The Hills have Eyes UNRATED vs. RATED version

[Bloody_Knife]

Ok, I'm going in town saturday, Should I get... Hills have eyes UNRATED or rated version. Or none.

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by Bloody_Knife
Ok, I'm going in town saturday, Should I get... Hills have eyes UNRATED or rated version. Or none.

I haven't seen the rated version but I think of no conceivable reason to go for that over the unrated edition. Oh...and I loved the movie (for what it's worth).

[Bloody_Knife]

Rate it on a scale from 1-10 in gore, and in if it is worth seeing.

[ScaryFreak1827]

Originally posted by Bloody_Knife
Rate it on a scale from 1-10 in gore, and in if it is worth seeing. I'd probably say an 8 or a 9 (this film is quite brutal with lots of the red stuff) but I DEFINETLY say it's worth seeing at least for the "trailer attack" bit which is by far the most disturbing scene I've ever witnessed in a horror film (and I've seen plenty.)

[X-Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by Bloody_Knife
Rate it on a scale from 1-10 in gore, and in if it is worth seeing. I'm not sure I get it.

If you don't MIND gore, there's absolutely no reason why you'd want to get the rated version. The Unrated doesn't trade gore for anything else. Just adds.

[glenncerritos]

I actually passed this one up at the video store today for Nightwatch; I'll have to go back and get after reading what all of you have had to say!

[William Munny]

Originally posted by glenncerritos
I actually passed this one up at the video store today for Nightwatch; I'll have to go back and get after reading what all of you have had to say!

Actually, you're better off sticking with "Nightwatch", or anything else, for that matter.

Having seen "High Tension", I think Aja has talent, and though I was rooting for him to suceed I have to say that "Hills" is just plain awful. It's not just bad. It's infuriatingly bad, and the script is a joke. Save for its cinematography and a great Ted Levine performance, "Hills" has nothing going for it.

I will say this about the film: in terms of ultra-violence, it goes farther than any other mainstream horror film in recent memory. The kills in this film, of which there are many, certainly "hit home", and I can only imagine what kind of gruel they've thrown in for the unrated cut.

Does that make "Hills" a good film? Absolutely not. Does that make it "critic-proof" from horror fans who pride themselves on their taste of hard-R horror?

Apparently it does.

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by William Munny
Actually, you're better off sticking with "Nightwatch", or anything else, for that matter.

Having seen "High Tension", I think Aja has talent, and though I was rooting for him to suceed I have to say that "Hills" is just plain awful. It's not just bad. It's infuriatingly bad, and the script is a joke. Save for its cinematography and a great Ted Levine performance, "Hills" has nothing going for it.

I will say this about the film: in terms of ultra-violence, it goes farther than any other mainstream horror film in recent memory. The kills in this film, of which there are many, certainly "hit home", and I can only imagine what kind of gruel they've thrown in for the unrated cut.

Does that make "Hills" a good film? Absolutely not. Does that make it "critic-proof" from horror fans who pride themselves on their taste of hard-R horror?

Apparently it does.

So my critical faculties were retarded by the quantity of the violence in the movie? Are you suggesting that anyone who likes this movie only liked it because it pushed the envelope of what is acceptable in mainstream horror a little further than it's peers?

[William Munny]

Originally posted by Psychocandy
So my critical faculties were retarded by the quantity of the violence in the movie? Are you suggesting that anyone who likes this movie only liked it because it pushed the envelope of what is acceptable in mainstream horror a little further than it's peers?

In a way, yes.

I'm suggesting that the level of violence in "Hills" has blinded most people to the inadequacies of the film, the most glaring of which is the unbelievably piss-poor script. I realize that I am impressing my own opinion on the masses here, but I really believe that "Hills" has little value beyond it's photography and the realism attained in some of the death sequences (which really amounts to nothing, given the total lack of realism or logic in the rest of the film).

