| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 03/28/2007 : 23:10:00
|
Yup, those hills have more than 2 eyes. Again. Just as plotless. Just as moronic. Just as full of gore and hoo-yah! Oh, that Wes Craven - you just gotta love him, yeah.
I'm currently working on an essay about what deep-seated need we seem to have to watch mutated and deformed quasi humans hack about at somewhat neater people.
It's not that it revolts me or shocks me ... though I must admit to being a bit taken aback when such brutalism is met with laughter by some of the audience. 'Cause whatever this film is, a comedy it ain't!
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 23:40:28
|
But I think gore/zombies etc are funny. It's not real at all, and what other point is there other than to entertain?
BTW, probably the funniest movie I've ever seen is Peter Jackson's Braindead, and it also happens to be about the goriest film ever. 
Bring on the splatter!  |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 23:51:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
But I think gore/zombies etc are funny. It's not real at all, and what other point is there other than to entertain?
BTW, probably the funniest movie I've ever seen is Peter Jackson's Braindead, and it also happens to be about the goriest film ever.
Bring on the splatter!
I dunno ... I laughed like a drain at Shaun of the Dead ... but zombies per se? It's context that makes something funny. Innit?
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 00:02:37
|
| I happened to like the original. The original remake, I mean. The original original was just okay. |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 00:05:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I happened to like the original. The original remake, I mean. The original original was just okay.
Me too. Also, I don't recall it being much more than occaisionally gory which is to be commended in this day and age I think. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 00:59:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I happened to like the original. The original remake, I mean. The original original was just okay.
Me too. Also, I don't recall it being much more than occaisionally gory which is to be commended in this day and age I think.
Um... we are talking about the '05 remake, right? 'Cause if we are, I think one of us is very confused. I remember NON-STOP gore. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 02:53:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
But I think gore/zombies etc are funny. It's not real at all, and what other point is there other than to entertain?
BTW, probably the funniest movie I've ever seen is Peter Jackson's Braindead, and it also happens to be about the goriest film ever.
Bring on the splatter!
I dunno ... I laughed like a drain at Shaun of the Dead ... but zombies per se? It's context that makes something funny. Innit?
Yep, SOTD was hilarious.  I think the horror/comedy genre began (to my knowledge) about the mid '80s when horror movie makers realised that people were laughing at the supposedly scary bits, so they started making them deliberately funny. I'd guess Evil Dead 2 and ROTLD would be among the first horror/comedies, they were meant to be funny rather than just being accidentally funny. I also laugh at Romero's Dawn of the Dead (I regard it as an excellent movie, but it's still funny); the concept of moaning rotting human corpses trudging slowly forward to eat the flesh of the living is simply funny. As are cannibalistic mutants. Or any slasher flick etc. The torture scenes in Hostel were also funny. It's hard to take any of those concepts seriously, so all that's left is to laugh.
Horror movies that make me too scared to laugh aren't too common these days. In the last ten or so years I'd say virtually all are from East Asia. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 20:25:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Um... we are talking about the '05 remake, right? 'Cause if we are, I think one of us is very confused. I remember NON-STOP gore.
I'm starting to get worried now... yeah I was referring to the 05 version. Maybe I've gotten oblivious to gore or something  I seriously cannot remember much gore (a couple of scenes aside) in this film- lots of build up and wandering around nuked buildings is my abiding memory! |
|
|
|
rabid kazook 
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 01:01:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
As are cannibalistic mutants.
Ah you're wierd. Only that photo footage was enough to make me feel uneasy about the whole thing... and there were very graphic parts people blowing up their hands, rape... ughhh. Anyhow awful sickening movie (the 2006 one), and that's without going into the cliche plot and all. That French director is just... I don't like his overly sick approach. |
Edited by - rabid kazook on 03/31/2007 01:02:42 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/31/2007 : 09:39:13
|
I seem to have total separation between fiction and reality. So electric drill going into eyeballs, chainsaw removing limbs while alive, zombies biting open human skull and munching on living brains etc just make me laugh. But seeing a deep cut in real life or even pictures of real wounds makes me squirm and become nauseous (or is that nauseated?  ).
For some reason that doesn't apply to tense horrors (evil ghost movies etc), realistically they shouldn't be scary as ghosts don't exist but they are.  |
|
|
|
rabid kazook
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 10:03:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I seem to have total separation between fiction and reality.
Yes I see.  |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 00:49:00
|
I just watched the 2005 remake, along with When A Stranger Calls and Omen 666.
I was expecting a lot more gore in The Hills Have Eyes. There is indeed a lot of build-up, and then scenes of non-gore between the gore. Mind you, the gore is graphic, leaving nothing to the imagination.
What struck me about all three films is that they are faithful remakes, and I'm sure people ask the question 'why' bother.
My feeling is that the stories in all three cases are very good ones, and that these remakes simply bring these stories to today's audience. Many people would probably not be bothered watching the originals, and if they did might find them dated.
These films all use modern technology in an interesting way. In When A Stranger Calls and Hills that mobile phones cannot be used are key plot points.
The cinematography in all of them is excellent, the acting is good too. In particular, Pete Postlethwaite and David Thewles in Omen 666 inhabit their characters and make you forget about the original. Liev Schreiber was great too - in many cases I was caught out by how he captured the same authority and stature as Gregory Peck, even though he is much younger. I am a huge fan of the original. I own the DVD and have watched the film countless times. Also Mia Farrow as Mrs Baylock, who portrays Mrs Baylock as less creepy than Billy Whitelaw in her first scenes.
I would recommend these films to anyone who hasn't, or doesn't want to see the originals - if they are horror/thriller fans anyway.
As for Hills Have Eyes 2 - I'll rent it just to see... |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 05:08:06
|
The Hills Have Eyes remake has a higher score (IMDb) than the original. I thought it was good enough.
Whereas the Omen and When a Stranger Calls remakes are much lower scored. Is there any point seeing the remakes if you've seen (and liked) the originals? |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 05:41:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
The Hills Have Eyes remake has a higher score (IMDb) than the original. I thought it was good enough.
Whereas the Omen and When a Stranger Calls remakes are much lower scored. Is there any point seeing the remakes if you've seen (and liked) the originals?
Well, that's a good question. Out of interest only, I'd say. Of the three, I enjoyed When A Stranger Calls the most as a remake. I liked that they weren't tempted to up the gore factor for the modern audience, and they didn't try to create a back story for the 'caller'. It is a very suspenseful film, and Camille Bell really carries it well, for someone so young. I was sucked in.
And like I say, they are all three filmed beautifully - the background becomes an additional character in Stranger and Hills. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 06:24:38
|
The new The Omen is really good. This is the reasons faithful remakes are made -- it feels like a hyper-remake, which increases the fatalism of the original. Damien WILL win. The world IS fucked.
And damn, I don't remember the mom death scene being so fucking intense. Something about The Omen just resonates more in 2006 than in 1976 anyway -- the world does seem like it's going to just fucking explode all at once. |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 08:12:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
The new The Omen is really good. ...I don't remember the mom death scene being so fucking intense.
I agree - in the original you can only guess what happened, there's no interaction between her and the nanny at all.
I do think that if you haven't seen the original Omen, the remake will have the same impact. Unfortunately I've watched the original so many times it was hard to get away from it. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
The Hills Have Eyes 2
