The Hills Have Eyes at DVinfo.net

Matt Stahley · May 18th, 2005, 10:09 AM

Wow just saw this for the first time. Awesome movie. I thought Cravens Last House On The Left was a classic I'm gonna have to add this to the list as well. I love the 16mm grittiness.The dvd has a bonus dvd with an hour long doc on the making of etc. Very interesting!

Christopher C. Murphy · May 18th, 2005, 10:19 AM

Remake is one the way...no Wes Craven this time.

EDIT: I think he wrote the screenplay for the 2006 release!

Matt Stahley · May 18th, 2005, 01:02 PM

Oh no another classic ruined!! :)
All though I did find the remake to Texas Chainsaw Massacre entertaining.Maybe that was just Jessica Biel working her charm. ;)

Christopher C. Murphy · May 18th, 2005, 01:16 PM

Yeah, the only saving grace of the remakes is they always get the hottest girls to be in them. At least we can pay attention to them if the movie stinks!

Keith Loh · May 18th, 2005, 01:51 PM

You know Chris I was thinking that exact thing when I was watching the remake of "Assault on Precinct 13" last night.

Matt Stahley · May 18th, 2005, 02:00 PM

Keith just picked up Assault On Precinct 13 for $5 at walmart to replace my old vhs dub.Cant they keep their " we have no new ideas greedy hands away from these gems"?
Next it will be " The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3"

Keith Loh · May 18th, 2005, 03:17 PM

Actually, I don't think much of the original "Assault..." I guess I saw it too late. I consider it very dated so I thought a remake might be a good improvement. The remake improved a few things but was overall just not as rounded as the original.

"The Taking of Pelham 123" is a very good movie so I don't see a need to update it.

It's another reason why I don't have any desire to see "Flight of the Phoenix". The original was a classic already.

Christopher C. Murphy · May 18th, 2005, 04:28 PM

My girlfriend (coolest girl ever) goes to whatever movies I drag her to....without complaints. The last 2 years I've made it point to see at least 3 movies in the theater a month. But, sometimes the only thing out is a remake or some other genre piece....."Wrong Turn" comes to mind. It was like all slasher films, and it also had the "hottie". I can't imagine being a girl having to sit through a dumb movie like that...she does though. She's does likes hot chicks too, so that helps. lol

Umm, has this thread turned sexist? I can't tell because I talk like this offline all the time!

Dean Bull · May 19th, 2005, 02:46 AM

At the risk of sounding incredibly cinephile, I must say that the Texas chain remake along with the assault remake are both utter trash.

Allow me to explain.

Texas Chainsaw original, while also being a product of the time, is a film that is correctly "designed". The film succeeds because of its look, sound, approach, whatever.

The remake is so poorly executed that it's almost laughable. For starters we have the look of the movie. Super 35, 2.35 widescreen, slow film stock, big freaking hmi's, etc. I could go down the line, from the poor production design, all the way to the direction, and this is BEFORE addressing the actual screenplay!

Assault on Precinct 13 original.... my god, who would remake this. The original is a remake of a western, that is a remake of a western. However, it happens to be directed by one of my all time favorite directors, John Carpenter. The remake of this movie, again, is poorly designed, but it also runs into the problem that every remake runs into --

The post-modernization of ideas or stories that exist because of the limitations of the time they were created.

Assault original was made for 100,000 bucks I think (or less) and very much of the film exists the way it does because of those limitations and how the director delt with them. Also, at it's core, Assault is an exploitation movie which just happened to be directed by one of the most underrated directors in America, so the film has cred, beyond it's roots.

Take the same exploitation movie, remake it in a time when exploitation movies aren't really being made for the big screen, hire a director who is most def. not John Carpenter (the reason the movie works anyway), and you've got problems.

Not to mention the fact that Assault is really not what I would call a huge freaking hit! The story is classic western and any 3rd rate screenwriter could spin a yarn about a noble sheriff beset by gangs! Why call it assault on precinct 13?

So anyway, these remakes are absolute trash -- however, I will pose this... a remake is not trash in concept. Correctly addressed, a remake can be very awesome (cape fear, anyone?) I just think many of these remakes are missing the boat completely.

