1979 or 2006?
-
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! -
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 -
novastar_6 — 15 years ago(August 15, 2010 03:39 PM)
And not scary at all. The whole movie didn't make sense, there's a guy killing babysitters so little miss irresponsible is going to be babysitting, what bright parents she has. in the movie this guy kills one babysitter, one dumb bimbo, and a deaf housekeepernone of that applies to me, he doesn't kill the kids, Jill survives and we know she'll survive, and at the end of it all she goes nutso in the hospital, it's a bad movie.
-
my_sweet_agony — 15 years ago(December 29, 2010 03:31 AM)
umm actually in the 2006 version a babysitter gets killed in the first five minutes along with the children and later it is implied that there were even more before that. and the stranger(2006) can easily kill people without others hearing it is a HUGE house.
-
Gbolling1984 — 14 years ago(September 04, 2011 04:47 PM)
it's hard to say. the 1979 original does have a great opening. I saw it for the firs time right before i saw the remake in theaters and i think the opening still holds up as a nice suspenseful piece of filmmaking. that being said, even though the middle section is an interesting character study of the villain, it is insanely boring. I thought it just dragged and went nowhere and then we are treated to a visceral final 10 minutes. in the end it would make a better short film than feature film.
The remake is well made and shot well and does attempt to build suspense but it falls short as well. stretching the first 20 minutes of the original into a 90 minute film didn't quite work because there isn't enough meat to the story. I real say from the strangers reveal in the rafters up until she runs out into the arms of the police officer are very well done. if the whole film had maintained that tension it would've been great. i also hated the cliche ending in the hospital as well