gotta love the cheap seats
Delightfully, there are places here and there where you can get in to see a movie on a theater screen for only a buck. Of course, they still get you with the popcorn and bubbly effervescent cola drinks, but it evens out when you figure the price of a non-matinee ticket alone at the first-run theater is almost the total wampum figure of the cheap seats.
I went to The Hills Have Eyes after reading mixed reviews, which I took with a grain o' proverbial salt, anyhoo. After all, you'll always get mixed reviews with a remake, especially a remake of a film with a cult following.
I was first intrigued by Hills after reading a feature article in Rue Morgue magazine. To be fair, about a month ago, in anticipation of the remake, I rented the original. Neither is for the faint of heart, and both have things going for them.
The original wouldn't be quite the same without Michael Berryman as Pluto. He is the face of the movie. Originally, there was talk of giving him a bit part in the remake, but it was scrapped. I kind of wish they had, though. Kind of an homage. But I think the casting in the second movie has merit, too. Kathleen Quinlan is perfect as the mom, and Ted Levine makes a great Big Bob. I think the old man at the filling station was creepier in the original. But I'll go with it. Doug was a much better character in the new film, though, being better developed.
The plot is simple enough. Family in an RV. Desert road to the middle o' nowhere, where they get stranded and left to battle the locals, who are none too keen on their presence. Admittedly, not so standard are atomic fallout-created cannibals. Pared down, it really is a no apologies splatter movie. Plain and simple. But it's also a taut suspense movie too, from another angle, one with a cautionary message.
One small gripe is that they don't generally call the cannibal characters by name in the remake, and don't go into the explanation of who's who and how they relate to each other. So you have to kind of guess who's who to some extent, trying to compare it to the original.
What you do get with the remake though, is an updating that in no way hurts the movie at all. While the bulk of the film runs quite parallel to the original, especially in terms of the storyline and characterizaton, there are new extras. The added sequences of the crater and the government town help to convey the message underscoring the story. And, while the advancements in special effects render many of the attack scenes much more graphic and gory than the original, they do much to enhance the overall mood of the film. The desert seems lonelier, and more forbidding. The cinematography in the new film makes it much more striking than the original, and adds to the tension. If I had to pick a favorite of the two, I think I'd lean toward the remake for this alone.
Definitely a popcorn flick. Not a fluffy date movie. Avoid it if at all squeamish. But if the genre appeals, not at all disappointing. And I guess that's what I've got to say about that.



