The Hills Have Eyes II (2007) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
217 Reviews
Sort by:
Dull and Derivative
Rathko26 March 2007
Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.

'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliché in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.

Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliché. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.

'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin.
112 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I like it more than the remake
Dragoneyed36311 June 2008
I myself am not one who cared for the 2006 remake of The Hills Have Eyes. When it comes to inbred psychos, Wrong Turn has my heart on that one. Anyway, I gave this one a chance for whatever reason, and I found myself enjoying it so much more. It's still not a great movie, but definitely a dang fun one, one more tolerable than the, what I found to be, stale first installment.

The action is more intense, the crazies are crazier and the movie is more engaging altogether for the type of genre it needed to be. I do not know why so many people dog this film. It is certainly better than some of the other horrors that came out in the 00s and I would enjoy to watch this anytime I could; I was very satisfied with it as far as I can remember. Hopefully will be watching it again soon!
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Terrifyingly Bad.
commandercool8824 March 2007
'The Hills Eyes II', one of the most pointless and blatantly stupid sequels to come around in some time, is 90 minutes of incompetent film making at its finest. Or worst, however you choose to look at it. While 2006's 'Hills' remake was one of the year's best, and truly frightening, horror films, this sequel takes every spark out of what made that such an accomplishment. Part 2 never gets off the ground, and neither does its mind numbing dialogue. Worst of all, it's not that scary.

2006's remake followed a family who find themselves in the middle of the New Mexico desert, deserted, and one by one being picked off by deranged and sadistic hill people. People who, as a result of the military testing the atomic bomb on their land years ago, have become who they are. Surviving off travelers who wander into the region. The sequel puts audiences in the same desert, now occupied by the military as they covertly investigate the hills and what might have happened to that poor family. When a group of military trainees are brought to the campsite, they find it deserted with no signs of life. A grim reality soon befalls them, as they come to the realization that they're not alone. And the bloody fate that was handed to many before them will soon become their destiny.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that 'Hills' has no legitimate reason to exist. But because last year's remake was received well both at the box office and by critics, it came to no surprise that a sequel would be rushed into production while there's still money to be earned. There's no rhyme or reason to it this time around, just an unbelievable and ridiculous set-up to pave the way for thoughtless characters, unoriginal killings, a non-existent story, and slipping interest. Originally, director Alexander Aja made Craven's cult classic into a remake that was a unique and thoroughly disturbing experience. One that gruesomely crossed the line on more than one occasions. Its frank display of violence, sadistic torture, well-rounded characterization, and white-knuckled suspense were all effectively used to shock and repulse audiences. The second time around, it's rehashed hand-me-downs. There's no style, no grit. It tries to build up tension by dismembering bodies, when all it really does is make for a been there, done that kind film, where even the gore seems tame compared to more recent bloodbaths.

It's a sad state of affairs when deformed mutants who capture women for breeding purposes fails to keep your attention. It's a bore, nothing more. 'Hills' has no bite. Despite a jump or two here and there, there's nothing very scary about this by-the-numbers horror flick. It feels like something you'd see on the Sci-Fi channel, only with some F-bombs, a blood splatter here and there, a rape, and a graphic birth scene that's more gross than shocking. It's cheap. And with 'Hills', you reap what you sew. With no effort given, you can't expect anything in return.

Replacing Aja with Martin Weisz as director was the film's first big mistake, all he does is drain the film of any sort of emotional resonance. But even more shocking is the uncharacteristically bad script penned by Wes Craven and his son, Jonathan Craven. You ask, how bad could it possibly be? This is the kind of dialogue that makes any comparison look like Shakespeare. Craven has had his fair share of clunkers in the past, but I'd never expect something like this from him. It's so unintentionally funny, you have to wonder, is Craven playing a joke on this? Or did he dump this one on his son after the studio payed him off? The film's characters are one-dimensional talking heads with no emotions or common sense. The acting is just as bad. The only character who may win you over is 'Napoleon' Napoli, the scrawny kid who doesn't fit in with the others. Even the deranged and instinct-driven villains, who we might have found some favor with in the deepest of our thoughts a year ago, are met with indifferent. You don't hate them, you don't like them. You honestly couldn't care less. Just like this movie.

Even if you were giddy with fear during 'The Hills Have Eyes', as I was, you'll have a tough time finding anything to enjoy in this piece of garbage. It's as generic as generic gets, and there's absolutely nothing here we haven't seen done many times already. I can't express this enough, avoid 'The Hills Have Eyes II' like the plague. It's frightless, unoriginal, frantic, and a bore. Stick to the remake or Craven's original vision. Because if you don't walk out after the first thirty minutes, don't say I didn't warn you.
159 out of 258 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
More entertaining (and delightfully ickier!) than the 2006 remake.
ThrownMuse13 September 2007
Even though it was generally well-received by genre fans, I found the remake of classic "The Hills Have Eyes" to be a typical modern remake. The casting was questionable and the overused shaky-cam was nausea-inducing. French director Alejandra Aja bypassed the original's subtle commentary on the American family post-Vietnam for some half-assed shock scenes that he claimed better fit the contemporary American situation. Huh? I also found the storyline to be much too close to it's predecessor.

