Film Year: 1977
Genre: Horror
Director: Wes Craven
Starring: Michael Berryman, Dee Wallace, Susan Lanier, Robert Houston, Martin Speer, Russ Grieve, John Steadman, Virginia Vincent
The Movie
One of the earliest films of legendary Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream director Wes Craven, The Hills Have Eyes is the story of a family on a road trip in the middle of the desert. They soon become the target of a hidden family of inbred cannibals who prey on travelers who run through their neck of the woods.
Personally, I'm not too familiar with the work of Wes Craven. I've definitely seen Nightmare on Elm Street, though I'm not as enamored with it as most are (reasons of that should be saved for another day, methinks). I do quite like the cheekiness of the four Scream films he directed and watched at the very least the first three many, many times when I was a teenager (the fourth not nearly as much, but that came out when I was much older). I think my favorite movie I've seen from him is Red Eye, but I've only seen it once though quite enjoyed it. Other than that, I mostly found myself more familiar with his more recent, lamer work like Cursed and My Soul to Take, while the films that are designated some of his classics I just never got around to. The earliest Craven film I've watched is Swamp Thing, which I watched because I like Swamp Thing rather than it being a Wes Craven movie.
So...what took me so long to watch The Hills Have Eyes? To be honest, it's because I hated the remake. It was such a vicious and angry little movie that I really got nothing other than a bad mood out of it. It's been hailed as one of those remakes that is "better" than the original, like The Thing and The Fly (for the record, I intensely disagree that the remakes of these two films are better than the originals, to be honest), so if that were the case, I had no desire to really sit through the original.
Since I haven't watched the 2006 film since it came out, I can't do a very thorough comparison between the two. I felt less dirty watching Wes Craven's film, though. I feel the rougher, low budget filmmaking style made for a more interesting movie to me in general, though. The rougher aspect suits the story, and it feels at home. It feels like the only proper way to deliver a movie like this. I ponder whether that's what bothered me when I watched the updated film, that it was too slick a version of a disgusting story, and because of that it came off like a movie that felt like it hated its own audience and wanted to make them suffer. But I understand that feeling might only be exclusive to me, since a lot of people really like that movie and don't suffer while watching it. I find it interesting that the aspects that most cite as the reason the original is harder to watch than the remake (the cheap pr are really what makes it more watchable to me.
I'm not going to praise the movie too hard, though, because it's still a flick that I didn't really get into that much. I think the idea is interesting, though it feels like it tries to twist itself too much into shock value rather than telling a story. To be fair, the shock value is properly shocking, as the film doesn't shy away from the idea of rape, cooking babies, and even killing puppies. It's a movie about the ugly, primal nature of survival, and boy does it get ugly. How you respond to that ugliness is determined by the viewer.
But personally I'm going to go against the grain again and say the original is a better film than the remake, much like my opinions of The Thing and The Fly. I didn't really enjoy either version, but there was more that piqued my curiosity about the presentation of the original film.
The Drive-In
Our Thanksgiving marathon continues with yet another cannibal movie, which Joe Bob gleefully cites as being directly inspired by our previous cannibal movie, Texas Chain Saw Massacre. He delights in pointing out the various similarities between the two films, and even points out that props form Texas Chain Saw were reused here as well. He also goes over the origins of the story, which was loosely based on the Scottish folktale of Sawney Bean, the legendary head of an inbred cannibal clan from the 16th century.
Joe Bob isn't shy on talking about Wes Craven either, who struggled to get a second film made because he didn't want to be a horror director. You mean the guy who directed Music of the Heart didn't want to direct horror movies his entire life? Who'd have thought? But as we all know, horror sells, and horror is cheap, so The Hills Have Eyes was born. He also delves a bit into Craven's past, touching upon his mostly unknown career in porn and how he never watched a movie until he was 22.
Halfway through the movie, Joe Bob brings out a special guest: Michael Berryman, who played Pluto in the movie. Berryman talks in great length about the making of the movie, with fine on-set tidbits (including the use of lamb as human flesh) and how they decided to advertise the movie by sneaking into a drive-in in full Pluto costume and scaring moviegoers (which ends hilariously). Berryman also talks a bit about his non-Hills roles, such as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Crow (including the death of Brandon Lee), and The X-Files. He also talks about being discovered by George Pal. Darcy also gets him to sign a giant figurine so they can auction it off for charity.
Speaking of Darcy, she doesn't play coy about her love for the remake, for the second film in a row. Joe Bob actually agrees with her this time, believing the remake to be a much more polished movie, further proving that I'm an ol' grump. But despite their being on the same page this episode, Darcy uses the viewers to question Joe Bob's authority, who claimed there was only one Thanksgiving themed horror film. She then goes to list off a handful, to which Joe Bob mostly stands his ground. But it's just not proper Joe Bob if he's not irritated at something. Preferably a rant would ensue, though.
Joe Bob's Rating
⭐⭐⭐⭐
No comments:
Post a Comment