The Sad State of Horror Films Today

Rating: 3/10 (26 March 2006)

Remakes are infinitely frustrating to me. I wish I had the capacity to forget the film on which the new version is based, if only for the duration of the film. It's just not fair to hold a remake up to the standards set by the original. Or is it? In the case of THE HILLS HAVE EYES, I think the compare-and-contrast session that ran rampant in my brain is a justified one. Because the new version stays so close to the original story, the comparison is unavoidable, and the effect is unfortunate. Wes Craven's 1977 original film was a breakthrough in horror, and one of the best genre films of the 70's (on a list with the likes of THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, DON'T LOOK NOW, and LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT). It made a bold statement about morality, humanity, the sanctity of family and the feral nature that lurked beneath the veneer of civilization. It was a fascinating and shocking character study. The only message conveyed by Alexandre Aja's remake is that a remake that looks better, sounds better and is performed better than it's source material does not make it superior. The film is lacking a soul. It is a cheap commercial cash-in on what was once a ground-breaking film. The story is not altered, nor are the characters or their struggle. The only alteration is that now the violence is much more potent, the villains much more deformed, and the settings much more stylish. This saddens me. It says that the horror genre has become an intellectual wasteland, with the innovators raped to death and left for the vultures. It says that movie-goers of my generation are much more interested in nihilism and less in irony, more in the aesthetic and less in the cerebral. I wouldn't be surprised to see a hollow-headed remake of 2004's 28 DAYS LATER within a couple years.