I applaud movies that push the envelope in terms of content and I don't doubt that Aja has balls as a filmmaker. After "Hills", I simply doubt that he has brains.

[zombievictim]

I blind bought this yesterday and watched it last night with all the lights off. This movie kicked ass. They made the story a tad better with little facts here and there about the bombing.

The makeup was absolutely tremendous. Ruby looked freaking awesome and so did Lizard. Pluto looked a tad stupid but who cares. The gore was over the top which added some to this film.

Now onto my favorite part of the film, the performances. I thought everyone did a kickass job in their roles. Bobby and Doug were my two favorites just because they felt so real. Brenda (Ravin) was hot as hell, which is nice to see off Lost and shirtless in the desert. The only person that got on my nerves was Ethel. She wasn't nearly as annoying as the mom in the original but she still bothered me.

I just thought this was a fun movie. It had everything I wanted in a horror film.

9/10

(Sorry for the review but I figure'd that help people out in deciding whether to buy it or not.)

[Sir James Brown]

Hills kicks ass, i bought it yesterday, watched it last night. the unrated version is only 1 minute longer then the rated version. and i didnt catch what that extra minute was, does anyone else know what was added?

Sir James

[MadmanMARZ]

Originally posted by William Munny
In a way, yes.


I applaud movies that push the envelope in terms of content and I don't doubt that Aja has balls as a filmmaker. After "Hills", I simply doubt that he has brains.

OK give us an example of a movie that pushes the envelope in terms of content then ( a new movie from the last 5-10 years that is)...

this is a horrormovie for christsake, not an oscarwinning periodpiece.
It had terror like TCM and alot of others in this genre and if you felt for the characters in HHE, you felt their pain.
The trailerattack was brutal and after that it got worse.
The villans were cannibals, hence the gore and violence.
This is by far this years best horror and it´is a remake (GOD i never thought i would say that :D )

[William Munny]

Originally posted by MadmanMARZ
OK give us an example of a movie that pushes the envelope in terms of content then ( a new movie from the last 5-10 years that is)...


I think you misread my earlier comments.

I DO believe that "Hills" successfully pushed the envelope in terms of content. I just do not believe that it is a good movie.

The creature designs contrast awfully with the ultra-realistic violence, Aaron Stanford gives one of the worst performances in a major film I have ever seen, and (though I'm a fan of "movie logic" and the suspension of disbelief) the believability factor is close to zero.

As a director, Aja has no sense of pacing, relying too often on "boo!" scares when all else fails. The final third of the film drags. As a writer . . . . . well, the fact that in 2006 he resurrects that Macgyver shit with the exploding trailer from the original . . . . . you get the idea.

I'm perplexed that so many "genre fans" are jumping up to defend crap like this. "The Hills Have Eyes" is not hardcore horror. It is a piece of shit, and if being a genre fan means promoting empty, senseless horror cinema like this. . . . . well, count me out, guys.

[zombievictim]

Originally posted by Sir James Brown
Hills kicks ass, i bought it yesterday, watched it last night. the unrated version is only 1 minute longer then the rated version. and i didnt catch what that extra minute was, does anyone else know what was added?

Sir James

I never saw the theatrical cut so I wouldn't know but on IMDB it said that some different stuff was that instead of the dog killing the mutant with a shotgun, the mutant gets a pickaxe in the head.

[nekroman41]

This one didn't really do it for me. I didn't see the original but i could see every turn that was coming. The trailer scene was relentless, but i could care less for the characters. It didn't suprise me, i mean going into the movie u expect most of the family to die right? The acting was ok for the most part, but Cool kills and De Ravin couldnt save this one for me.

[heavy!!!]

Unrated all the way, top movie best of the recent remake bunch by a long way.

[Bloody_Knife]

Originally posted by heavy!!!
Unrated all the way, top movie best of the recent remake bunch by a long way.

yes it is, i've seen it 7 times sincd I got it tuesday.