1979 or 2006?
-
UpperEastSider — 11 years ago(March 05, 2015 07:46 PM)
A "pansy" remake? Sorry, but gore and guts are not required to make a movie
good
or
scary
. Take a movie and add as much blood and gore as you want but if the writing, directing, acting and script are bad, it's not going to be worth a crap.
Also, I never understood why this movie had an R rating, anyways. Showing some dude's rear end and a bed covered with blood-soaked bed sheets doesn't warrant an R-rating but I guess back in 1979, it did. If this exact movie was released today, it would have been PG-13. Plenty of "pansy" PG-13 horror/thrillers that are much better your favorite R-rated gore fests.
When life knocks you down, roll over and look at the stars -
utahman1971 — 10 years ago(April 08, 2015 09:28 PM)
Sorry, but no gore doesn't mean its scary either. There is more non scary movies without gore, than there is with gore that are not scary. I rather have the violence, than the tamed up PG-13 crap more lately. Ever since 2000, we have been getting massive PG-13 horror releases. Most of them PG-13 are just crap. I can say at least half of rated R are better than a quarter of PG-13. That is even with the new PG-13 now coming out with two F-words now. For last at least 20 years PG-13 has had brief nudity too. Does not mean its a worthy movie. Being bored is not entertainment. I rather sleep than watch any build up horror movie or tamed up, no gore horror movie that is all some killer just chasing someone. Poorly made jump scares, that the director thinks actually scares people. Noise and music is not the best way to scare someone.
I am a gore watching freak!!!
If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch. -
nammage — 10 years ago(November 16, 2015 04:52 PM)
From what I've read, the original was intended to be PG but only made R because of the children in the body bag scene. There's little violence (except at the very end), little to no profanity, really no intense scenes (for me, at least), and a somewhat nude guy on the floor of a bathroom that shows barely anything. If the PG13 rating existed in 1979, it would have gotten that rating.
-Nam
I am on the road less traveled -
bnkholen — 20 years ago(March 07, 2006 09:23 PM)
The new version is okay; All of the people who are ripping it to shreds should remember that the original is by no means a masterpiece. The first 20 min. like you said are great, and the last 10 are decent, but in between pretty much is wasteless filler.
-
JackTorrance1990 — 20 years ago(March 21, 2006 12:09 PM)
Easy, 1979. 2006's version was horrible. After seeing that one, I said in the theatre "Well that sucked". Everyone was howling in laughter.
The Godfather Part II:Greatest Ever
Hamburgers, the cornerstone of every breakfast. -
jeffoneonone — 20 years ago(March 27, 2006 04:29 PM)
"the hills have eyes remake is bleep crap! omg i just saw it, and it was soooo boring. damn what a waste!"
I wish I could speak more authoritatively on this, not having seen the original, but it seems to me the new THHE at least stuck pretty close to the spirit of the original. Plus, in reference to a few posts ago, it definitely WASN'T a "pansy-ass PG-13 remake." -
mycatsnores — 15 years ago(June 14, 2010 05:53 PM)
I prefer the original by far, but the remake wasn't as bad as I was expecting. If I'd expected it to be good I'd have been disappointed but I thought it would be as terrible as The Amityville Horror remake so I was pleasantly surprised when it wasn't.
i love my cats!