Movie Review: The Hills Have Eyes
Published March 11, 2006
Neither does the plot.
At this point in the movie, I became enthralled with seeking out split ends in my hair.
Kid Brother and Democrat, beatnik son-in-law ultimately save the day. Lots of blood has been shed, the American flag is desecrated at one point, we find that Sloth from The Goonies can have another paycheck, and we realize what the ultimate moral of the movie is: don't mess with Democrats.
I'll say it - I like Wes Craven. I have enjoyed a number of his movies in the past (Red Eye, the Scream trilogy, The People Under the Stairs), so I held out hope. I was apparently mistaken. The plot takes entirely too long to unfold, despite the fact that the idea had great potential. We don't know why the freaks are so brutal to the outside world, nor do we understand what benefit a crotchety old gas station employee at the beginning of the movie serves to them. (He ultimately shoots his brains out, for which I actually envied him.)
If you like gory horror movies with no plot and no logic, enjoy this movie with gusto. For those who like to employ brain cells, don't bother.
The plot has absolutely no depth, nor do the characters. The violence is gratuitous at best. (Not that I'd expect much else from a horror movie.) The teenagers sitting next to me were dry-humping. And I decided that I need a haircut.
The most entertaining part of this movie was the long bathroom break I took in the middle of it. I doubt I missed anything anyway.
Don't waste your time or money on this movie. Rather, go do something more beneficial, like drink toxic waste. Maybe then you'll understand what the freaks' point was, because I sure as hell didn't.
- Movie Review: The Hills Have Eyes
- Published: March 11, 2006
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Review, Video: Horror, Video: Thriller
- Writer: Chelsea Smith
- Chelsea Smith's BC Writer page
- Chelsea Smith's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Sounds fairly faithful to the original, actually, which I've always thought was pretty good. (I've always believed there's something wonderfully perverse in pitting a traditional nuclear family against a literal one.) I'm seeing it tonight, so here's hoping.
Also, just as a point of clarification: Wes Craven directed the original film, but he only produced this remake -- the guy you should be blaming is Alexandre Aja (High Tension).
Why does everyone seem to miss the point of this movie? - its a remake of a 70s horror film! Aja is given the opportunity to exercise movie cliches in recreating an excellent Craven original. Have you even seen the original???
I thought for the horror genre, This remake easily surpassed most recent horror remakes. If you go to a horror movie expecting to learn about the characters you're missing something - Its supposed to scare teenagers! Aja brings a fresh approach, with cinematic nods to Noe and other ultraviolent masters, and does it more artfully than the Craven original (although I thought the father burning scene was more viscious in the original). You're looking for substance thats not supposed to be there - the art is in the exercise of the formula, in the tension, in the special effects. I'd give it 3 / 5 stars. If you like horror movies go see it!
Poor, misguided young woman! If your main complaint with this movie was "I don't know why the freaks were killing everyone", then maybe you should just not watch horror films. They're freaks! They're just crazy murderous psycho people. Enough said! It really needs no explanation. They're ugly freaks.
I watched this movie tonight, and I gotta say that it was pretty good for a horror flick!
Usually, in a horror movie, the "good guys" are picked off one-by-one. Not in this movie! There is a truly brutal sequence about halfway through the film, and the rest is all about vengeance and survival.
I'll admit that the first half of the movie was a little slow...but in an attempt to build up dramatic tension and get the viewer interested in the main characters.
Basically, if you didn't like this film, you simply don't like or understand the entire horror movie genre...
My vote: 3.5 out of 5 stars...
I definitely agree with Chelsea's article, not just because she appears hot from her picture, but because this movie was worthless. Even though this was a remake of a 70s horror film and Aja probably did do a better job in every aspect of the production than the original, this movie still has no real plot and does not follow any logic.
A couple of things that I could not understand:
1. Who is stupid enough to stay in an area that will be exposed to any amount of radiation.
2. If these freaks were so hungry and desperate for food, why do they burn the first person they capture??? Stupid!
"1. Who is stupid enough to stay in an area that will be exposed to any amount of radiation."
Um, ghoulish canabalistic mutants?
"
2. If these freaks were so hungry and desperate for food, why do they burn the first person they capture??? Stupid!"
Well, sometimes even canabalistic mutants want a hot meal...
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/44802)
Well, here's one consolation--in New York you would've wasted about $10.50 instead of $7.50--but the film sounds like a bargain at any price--not! My ex-b/f seemed to think the trailer was scary--I thought it was a yawn. Thanks for the warning!