MovieChat Forums > The Hills Have Eyes (1977) Discussion > Original vs. Remake

Original vs. Remake

posted 15 years ago by sstahlman1
19 replies | jump to latest

The other day, a friend and I watched the 1977 Hills Have Eyes. This friend made comments the entire time about the quality of the movie (that's so fake, that's cheesy, that's stupid). Soon after, I watched it with another friend and similar things happened. I talked about it with my mother and she said that it is scary and not cheesy at all. The more I think about it, the more I realize that it's because my generation is so used to tons of gore and bodies and special effects. I saddens me that my friends and I can't connect when it comes to movies. I'm 17 years old. Similar things happened while watching Hellraiser, the original Dawn of the Dead, The Exorcist, The Omen, and the Shining. While The Hills Have Eyes 1977 is not full of CGI and torture, I found it to be intense and scary. The trailer attack scene still seems very powerful to me. The acting (especially on the part of the cannibals) seems so realistic. What do you guys think?

[–] bronislavmeyler 15 years ago

I agree. I'm older than you, but I still think the original version of this movie is quite scarry. No CGI or buckets of blood/gore (this is a movie from the late 1970's) but alot of suspense and cutthroat action nevertheless. One of the cannibals (his face is on the actual film cover is really disfigured, I believe he was born with a birth defect that made his scull misshapen). One of the best horror cult classics of all time and next to Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven's best work.

PS
No offense to your friends but they are not true fans of the horror genre, you are. Congrats you passed the test:) Take care

[–] efs2 15 years ago

I can only echo your comments.

Also, I think the actor you are referring to is Michael Berryman. There was a thread on him here (I think) some time ago. But it seems to have disappeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Berryman

Move along. Nothing to see here.

[–] latherzap 15 years ago

"No CGI"

Yeah, it's hard to put my finger on why but I usually hate CGI. Somehow it usually sticks out like a turd in a punchbowl. A big, fake distraction.

[–] HenryCW 14 years ago

My guess is that the cannibal with the disfigured face was what probably inspired the scriptwriters of the remake to change all of these cannibals into mutants as a result of nuclear tests in the new film. Remakes suck in general, and so I have to say that the remake of this film was one of the best remakes. It was very faithful (some critics would say too faithful) to the original film. The only important difference was that Doug in the original did not have to go to the cannibals' hiding place to rescue the baby. Othewise, the remake was, almost scene for scene, the same as the original except the actors were different. Even the actors seemed to be chosen so that they looked like the characters in the original film. I think both films are good.

[–] mindstamina3000 14 years ago

Your friends are idiots. How can they say the original is unrealistic when the original has no CGI and the bad guys are real human beings who are just plain crazy lunatics.

At least you are smart enough to know the difference and how the younger generation are more used to watching movies with gore and special effects.

[–] Yucahaor 8 years ago

It's unrealistic because the dad had no real motive to go off the beaten path. And the family became idiots when the plane flew by and a bunny caused the crash. Awful.

[–] Stoker2000 14 years ago

I disagree. I know what you mean, and I think it's true to a certain extent, but the critics to this movie have nothing to do with it being 33 years old; it's just The Hills Have Eyes lacks of cinematographic merits. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is still older (1974) but has all my respect. The Exorcist is my all time favorite movie. The Omen is cool. The issue is not the year all of them were filmed at, the issue is the talent behind them: actors, screenwriters, directors.

The cannibals did look like civilized people behaving like savages, but that's just my opinion.

In any event, I blame the director for the mediocrity of this film.

Glad you liked it, anyway!

------
My English sucks... sorry!!!

[–] natalie_princess_of_OLTL 11 years ago

I'm 27 and 80s horror will always be my favorite. I like CGI in most movies but not in horror. I mean, a little CGI is okay but they don't need to go overboard with it or it drives me nuts. I love the old school practical effects, they work just fine most of the time.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shred-com 10 years ago

The remake is better. Actually quite a bit better. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes remakes make a good film out of an original turkey. It happened with The Fly, it happened with The Blob, and it happened with the remake of this one. Also, everyone has different opinions, but comparing this to The Shining, The Omen, The Exorcist, Dawn of the Dead, and Hellraiser is just -_-. The filmmakers of those wonderful films would be insulted. Just sayin. This is coming from a Craven fan.

[–] yatzo376 9 years ago

I dunno, Hills scared me more than any of the films you mentioned, even though they were all had bigger budgets .

"You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine"

[–] sir rooke 8 years ago

Alright! I like seeing a shout-out for 'The Blob' remake... thanks

"Ribbed?!?" -the Dad

[–] RandomBob 9 years ago

The original is way, way better. The remake is yet another "bigger is better" piece of dreck, with absolute zero intelligence. Craven's film is brutal and scary, and the ending is incredible. It's a film about ordinary people who turn into crazed savages, while the remake is a film about a nerd who becomes an all american hero.

[–] ElectricWarlock 8 years ago

I like this one better. It seemed a lot more based on character and story whereas the remake seemed like it was made to be a lot more bloody, brutal, and action packed. Neither film is bad, they are just different.