In defense of this flick and remakes in general

Rating: 10/10 (26 July 2006)

I finally saw this flick unrated (big fan of Aja's debut 'Switchblade Romance', as well as the original 'Hills')... and felt like defending it from the onslaught of abuse it seems to be receiving on these boards.
This movie is everything horror should be. There's suspense, neatly done character work, aesthetically perfect direction, taut editing, balls-to-the-wall gore and a nifty political subtext. There's a strong undercurrent of satire and graveyard wit to this picture that I imagine will float by your average viewer (especially those that have their head up their asses already on the remake front or on the horror front in general). The republican gun-tooter ends up burnt at the stake and impaled in the skull with the American symbol - talk about flag-waver! I saw the scenes in the empty, ghostlike testing houses as a hostile perception of the facade of the American 'nuclear family' by French director Aja - considering the original movie was semi-inspired by the war in Vietnam (at least on a subconscious level), Aja's attempt at bringing some of that subversive element to his version was admirable and subtle.
Secondly, I'd like to say something on remakes. Naturally there are some TERRIBLE remakes - 'The Fog', 'Assault on Precinct 13' and 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' come to mind as particular offenders in that they totally lost the spirit of the originals, bringing them down to base formulas and clichés, taking away what we loved about them in the first place. However, there are terrible MOVIES too. The last non-remake I saw at the cinema was Superman Returns last week, and it was intolerably bland, charmless, humourless and overwrought in this armchair critic's opinion. It also, aside from being a sequel, followed the Superhero formula so precisely that it may as well have been a remake. On the other hand, Spiderman was great, stylish, entertaining movie-making. My point is there are good movies and bad movies just like there are good remakes and bad remakes. Most of horror retreads old story lines and themes anyway, it's the individual touch that's important. Let's not forget that Cronenberg's 'The Fly' and Carpenter's 'The Thing' are remakes, as are plenty of other great non-horror flicks (Scarface... hell even the original Assault on Precinct 13 is a loose remake of Rio Bravo). Essentially it's down to the skill with which the story is told, even if we've heard it before.
Finally, I admired the gutsy gore in this movie. There were no restraints (at least in the unrated version), and it's clear where Asian cinema has rubbed off. Just as we expect to be taken away from the action, Aja gives us a close-up. I mean I've seen a lot more violent and disturbing movies of course.. but I think horror movies HAVE to take the violence seriously... so many recent horror flicks (remakes or otherwise) have sucked in this department. I even thought Hostel was a BIG cop-out, especially since Eli Roth was so determined to go all out. That movie didn't make me bat an eye. But Hills didn't pull any punches.
Anyway there's my rather lengthy defense. It's actually one of my favourite horror movies of the decade, along with The Descent, Battle Royale, Land of the Dead, Switchblade Romance (minus the ending) and Shaun of the Dead... If you haven't caught it yet, and you like your horror pics, don't miss it.