Well, the sequel is a surprising improvement (and significantly better than the original's sequel from '85, too.) The storyline is different, the shaky-cam is only used a couple times (and less...shaky), and the filmmakers were wise enough to ditch the half-baked social commentary for a straight-up horror gorefest. And it's a lot of nasty fun! There's lots of very sick ideas here that most horror fans can probably appreciate. The acting is average, the characters are pretty much indistinguishable, and it's rather formulaic, but if you can get past all of that, then this one is good times.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nothing special
jackie8724 March 2007
THHE2 is entertaining in that you'll laugh a lot and cringe and probably say "oh sh*t!" and "get your face away from the goddamn hole you dumb**s" or things along those lines but I don't know if its really worth seeing- I was very annoyed throughout the entirety with the horrible military characters who don't seem to know the first thing about combat.

Yes there was more violence, gore, and a higher body count than the first one but I am still am debating whether that cancels out my feeling throughout the whole movie about how ridiculous it is (and not a good ridiculousness like Dead Alive or Feast). My time would have been better spent watching Aja's remake for the 5th time.

So go for some laughs, or go for some gore, but don't go hoping to come out of it satisfied.
74 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Kick Ass Sequel
kyleallen_917 February 2009
I enjoyed this film very much, even more than the 2006 release The Hills Have Eyes. Don't get me wrong, they both are awesome horror flicks and they are directed by one of favorite directors, Wes Craven. I just felt like the second Hills Have Eyes had more action and intense scenes. The killings were more graphic though. The cast members were great, especially Jessica Stroup(Prom Night and 90210) and Daniella Alonso(Wrong Turn 2) and Michael McMillian. All three of then kicked ass in this flick, as they fought back against the mutant cannibals. This movie really rocked, especially that the national guard trainees are stranded out in the hills and come face to face with a group of vicious mutants in a blood soaked battle for survival. Im hoping for a third installment to come out sometime, but really, check this kick ass film out!!
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Nutshell Review: The Hills Have Eyes II
DICK STEEL19 April 2007
I had actually liked the remake of Wes Craven's Hills Have Eyes, which was shown here last year. Directed by Alxandre Aja, it was top notch violence and gore which actually sent a chill, because the victims were an innocent family out for a holiday, and to see them getting systematically deeper into trouble, somehow makes it rather horrific to sit through.

While its predecessor was shown here with cuts, The Hills Have Eyes II is shown here in its full gory glory. However you wonder, just where did all the blood and gore had gone. Written by father and son team Wes and Jonathan Craven, the follow up movie (also a remake of the sequel to the original) seemed to be lacking in flavour and spirit. Sure the mutants are back, but there's very little space given to set them up, or enough time for you to identify and distinguish one from the other.

Did director Martin Weisz opt to play it safe? There's tension built, but nothing too riveting. The narrative is simple and straightforward, without much thought into trying to capture the X-factor why the original had worked somehow. Attempting to shock just for shock's sake, the movie opens with the birth of a child, in the most un-Discovery Channel manner, before introducing us to the victims, I mean, characters, and a short scene to link the events from its predecessor.

Again the military's dirty hands are in this one. Gone are the family, and in comes a small squad of National Guard trainees. It's soldiers versus A-bomb mutants, so the numbers come in handy to build up the body count. But in fact, none of them died in any creative manner. It's the usual hack jobs, and more uninterestingly, through the use of their carbines. Boring, and I guess too many movies outdoing one another in the creative death department, has taken its toil on this one, where simpleness and sure death like falling from great heights without the camera flinching, go unappreciated. Truth is, you know that it's a camera trick, and boy, are there a number of recognizable indoor shots for this outdoor movie, that makes it look cheap.

By the time it takes for these rookie soldiers to complete their training to the dark side and become cold killers (fighting for their own survival), you'll be more than in a hurry to head for the exit. To enjoy this movie, the usual leave your brains at the door cliché applies. Just make sure someone doesn't take a real machete and help you put it there.
31 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Didn't like it quite as much as the first, but still I enjoyed it.
Aaron137528 March 2007
The first one was a bit more intense as one could really relate to the family on the cross country trip. This one, however, features national guard members who are wrapping up their training and must stop along the desert to aid a group of scientist and military men along the way. Unfortunately, this is the same area where radioactive mutant inbred cannibals live and they almost immediately make an impact. The setup is a tad confusing as it shows this military man seemingly having a grudge or something against the clan in the hills, and this is never really touched upon. However, like the first one, the movie is very bloody and the action comes at one fast and furious. Still a bit far fetched that the family from the first one seemed to handle themselves a tad better than national guardsmen, but then the guardsmen don't have an ultra cool German Shepard to help them out. I liked this one as it was very fast paced and gruesome, I mean from the opening credits you know you are in for a gruesome time. Most of the action in this one takes place in a mining system and this along with the troops are a couple of differences. Still, in typical horror fashion you will probably yell "what are ya doing, stupid!!!" and "hit him again he isn't dead". So all in all a wild ride that is not quite as good as the first.
48 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pretty Bland Sequel.
Mr_Ectoplasma23 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
"The Hills Have Eyes II" follows a group of National Guard trainees. Among them are Napoleon (Michael McMillian, Amber (Jessica Stroup), Missy (Danielle Alonso), Seargant Jeffrey (Flex Alexander), among others. They are sent out on their last day of training and stop by a base camp of scientists doing research in the New Mexico desert, only to find it empty. After hearing cries of help on a radio and seeing a flashing signal coming from the hills, they decide to climb up there, assuming it is a man who needs help. Meanwhile, Napoleon and Amber are back at camp, where they discover a dying man in an outhouse, and are attacked by a mutated man. They run to catch up with the rest of their crew, and soon after the mutated cannibals begin to pick them off one by one. Finding themselves trapped high up in the cliffs, they enter a labyrinth of tunnels inhabited by the psychotic mutants, and try and reach the bottom and make it out alive.

