent work. But there were other places I had concerns with this Dolby Digital mix...

"I never found myself turning the movie up at any point, but I never turned it down either, which is usually a sign of how aggressive or loud a track is."

Yes, I agree with this being a sign of aggressiveness for a track, but I found myself constantly turning the volume up on this one -- now, of couse, this is all based on how you and I have our systems calibrated individually, room treatments, environment, etc. -- of couse....but, let me give you an example of what I am talking about: on my Onkyo receiver (this is going to mean nothing to you and anyone else who does not own this equipment, but...) I usually find aggressive Dolby and DTS tracks to begin "showing signs of life" and really heating up my very large listening room at around the high "40" 's on the volume readout display -- above that, into the 50s, volume usually gets more and more heavy in terms of output, but on most new, modern surround tracks, around "52" would be all I would need; sometimes more (the way I have my system calibrated, though, allows the receiver's max volume to cap off at somewhere in the "70" 's range...). During the Hills Have Eyes, I found myself needing more volume than what I began watching it on, which was in the high "40" 's, and pushed the volume to "52" at one point in the film, where that seemed to be enough for punchy, aggressive delivery from the track -- especially during the final scene where our survivor is fighting the large deformed hill creature in the house with the thing in the wheelchair watching and laughing; this sounded quite punchy and aggressive. But...I cannot really put my finger on what was "off" about this mix; there were "holes" in the audio in which I could easily talk over the action onscreen with the person next to me just outside the sweet spot, and I didnt like that; there were moments where I felt the track could have used a bit more punch -- the opening scene where the radioactive guys in the suits are attacked by the hill people did not make me jump out of my seat when they were getting the hammers put to their heads as I thought the scene should; little things like that.

So, when you say "you didnt turn it down either," I found the same thing once I reached that aforementioned "52" mark on my volume, where I didnt need to turn it down at that point, but this to me indicated my system NEEDED that kind of volume to sustain the dynamics of this track, and thats why I thought it wasnt stellar...to me, a STELLAR audio mix is one thats so overcooked and raw that I constantly need to bring the volume DOWN, know what I mean? I have a few good examples in my collection, mainly wearing DTS tracks, like Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, U-571....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,770
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top