The first remake was a good and more visual improvement of the original movie. The sequel to it had nothing to do with the original 'part 2', it was a sequel to the remake. The original 'part 2' was poor, and while I haven't seen the new 'part 2' I have yet to encounter any positive words on that movie.
On to 'hills have eyes 3', known as 'the outpost'; A dumb 'return of the living' dead rip-off with scarce elements of the original 'hills'.
I hope they won't get desperate enough that they would be allowed to remake that one.
Number 1 wasn't really all that great IMO but how was number 2? Just curious.
P.S: I heard that in that movie one of the mutants rips a baby out of a pregnant women's fagina, is that true?
__________________ Thanks Blaxican Hydralisk
PYRON WOULD WIPE THE FLOOR WITH STORM LULZ!
I wanna see no.2...that mite be true, I think I heard something about a pregnant woman being in the film, seeing a womans baby being ripped out her vagina sounds gruesome, plus I think no.2 ends on a cliffhanger, I'm not really sure...so there may be a 3rd, but who knows it might be good and actually be connected with the first 2
Umm that link just said that there is no Number 3, and that is not going to be a remake of the movie that is claimed to be a sequal of a sequal. Soo.. what are we supposed to be talking about?
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Nah, what happened was that [SPOILER - highlight to read]: poppa freak wanted more babies and they were keeping a woman they had raped alive until the baby was born. As she was pushing he grabbed the baby and pulled him out, the baby was borned dead so he went to the pregnant lady and WHAM! punched her in the face and killed her. The movie itself its kinda lame.
__________________
"A lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths." Deep Throat.
I've never heard of anything being refered to as a'Return of the Living Dead rip-off'. It's not like Return of the Living Dead is known for its originality.
In any case, the original Hills and the remake are both solid movies in their own right. The original sequels were not only poorly made, but poor in every sense of the word.
I haven't seen the remake's sequel, but from what I've heard it wasn't as well recieved as the film in followed so therefore I doubt they will do another.
The remake of Hills Have Eyes was fantastic, the second movie from the remake was terrible, yet to see the original sequel though. The first original film was a bore for me when I saw it, but then I saw that years ago, so don't know what I will think now.
I think I saw the original on sky movies horror last week, I actually thought it was really good and the ending for me was unexpected cause I thought it would end like the remake...I mean it doesn't exactly end on a cliffhanger like the remake...plus the Doug in the original doesn't get the sh*t beaten out of him and walks away with all fingers. The remake did actually change quite alot of the story, but left some parts the same which I thought was good.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 8th, 2007 10:59 PM
what are we supposed to be talking about?
I said the Doug in the ORIGINAL 
