Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoGrl
I don't get it.
...
I did not care much for the Hills Have Eyes remake. Then again, I did not expect it to be an exploitation film (I've never seen the original) so
***POSSIBLE SPOILER***
the mutant rape scene just repulsed me and I didn't really see the point.
***/POSSIBLE SPOILER***
I still want to see the original, however, as I understand that it's a fairly iconic and influential film. I realize that it's still exploitative, but at least I'll know that going into it.
As for Hills Have Eyes 2 I honestly went into it ironically and planning on making fun of it the whole time, but I thought it wasn't that bad. I think that as an autonomous film, it was just fine. It's a siege action movie with army guys. And mutants. I thought that it was well directed and the bloody scenes were well done. The acting was pretty bad, but I enjoyed the fact that it was unflinchingly over the top but yet taking itself seriously at the same time. I also enjoyed how ridiculously cliched the main character Napoleon comes into himself to rise as the hero. I guess I like the camp factor of it.
Can't really explain it. Wouldn't necessarily recommend it to my horror-loving friends; Hills Have Eyes 2 is a guilty pleasure for me because I see that it honestly has very little cinematic value.
|
Hmm. That's weird because
***POSSIBLE SPOILER***
I found the rape scene in The Hills Have Eyes 2 was much more repulsive to watch than the one in the first one.