Hahaha, and now that I have written my graduate thesis on high class shlock cinema...

Feel free to address my claims on both the remake of chainsaw and assault.

Dean

Christopher C. Murphy · May 19th, 2005, 07:24 AM

Dean, I agree with you. Except, the way I think about these new remakes is...most of the people seeing them haven't seen the original. Therefore, it's a standalone piece of work. (unfortunately for the audience and fortunately for the damn studio)

I'm with you on the originals...I ALWAYS prefer the original. It's like that across the board in television, music and film for me. I love grainy films from the 60's and 70's. The two best decades for films in my opinion....a little studio money with independent thinkers. The raw energy of those films can not be duplicated with today's production values.

I agree...just the technical stuff is going to kill a remake for me. Usually, they are remaking a film because the original "stuck" with people. Like the Texas Chainsaw film and others...they become stuck in this film vacuum. But, to me....the whole reason they're in that film vacuum is because the original was see in the particular time-frame when it was MOST relevant. Usually, from what I've seen....the movies were part entertainment and part social commentary. The best movies in my opinion are those two things together. You get sucked into them hook-line-and-sinker....yet, when you leave the theater you're mesmerized by the underlying social commentary. The film resonates in your mind for years and years. Then you see it again and the "time-frame" is dated....so, you don't get sucked in as much. But, the social commentary part stands out more than before!!

Hence, the re-make......trying to capture the entertainment value with lots of production value. I don't buy it....but, unfortunately I think the people who never saw the original do. But, the social commentary is never the central theme the second time is it?? Because the stupid money grubbing studio jackasses just see the box office dollars coming in. They forget the basics. If they thought harder about what makes a long lasting film...they'd never do re-makes! Because you can't do a re-make of a re-make!!!!!! (yes, i know you can) They should make social commentary films for today...about the 9/11, Iraq, politics today..etc etc.

They do make those...I know. Those are independent films...horray for indies!!!!!!

May 18th, 2005, 10:09 AM	#1
Matt Stahley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Waynesboro, PA Posts: 648	The Hills Have Eyes Wow just saw this for the first time. Awesome movie. I thought Cravens Last House On The Left was a classic I'm gonna have to add this to the list as well. I love the 16mm grittiness.The dvd has a bonus dvd with an hour long doc on the making of etc. Very interesting!

May 18th, 2005, 10:19 AM	#2
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Remake is one the way...no Wes Craven this time. EDIT: I think he wrote the screenplay for the 2006 release! __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

May 18th, 2005, 01:16 PM	#4
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Yeah, the only saving grace of the remakes is they always get the hottest girls to be in them. At least we can pay attention to them if the movie stinks! __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

May 18th, 2005, 01:51 PM	#5
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	You know Chris I was thinking that exact thing when I was watching the remake of "Assault on Precinct 13" last night. __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

May 18th, 2005, 03:17 PM	#7
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	Actually, I don't think much of the original "Assault..." I guess I saw it too late. I consider it very dated so I thought a remake might be a good improvement. The remake improved a few things but was overall just not as rounded as the original. "The Taking of Pelham 123" is a very good movie so I don't see a need to update it. It's another reason why I don't have any desire to see "Flight of the Phoenix". The original was a classic already. __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

May 18th, 2005, 01:02 PM	#3
Matt Stahley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Waynesboro, PA Posts: 648	Oh no another classic ruined!! :) All though I did find the remake to Texas Chainsaw Massacre entertaining.Maybe that was just Jessica Biel working her charm. ;)

May 18th, 2005, 02:00 PM	#6
Matt Stahley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Waynesboro, PA Posts: 648	Keith just picked up Assault On Precinct 13 for $5 at walmart to replace my old vhs dub.Cant they keep their " we have no new ideas greedy hands away from these gems"? Next it will be " The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3"

