The Hills Have Eyes Rated vs. Unrated Version
 

Ok, I'm going in town saturday, Should I get... Hills have eyes UNRATED or rated version. Or none.

Rate it on a scale from 1-10 in gore, and in if it is worth seeing.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006) UNRATED.
Worth the buy, if you have any taste in movies. The gore is plentiful, even more so in the UNRATED version.

GORE
For a teen-horror fan (likes PG-13) 15/10
For a casual horror fan (you've seen the classics and some of the new ones that hit theatres) 13/10,
for a horror fan with a good knowledge of the genre 10/10
for a horror fan that has seen Cannibal Holocaust 9/10
for a horror fan that is into video nasties 7/10 (perhaps it lacks hardcore sex involving fecal-tasting)

If given the option, I will select unrated or director's cut over theatrical version every single time.

Why would anyone ever ask if a censored version might be best?

:confused:

same here

I can't believe you've got to consider which version to get! Hmmmmm, thats a tough one.

The film definately picks up in the violent and aggressive second half, though even the explicit head-gougings become slightly predictable unimpressive towards the end.

Clearly, the director is game for all sorts of extremities - however the merely suggested rape and breastmilk-suckling were a little disappointing considering the hardcore carnage that surrounds these scenes. Even in the uncut version, these are skirted around nervously suggesting studio interferance or perhaps general American aversion to such outrage.

On the whole, a very impressive remake - and the future bodes well for director Aja.

Yea, waiting to see this too. Still have not seen the original. I know, beat me with a stick.

Essay
 

This audio might have been half an hour long, but the time passed by quickly when I was listening to this evolution coaching audio. I am sure that many of you felt the same way when listening to this useful audio clip.