Whoever decided gore and violence makes a good movie/version? Give me a break!

Rating: 1/10 (5 September 2006)

Honestly, in my opinion, shocking scenes and disgusting elements take so much away from the movie. It's like the makers really don't know how to entertain people in the million other ways there are. I didn't think of the original HHE scary at all either but it was at leas a good film. It's atmosphere was dark and fascinating.
The remake spoils that by for example: - Why should the cannibals look any different from us? They made them somewhat deformed because of some radioactive thing at the area on the mountains. Perhaps they were trying to make it different enough from the original version but the way they did it, sucks. And anyway the deformity thing is old. Used. - One takes a beautiful pet bird, bites of its head and squeezes its blood into his mouth. Yay. *roll eyes* - One steals the already killed mother from the car and the boy finds him with the body, and sees him eating it. We actually see him tear of the flesh and put it into his mouth, as the son is watching. A bit disturbing but more disgusting. - When the hill people attack the family's trailer killing some of them, one of them who sexually harasses the girl in the original too, in this version he threatens the baby's life so she'd let him. Holds the gun pointing at the baby's face the whole time.
Then there's of course the long, long and pretty violent scene where the baby's father is trying to save the baby.
SO, many of the scenes were much more emotionally loaded than in the original, but never in any way but disgusting.
Tell me why is this supposed to be "A version to die for"? as one of the critics state in the covwr of the DVD? It's nothing but a cliché version of a well-don original, and focuses way too much in shock-horror.
I'd say sincerely, if a person wants to see a movie "The Hills Have Eyes", should watch the original version. It's much more enjoyable.