Original vs Remake: The Hills Have Eyes

**Rick** · 05-10-2011, 11:01 AM

The title is pretty self explanatory, both are two impressively enjoyable horrors, but which Hills Have Eyes flick trumps the other? The 2006 movie was a new and blood soaked take on Craven's ominous original (which had one of the freakiest horror scores I've heard might I add), and in my eyes, safely stands on its own as one of the more prominent remakes of the last decade, at least within the horror genre. Meanwhile, the original is a classic within its own right, with its freakishly powerful realism and cheesetasticness, something that made it one of the best and most charming horrors of the 70's.

For me it's a tough one to call, I watched both again recently and while the original didn't seem as scary as the remake, the time period in which the original was made is important to note given how audiences have become so desensitized to older horrors. Based on pure horror film making, while I dig Craven, I have to hand it to Alexandre Aja. His remake contained great pacing and the type of delivery I would want in a film of that premise. Craven's original was great and is a film to be cherished by all fans of the horror genre, but when compared to Aja's remake, it seems very underwhelming.

On a side note; pending on the success of these threads, I'm hoping to make the "Original vs Remake" concept a semi-weekly thing. The topics won't be based on just horrors either by the way, I'll be choosing films from different genres. Thankyahh.

**Big Papa** · 05-10-2011, 12:15 PM

Tough call. Its been awhile since I've seen the original. I do quite like the remake. I thought they did a really nice job of updating it, putting some genuine scares and creepiness in rather than just violence and gore. I would probably have to we-watch both to give a real accurate assessment...

Nice idea for threads.

**Jim** · 05-10-2011, 12:48 PM

It's been a few years since I've seen Craven's, so I'll need to go back to give it another view. From what I remember, it's a pretty great gritty movie. There's something about these older films that make the revenge ending far more sweeter. I may feel the same about the remake down the road, but the original feels very dated.

The remake is one of these rare exceptions that not only succeeds in being a worthwhile remake, but has some more replay value than the original. While the revenge isn't quite as fulfilling, the acting far surpasses the original. Seeing Emilie de Ravin in just her bra definitely gets a thumbs up from me as well.

I'll rewatch the original and come back into this thread, but I'm sure my opinion won't change. The Hills Have Eyes have produced two awesome movies (And two horrible sequels), but the remake is the superior film (Original sequel surpasses remake sequel though).

**Jim** · 05-11-2011, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by Roxy

For me it's a tough one to call, I watched both again recently and while the original didn't seem as scary as the remake,

I'd have to disagree. Just finishing up the original rewatch, I thought it had a few really good moments in terms of the scare factor. Everything with Bob at the gas station and baby's fate being up in the air, created a scarier film for me than the remake. Part of the benefit of having an older movie is that the modern restrictions aren't there. Despite already knowing how the movie would turn out, the baby's fate isn't as obvious as it was with the remake. I just can't see a mainstream movie killing a baby in the 2000's.

The aspect that I enjoyed the most about the original is the backstory. Personally, I dig the idea of Jupiter being the bastard outcast of the gas station attendant before being left out in the desert where he slowly created his inbred family. More than anything, it made me want to see a Hills prequel to see all of this occur. All of the little hints (Not exactly subtle though) of Jupiter and his gang doing these sort of attacks before is just screaming for a prequel. Finally, all of the obscure little sound effects made for a great score.

Still, the remake is surprisingly better by a lot. The best new addition was seeing what happened with Doug when he went to find help. I suppose it's not a huge problem in the original since not much happens, but he was gone long enough that you sort of forgot about him. Speaking of Doug, there's far more character development with him. Early on, you can sense that he's the outcast of his new family. Despite being married to the oldest daughter, he hadn't entirely been accepted as one of the family members. All of the interaction between Doug and Bob showcases that sub-plot including the issues of Doug being a liberal in a gun happy family. By the end of the movie, Doug has earned his place in the family (Or what's left of it). Bob's mockery of Doug being a pansy makes Doug's transformation into a ruthless killer far more impactful. Besides just the average acting being far better, the character of Brenda was actually bearable as opposed to the original. 77's Brenda wan an overly annoying girl who wouldn't stop screaming and was the one family member who I wouldn't have minded dying. Emilie de Ravin's Brenda was tolerable and I cared about her surviving.

Both movies have their positives, but the remake was far superior.

**Big Papa** · 05-11-2011, 09:41 AM

The more I think about it, the more I think the remake is pretty underrated. It has some moments than genuinely make you uncomfortable - the attempted rape, the burning father, the stolen baby. I find that not enough horror films do that - they either go for a scare or gross you out with gore.

**Fuji Vice** · 05-11-2011, 09:58 AM

I've got the original and the remake near the top of my pile of movies to rewatch, so I'll chime in on this as soon as I get that done. However I will initially say that the remake IS underrated by most and was a decent film for sure.

**Jim** · 05-11-2011, 02:24 PM

I don't see how the remake is underrated. It's often credited as being one of the best horror remakes and one that may actually be better than the original.

**Fuji Vice** · 05-11-2011, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Jim

I don't see how the remake is underrated. It's often credited as being one of the best horror remakes and one that may actually be better than the original.

I would say an aggregate score of 5.3 out of 10 on Rotten Tomatoes and an average Metascore of 52/100 is underrating it. Not that I put much stock in that but it is an average of basic opinion. Personally I feel that it would at least merit a 7/10 from me but then again I haven't rewatched it yet.

**Jim** · 05-11-2011, 02:30 PM

Eh, I don't take those sites seriously. The only site's opinion that matters are the ones you're on since you can have a good idea of what the people are like. From WC to the horror boards I'm a part of, the Hills remake is regarded highly.

**Fuji Vice** · 05-11-2011, 02:34 PM

Yeah, it's more of a personal thing, I like to see how badly movies I enjoy are treated across the majority of the interweb. It's my own personal form of torture. Glad the opinions, on this site at least, are more to my liking as well as being informed.