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.