1979 or 2006?

[fgadmin]

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

[fgadmin]

kikujiro1988 — 20 years ago(February 24, 2006 11:02 AM)

Anyone who was scared by that movie would be scared of goosebumps. I love goosebumps though.

[fgadmin]

jamielee888 — 20 years ago(March 03, 2006 04:22 PM)

I just watched the original like 3 minutes ago..and it sucked.
2006 version hands down.

[fgadmin]

fulci_fan2000 — 13 years ago(January 04, 2013 09:21 AM)

How old are you?

[fgadmin]

UpperEastSider — 11 years ago(March 05, 2015 07:37 PM)

What difference does it make? Age has nothing to do with it.
When life knocks you down, roll over and look at the stars

[fgadmin]

utahman1971 — 10 years ago(April 08, 2015 09:31 PM)

Yep, because there are adults that think PG-13 horror is scary.
I am a gore watching freak!!!
If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.

[fgadmin]

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.

[fgadmin]

luv_me2554 — 20 years ago(March 09, 2006 11:01 AM)

I watched the remake last night and was very disappointed.
It was not anywhere near as scary. It wasn't a bad movie, but I felt I wasted my time and money seeing it.

[fgadmin]

IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

[fgadmin]

IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

[fgadmin]

IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

[fgadmin]

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.

[fgadmin]

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."

[fgadmin]

utahman1971 — 10 years ago(April 08, 2015 09:40 PM)

Is there any horror movie a masterpiece? Okay then.
I am a gore watching freak!!!
If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.

[fgadmin]

aef-6 — 15 years ago(May 10, 2010 12:56 AM)

2006 is better.

[fgadmin]

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!

[fgadmin]

whatsgood_yeaaaa — 15 years ago(July 04, 2010 11:51 PM)

1979:

---

2006:

---

**

[fgadmin]

Bunnyluv0012 — 15 years ago(July 26, 2010 11:06 AM)

This is hard because I love both films..
WASC 1979 is more chilling so I will go with the 1979 movie..more scarier.
MYSPACE
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&f riendid=387606505

[fgadmin]

indecentactions — 15 years ago(July 27, 2010 11:02 PM)

There's no doubt in my mind that the original is better, the sequel to the original is even better. What a waste.

[fgadmin]

pappazeuss — 15 years ago(August 13, 2010 03:18 PM)

the original was great.the 2006 version was pretty much unwatchable.