May 18th, 2005, 04:28 PM	#8
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	My girlfriend (coolest girl ever) goes to whatever movies I drag her to....without complaints. The last 2 years I've made it point to see at least 3 movies in the theater a month. But, sometimes the only thing out is a remake or some other genre piece....."Wrong Turn" comes to mind. It was like all slasher films, and it also had the "hottie". I can't imagine being a girl having to sit through a dumb movie like that...she does though. She's does likes hot chicks too, so that helps. lol Umm, has this thread turned sexist? I can't tell because I talk like this offline all the time! __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

May 19th, 2005, 02:46 AM	#9
Dean Bull Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 106	At the risk of sounding incredibly cinephile, I must say that the Texas chain remake along with the assault remake are both utter trash. Allow me to explain. Texas Chainsaw original, while also being a product of the time, is a film that is correctly "designed". The film succeeds because of its look, sound, approach, whatever. The remake is so poorly executed that it's almost laughable. For starters we have the look of the movie. Super 35, 2.35 widescreen, slow film stock, big freaking hmi's, etc. I could go down the line, from the poor production design, all the way to the direction, and this is BEFORE addressing the actual screenplay! Assault on Precinct 13 original.... my god, who would remake this. The original is a remake of a western, that is a remake of a western. However, it happens to be directed by one of my all time favorite directors, John Carpenter. The remake of this movie, again, is poorly designed, but it also runs into the problem that every remake runs into -- The post-modernization of ideas or stories that exist because of the limitations of the time they were created. Assault original was made for 100,000 bucks I think (or less) and very much of the film exists the way it does because of those limitations and how the director delt with them. Also, at it's core, Assault is an exploitation movie which just happened to be directed by one of the most underrated directors in America, so the film has cred, beyond it's roots. Take the same exploitation movie, remake it in a time when exploitation movies aren't really being made for the big screen, hire a director who is most def. not John Carpenter (the reason the movie works anyway), and you've got problems. Not to mention the fact that Assault is really not what I would call a huge freaking hit! The story is classic western and any 3rd rate screenwriter could spin a yarn about a noble sheriff beset by gangs! Why call it assault on precinct 13? So anyway, these remakes are absolute trash -- however, I will pose this... a remake is not trash in concept. Correctly addressed, a remake can be very awesome (cape fear, anyone?) I just think many of these remakes are missing the boat completely. Hahaha, and now that I have written my graduate thesis on high class shlock cinema... Feel free to address my claims on both the remake of chainsaw and assault. Dean

May 19th, 2005, 07:24 AM	#10
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Dean, I agree with you. Except, the way I think about these new remakes is...most of the people seeing them haven't seen the original. Therefore, it's a standalone piece of work. (unfortunately for the audience and fortunately for the damn studio) I'm with you on the originals...I ALWAYS prefer the original. It's like that across the board in television, music and film for me. I love grainy films from the 60's and 70's. The two best decades for films in my opinion....a little studio money with independent thinkers. The raw energy of those films can not be duplicated with today's production values. I agree...just the technical stuff is going to kill a remake for me. Usually, they are remaking a film because the original "stuck" with people. Like the Texas Chainsaw film and others...they become stuck in this film vacuum. But, to me....the whole reason they're in that film vacuum is because the original was see in the particular time-frame when it was MOST relevant. Usually, from what I've seen....the movies were part entertainment and part social commentary. The best movies in my opinion are those two things together. You get sucked into them hook-line-and-sinker....yet, when you leave the theater you're mesmerized by the underlying social commentary. The film resonates in your mind for years and years. Then you see it again and the "time-frame" is dated....so, you don't get sucked in as much. But, the social commentary part stands out more than before!! Hence, the re-make......trying to capture the entertainment value with lots of production value. I don't buy it....but, unfortunately I think the people who never saw the original do. But, the social commentary is never the central theme the second time is it?? Because the stupid money grubbing studio jackasses just see the box office dollars coming in. They forget the basics. If they thought harder about what makes a long lasting film...they'd never do re-makes! Because you can't do a re-make of a re-make!!!!!! (yes, i know you can) They should make social commentary films for today...about the 9/11, Iraq, politics today..etc etc. They do make those...I know. Those are independent films...horray for indies!!!!!! __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer