Editorials
Examining the Nuclear Family in ‘The Hills Have Eyes’ (2006)
What is it about The Hills Have Eyes (2006) that’s so appealing? And what makes it “a perfect remake” in my eyes? 2006 was not a great time in America; even a foreign filmmaker could see that. America thrust itself into a false war for oil, under the guise of fighting terrorism, and the housing market was on the verge of its collapse. The Hills Have Eyes, and many of the reboots of this time took that anger many people felt and funneled that into the antagonists of some of our most beloved franchises. The antagonists in the original film were unquestionably bad people, but it’s the family in the reboot that feels even crueler and bloodthirsty. You see this in Michael Bay’s Texas Chainsaw, with Leatherface somehow being crueler and ominous. Hell, even Rob Zombie’s Michael Myers is a hulking, terrifying creature, much more than Carpenter’s original (don’t kill me). Seeing good ultimately besting this seemingly unbeatable evil brought a level of hope to some people who felt they had no other escape. Beauty dies at the beginning of the film and by the time Doug walks out of the canyon with Catherine in his arms, he’s guided out by Beast. I think the anger felt in the films of this time spoke with a world that was full of so much of it.

When you think of mid-aughts remakes or reboots what comes to mind? Halloween? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? House of Wax? When I’m asked about remakes, one film always comes to mind immediately: The Hills Have Eyes. Critically mixed and financially successful, The Hills Have Eyes fell into the laps of horror fans amidst a barrage of remakes and reboots throughout the mid-aughts. Films like The Ring and The Grudge had proven remakes could be insanely financially successful, especially during October. What’s really interesting about the trend of mid-aughts remakes is how it didn’t start in the 2000s. Instead, it began in the year 1999.
In a move that would be copied by Michael Bay just a few years later, Academy Award Winner Robert Zemeckis and Joel Silver created Dark Castle Entertainment. Dark Castle’s goal was to remake the films of genre icon William Castle. Little did they know they would start a trend to define an entire decade of horror. The first film from Dark Castle was House on Haunted Hill. The incredibly frightening remake would shoot to the number one spot at the box office upon its October release, grossing $15,946,032 in its opening weekend, setting a financial precedent on the validity of a new wave of remakes. Just three years later The Ring would not be able to beat Haunted Hill, with its $15,015,393 opening weekend. However, we can’t forget The Ring grossed a worldwide total of $249,348,933.
A String of Remakes Brings Us to The Hills
One year later, Michael Bay’s studio Platinum Dunes would try its hand at genre remakes with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This was when people realized remakes could be financially successful on IP alone as TCM made a whopping $10 million on opening day and a jaw-dropping $29 million on its opening weekend, despite overwhelmingly negative reviews. Finally, the fuel that catalyzed the aught’s remakes came from The Grudge. The Grudge had an opening weekend of $39,128,715, with a worldwide gross of $187 million! The rest of the 2000s would see the remakes of films like The Amityville Horror, Halloween, House of Wax, and A Nightmare on Elm Street.
Cut to 2006. Upon hearing of the financial success of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Amityville Horror, Wes Craven had an itch to bring one of his properties back. Instead of resurrecting his most successful franchise, A Nightmare on Elm Street, he decided his cult-favorite The Hills Have Eyes would be the perfect film to reboot. The 1977 release of The Hills Have Eyes was indeed a financial success, despite what producer Peter Locke would like to think. By October 1977, the film had made around $2 million, adjusted to almost $10 million today, on its budget of $350k to $700k. By the end of its theatrical run, it would make an incredible $25 million, adjusted for over $100 million. Okay, no more money talk. But that’s pretty impressive, no?
Wes Craven’s producing partner Marianne Maddalena introduced him to the New French Extremity film High Tension. Craven was impressed. After a meeting with Alexandre Aja, and his collaborator Grégory Levasseur, Wes Craven knew who would reboot his bloody desert story. Receiving mixed reviews, The Hills Have Eyes opened at third in the box office in March. Its run at the box office would gross 70 million dollars, absolutely eclipsing its $15 million dollar budget. And that is the story of what I would describe as, how the perfect reboot came to be. But what is it about this film that I, and many fans, love so much?
The Hills Have Eyes follows a family, well technically two families, on a road trip for their parent’s anniversary. We have Big Bob Carter (Ted Levine), his wife Ethel (Kathleen Quinlan), his daughters Brenda (Emilie de Ravin) and Lynn Carter-Bukowski (Vinessa Shaw), his son Bobby (Dan Byrd), Lynn’s husband Doug (Aaron Stanford), and Lynn and Doug’s baby Catherine (Maisie Camilleri Preziosi). After an accident with their car and camper, they find themselves stuck in the desert. Only they are not alone. In the hills, and over the ridge, reside a family of cannibal mutants led by Papa Jupiter (Billy Drago) and his children Lizard (Robert Joy), Big Brain (Desmond Askew), Goggle (Ezra Buzzington), Pluto (Michael Bailey Smith), Ruby (Laura Ortiz), Big Mama (Ivana Turchetto), Cyst (Greg Nicotero), Venus (Judith Jane Vallette), and Mercury (Adam Perrell).
A Violent Yet Poignant Commentary
The original and the remake offer a few pieces of commentary, one being a hellish rebuke of class warfare, the haves and the have-nots. Where the remake becomes a lot more interesting than the original is who wrote and directed it. Having Alexandre Aja and Grégory Levasseur on board for a film like this is almost the perfect match. They are no stranger to ultra-violence and political commentary. Stepping out of the shadow of their film about repressed sexuality and mental health, Aja and Lavasseur tell a tale that feels deeply American, even if the filmmakers are French. The script holds a mirror up to us and shows how much of the world sees Americans and how we treat the less fortunate. It’s even more true now than ever. Within a one-block vicinity of Penn Station, you’ll find a plethora of unhoused people the system has seemingly given up on. They’re demonized for the position they’re put in due to countless governmental failings and lack of genuine assistance.
The antagonists in The Hills Have Eyes find themselves forgotten by the world after a set of nuclear tests scourged their homes. What was once a thriving mining town is now a barren wasteland of a forgotten time. Now yes, they are cannibals and killers, but one can’t help but understand their ends are caused by the means. Like the original film, they’re not just cannibals, as The Carters’s dog Beauty is eaten in both films. The cannibal family has most likely hunted their respective land to near extinction, especially due to the size of some of the sons; they’re massive!
Cannibalism aside, the family looks quite gnarly. KNB EFX handled the arduous 6-month creature design process. However, it goes to show how much passion Aja and Lavasseur had as they had already visually conceived the creatures quite thoroughly. Their inspirations for the designs were based on real-life documentation of the fallout from places like Chernobyl and Hiroshima. Papa Jupiter and Big Mama are presumably the heads of the family. They don’t have any deformities, so we can assume their spawn were either hit from a very young age with large doses of radiation that affected their growth or the radiation received by Papa Jupiter and Big Mama affected their reproductive systems in a way that created their deformities. Part of me wants to believe that while Papa and Mama are the ring leaders, Big Brain is the logistics guy.
We do see humanity within the cannibal family from Ruby. What is Ruby’s role? Initially, we are introduced to Jeb (Tom Bower), the gas station owner. Ruby is seen bringing him a bag of goodies taken from previous victims. Jeb tells Ruby he’s out, and Ruby, who finds herself at the same crossroads, realizes there’s possibly a way out for her. When Bobby gets knocked out, Ruby makes sure he is safe from Goggle. After Catherine is kidnapped, Doug goes on a death mission to get her back at any cost. Thankfully, Ruby double kidnaps Catherine and tries whisking her away to safety; ultimately causing her brother’s death. The character of Ruby is written incredibly as a tragic antagonist. Thrust into a world of hate and violence, Ruby must overcome a life she’s always known to find her own true happiness. Ruby didn’t ask for this, and she’s determined to end this bloody charade one way or another.
Most of the remake follows closely to the original story. Still, there are a few grand additions that show just how ruthless the cannibal family is. Papa Jupiter takes advantage of an incredibly intoxicated Jeb, goading into blowing his head off with a shotgun. They also bring back Big Bob’s immolation. But the updated version of the fight between Pluto and Doug is probably the most memorable scene in the film. Their fight spans multiple rooms where Pluto has the upper hand most of the time. Pluto reveals either partial analgesia or a very low pain threshold when Doug stabs him in the stomach with a broken bat, it’s one heck of a stab. At some point later in the fight, Doug stabs Pluto in the foot with a screwdriver, and Pluto reacts in pain. The National Library of Medicine states, “Mutations in the voltage-gated sodium channels SCN9A and SCN11A can cause congenital painlessness.” So it’s not too far off to think some of the cannibals could have lessened pain receptors. Doug eventually bests Pluto in their fight, symbolically, piercing Pluto’s throat with a miniature American flag, and finishing him off with an axe to the head.
Pluto may be the most physically intimidating family member, but Lizard seems to be the most vile family member from what we see. Earlier it was mentioned that Jeb would get rewarded with goodies from victims. That’s because he provided them. Jeb sends The Carters down the “shortcut” because he felt he was being made fun of. Once they’re a significant distance away from the gas station, Lizard uses his spike strip whip to pop the tires on the truck. Later in the camper, when Big Bob is on fire Lizard bites the head off of one of The Carters’s birds, drinks its blood, then rapes Brenda. There’s finally some comeuppance for Lizard during a fight with Doug, when Ruby runs and tackles him off the cliff, killing both of them. This gives Ruby her chance to do something good and thin out the family’s numbers even further. By the film’s end, the only cannibal family members we know are still alive are Big Mama and the two children, Venus and Mercury, as Beast kills Big Brain earlier.
Grégory Levasseur would not be the only person from High Tension to join Alexandre Aja on this project, they would also bring along cinematographer Maxime Alexandre. Frequent collaboration between brilliant minds yields the best results. Minute details do wonders to visually set The Hills Have Eyes apart from other films of the time. Messing with frame rates wasn’t new by any means, and films like The Ring and The Grudge even played around with them a bit. But it’s how the image was meticulously crafted in each scene, and whatever frame rate fit that exact emotion was used. Like when Doug enters the town, the frame rate is turned way up to give us a constant feeling of anxiety and pressure, only to then be brought back down, and immediately raised again for the Pluto fight. It’s small and easily overlooked, but it adds so much to the tone.
So Why is The Hills Have Eyes a Perfect Remake?
What is it about The Hills Have Eyes (2006) that’s so appealing? And what makes it “a perfect remake” in my eyes? 2006 was not a great time in America; even a foreign filmmaker could see that. America thrust itself into a false war for oil, under the guise of fighting terrorism, and the housing market was on the verge of its collapse. The Hills Have Eyes, and many of the reboots of this time took that anger many people felt and funneled that into the antagonists of some of our most beloved franchises. The antagonists in the original film were unquestionably bad people, but it’s the family in the reboot that feels even crueler and bloodthirsty. You see this in Michael Bay’s Texas Chainsaw, with Leatherface somehow being crueler and ominous. Hell, even Rob Zombie’s Michael Myers is a hulking, terrifying creature, much more than Carpenter’s original (don’t kill me). Seeing good ultimately besting this seemingly unbeatable evil brought a level of hope to some people who felt they had no other escape. Beauty dies at the beginning of the film and by the time Doug walks out of the canyon with Catherine in his arms, he’s guided out by Beast. I think the anger felt in the films of this time spoke with a world that was full of so much of it.
And why do I think this is the perfect reboot? Alexandre Aja and Grégory Levasseur understood the assignment. They recognized what fans loved about the original film and kept the bones while making it their own. The additions to the story do nothing to take away from the core concept that Craven had in mind with his film. The Hills Have Eyes is a politically poignant film that can still be viewed as just a film. There is a message there, but it doesn’t overtake the film in an over-the-top way. When I watch a remake of a film I love, I want to see the aspects of what initially drew me into it, and I want to see the story told in a new way. That is exactly what Alexandre Aja and Grégory Levasseur did.
That can’t be said for The Hills Have Eyes 2.
Editorials
What’s in a Look? The Jason Voorhees Redesign Controversy
The Jason Voorhees redesign sparked heated debate, but is the backlash overblown? Dive into Friday the 13th’s formula and fan expectations.

If you’re a longtime reader of Horror Press, you may have noticed that I really really like the Friday the 13th franchise. Can’t get enough. And yet, I simply couldn’t muster a shred of enthusiasm for piling hate on the new Jason Voorhees redesign that Horror, Inc. recently shared with an unwitting public.
Why the Jason Voorhees Redesign Controversy Feels Overblown
Hockey mask? Check. Machete? Check. Clothing? Yeah, he’s wearing it. I really didn’t see the problem, but very many people online pointed out all the places where I should. The intensity and specificity of the critiques shot me right back to 2008, reminding me distinctly of watching Project Runway with my friend’s mom while I waited for him to get home from baseball practice. What, just me?
But the horror community’s sudden transformation into fashion mavens got me thinking about other things, too: the character of the franchise as a whole, how Jason Voorhees fits into it, and why I feel like this reaction has been blown out of proportion. (A disproportionate reaction to a pop culture thing? On my Internet? Well I never.)
What Does A Jason Look Like, Anyway?
What confused me the most about this reaction was something I couldn’t quite get a bead on. What does Jason Voorhees look like? His look, both masked and unmasked (especially unmasked), changes wildly from film to film, even when he’s played by the same person (in three consecutive movies, Kane Hodder played a hulking zombie Jason, a shiny slime monster Jason, and a Jason who was mainly seen in mirrors and looked like his face was stung by a thousand bees). And then there’s the matter of him being both a zombie child and a bagheaded killer before receiving his iconic hockey mask.
However, if you synthesize the various forms of the character into the archetypical Jason Voorhees, the one that most people might visualize in their head when told to imagine him, the result doesn’t not look like this new redesign. Frankly, I even think “redesign” is too strong a word for what this is. This image shows a dude in outdoorsy clothes wearing a hockey mask. It looks enough like “Jason Voorhees” to me that my eyes just slide right off of it.
What Do We Expect From Friday the 13th, And What Do We Need?
Ultimately, many people clearly disagree with my assessment of this redesign, which led me to ponder the franchise as a whole. If there’s something to complain about with this new look, that implies that there is a “right” way and a “wrong” way to be a Friday the 13th movie.
This I can agree with. While the franchise is wide-ranging and expansive to the point that it has included Jason going to space, fighting a dream demon, and taking a cruise ship from a New Jersey lake to the New York harbor, the movies do still follow a reasonably consistent formula.
Step 1: Generate a group of people in a place either on the shores of Crystal Lake or in Crystal Lake township (they can travel elsewhere, but this is where they must start).
Step 2: Plunk Jason down near them, give him a variety of edged weapons, and watch what happens. One girl survives the onslaught, and sometimes she brings along a friend or two as adjunct survivors. Bada bing, bada boom, you have yourself a Friday the 13th movie.
If you fuck with that formula, you’ve got a problem. But beyond that, there’s really not a hell of a lot that the movies have in common. Sometimes you have a telekinetic final girl, other times you have a child psychologist. Sometimes the dead meat characters are camp counselors, but other times they’re partiers or townies or students attending space college.
Hell, even the people killing them aren’t always the same. Look at Pamela Voorhees in the original movie or Roy in A New Beginning.
So why this protectiveness around the minutiae of Jason’s look?
It’s Us, Hi, We’re The Problem, It’s Us
I don’t mean to discount everyone’s negative opinions about this Jason redesign. There are a multitude of aesthetic and personal reasons to dislike what’s going on here, and you don’t have to turn that yuck into a yum just because I said so. But I think we’ve had online fandoms around long enough to see how poisonous they can be to the creative process.
For instance, was The Rise of Skywalker a better movie because it went down the laundry list of fan complaints about The Last Jedi and basically had characters stare into the camera and announce the ways they were being fixed?
Look, I’m not immune to having preconceived disdain for certain projects. If I’m waiting for a new installment in a franchise and all that I’m hearing coming out of producers’ mouths is “prequel” and “television show,” those are fighting words.
However, the constant online pushback to projects that are in early development might be one reason it has taken us so long to actually get more Friday the 13th (I’m talking in addition to the long delays amid the lawsuit, of course). It’s been more than a decade and a half without a new Jason vehicle, and that time keeps on stretching longer and longer.
What Fans Really Want From a New Jason Voorhees Movie
Instead of just letting the creative tap flow and having a filmmaker put out the thing they want to make, then having somebody else take the wheel and do that same thing for the next installment, it seems like producers are terrified of making the wrong move and angering the fans, which has prevented them from actually pulling the trigger on much of anything.
Look, we survived A New Beginning. And Jason Takes Manhattan. Even Jason Goes to Hell. A controversial misstep can’t kill the immortal beast that is Friday the 13th. I say let’s just let them make one. Having something tangible to complain about is better than having nothing at all.
Editorials
Monstrous Mothers: Unveiling the Horror in ‘Mommie Dearest’ and ‘Umma’
The horror umbrella is massive and encompasses many subgenres including thrillers, sci-fi, and even true crime. I like to quip that movies like Mommie Dearest and Priscilla belong to the latter category. I even point out they have final girls surviving their monsters, but like most jokes, there is a lot of hard truth behind that. To be clear, Mommie Dearest is highly contested even by Christina Crawford, who wrote the book about the abuse suffered at the hands of her alcoholic guardian. However, the fact remains that there is an abusive mother terrorizing children at the heart of the horror. This is a tale as old as time in the genre, and we see these themes of motherhood, mental illness, and generational trauma often. So, why do we typically forget this movie when discussing titles like Psycho (1960), Run, Hereditary, etc.?

I challenged myself to fill a gap in my cinema history this month and watched Mommie Dearest. I was very familiar with the movie due to how many drag queens reference it and because of Joan Crawford’s villainous reputation. However, I had never seen it in its entirety before, which is weird because I write about my own maternal baggage often. Without ever seeing the film, I knew this movie, categorized as a drama, belonged under my favorite genre label. Some sources even try to meet in the middle and classify it as a psychological drama, which is a phrase that does a lot of heavy lifting to remove itself from what it actually is. After all, what else should we call a film about being abused by the person who should love us most other than horror?
Does Mommie Dearest Belong in the Horror Genre?
The horror umbrella is massive and encompasses many subgenres including thrillers, sci-fi, and even true crime. I like to quip that movies like Mommie Dearest and Priscilla belong to the latter category. I even point out they have final girls surviving their monsters, but like most jokes, there is a lot of hard truth behind that. To be clear, Mommie Dearest is highly contested even by Christina Crawford, who wrote the book about the abuse suffered at the hands of her alcoholic guardian. However, the fact remains that there is an abusive mother terrorizing children at the heart of the horror. This is a tale as old as time in the genre, and we see these themes of motherhood, mental illness, and generational trauma often. So, why do we typically forget this movie when discussing titles like Psycho (1960), Run, Hereditary, etc.?
Mommie Dearest recounts a version of Christina Crawford’s upbringing by Hollywood royalty Joan Crawford. It depicts her as an unstable, jealous, manipulative woman who only holds space for her beliefs. As with most abusive parents, she takes out her frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on those around her. Specifically, those who cannot fight back due to the power dynamics at play. This version of Joan is a vicious bully, which feels familiar for many people who grew up with an abusive parent. How many of us never knew what would set our parental monster off, so just learned to walk on eggshells? How many of us grew up believing we were the problem for way longer than we should have? How many of us normalized the abuse for so long that it carried over into adulthood, letting us believe being mistreated is just part of living?
Watch the trailer for Mommie Dearest
The Lasting Impact of Abusive Parents in Horror Movies
While my mother wasn’t the active bully in our home, part of my struggle with her is her complicitness in the hell she helped create for all of us. Which is why, while I don’t think Mommie Dearest is a great film, I believe it’s a decent horror flick. It made me want to revisit a better movie, Umma, that also dealt with motherhood, mental illness, and trauma. Iris K. Shim’s 2022 PG-13 horror sees Sandra Oh playing a single mother who has not healed. After growing up with her own mother, who was especially cruel to her, she has built her world around that trauma and forced her daughter to live within its walls with her. As someone who was severely homeschooled by a woman who still really needs to find a therapist, Umma hits me in my feelings every time.
Watch the trailer for Umma below
Maternal Monsters: A Common Thread in Psycho, Hereditary, and More
Before the film starts, Oh’s character, Amanda, has turned her back on her family and cultural heritage. She has built a life that she’s not really living as she hides in her home, afraid of electricity due to the abuse she suffered at the hands of her mom. So, when her uncle shows up with her mother’s ashes, she is triggered and haunted. All of the issues she hasn’t dealt with rush to the surface, manifesting in ways that begin turning her into her deceased mom. Amanda does eventually force herself to confront her past to avoid becoming her mother and hurting her daughter. So, while Umma is different from Mommie Dearest, it’s not hard to see they share some of the same DNA. Scary moms make the genre go round which is why movies like M.O.M. Mothers of Monsters, Serial Mom, Mother, May I?, and so many others will always pull an audience by naming the monster in the title.
I doubt I am the first person on Norma Bates’ internet to clock that some of horror’s most notorious villains are parents, specifically moms. I’m also sure I cannot be the first person to argue Mommie Dearest is a horror movie on many levels. After all, a large part of the rabid fanbase seems to be comprised of genre kids who grew up wondering why the film felt familiar. However, I hope I am the first to encourage you to watch these two movies if your momma trauma will allow you to hold space for a couple more monstrous mothers this month. Both have much to say about how we cope with the fallout of being harmed by the people who should keep us safe.