I have to admit that I wasn't too excited for this film. I thoroughly enjoyed Aja's 2006 remake of Wes Craven's 1977 film, I thought it was the best horror remake yet. But, a sequel? I wasn't so excited about the idea. I can tell you though that this film is much better than the 1986 sequel to the original - now that was a bad movie. Luckily, this film doesn't follow that one at all. The film was written by Craven and his son, and it was done very well. I'm a fan of Craven (I mostly like his earlier work though, aside from the "Scream" series), I think he's an excellent horror filmmaker, and this film was written very well. The story begins rather strangely with a rather disgusting birth scene, from there focuses on the trainees, and then becomes a pure cat-and-mouse game between the trainees and the cannibals. It was a pretty intense film (as was the 2006 remake), and I found myself entertained and interested throughout the movie, which is always a good thing. I thoroughly enjoyed the sequences in the mine tunnels, they were creepy and a wonderful setting for a battle between the characters and the cannibals. The acting in the film was good. None of the cast are major stars, but their performances were nothing below average and they played their characters believably enough. The characters are severely underdeveloped though, which was something the 2006 remake didn't lack.

Bloodshed and gore is a huge part of this movie, and it doesn't let up on any of it. Non-stop severed limbs, stabbings, shootings, impalements, and heads smashed into mush - if you're expecting a blood-soaked movie, you're gonna get one, probably more so than the previous movie, which was gory enough. While the movie didn't need to be so gratuitously violent, I guess it didn't really hurt it, but it didn't make it any scarier. It got quite a few cringes out of the audience though. One problem I had with this film though was the make-up effects on the cannibal villains. They weren't bad, they looked really good, but I just thought they were way too over the top. The cannibals in the 2006 film were much nastier and inhuman than those in Craven's 1977 film, but in this movie they are so disgusting and so over the top that I felt it was bordering on campy. They shouldn't look like normal people, but I felt it was over done - they should have stuck with similar makeup that was used in the previous film, but I assume they were made much nastier for shocks. Clichés are present as well, but nothing too serious. More than anything though, I wasn't happy with the way the film ended. It was too abrupt, too fast, and didn't make much sense. It leaves it open ended for another possible sequel, but I hope they don't decide to make one.

Overall, "The Hills Have Eyes II" is just an okay horror movie, but it's much more violent than scary. I prefer Craven's 1977 original and Aja's 2006 remake to this anyday, but this film is worth seeing if you enjoyed the previous one. It was bland and could use improvement, but it isn't a bad way for a horror fan to waste an hour and a half. Again, not great and definitely not as good as the remake, but worth a look for people who enjoy these films. I went in with pretty low expectations so I wasn't too horribly disappointed with this, although I can see why some would be. 5/10.
19 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Stupid movie that has some cheap thrills...
spirit_of_truth200031 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
My God. This movie was awful. I can't complain about it too much. I went to see it just to be grossed out. It did suffice, sort of. It's funny that the most disgusting part of the movie was in the very, very beginning where the woman is extremely vividly forced to give birth to a horribly mutated baby.

I also think that it's funny that the most notable actor in the movie was the Hispanic soldier, who was a supporting actor in Next Friday. Everyone in the movie did a horrible acting job. It was some of the worst acting I've ever paid to see.

I also expected that it would be much more gruesome than the first one. It wasn't. I expected it to be more gruesome because it's a sequel and horror movie sequels are usually much less successful than their predecessors. I expected it to be more gruesome since gore and violence usually sell a horror movie these days (Grudge 2, Saw 3, Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, Dead Silence), but It actually wasn't nearly as gruesome as the first one, which was yet another disappointment.

The mutants in the first one were kind of disturbing but the filmmakers were trying so hard in this one to make them creepy that they were absolutely hilarious.

I also hated the entire concept of showing the clip of the female soldier's son on her camera-phone saying "I love you, mommy" FOUR TIMES. It was stupid to show it in the first place because they were just trying to make us feel worse for the vulnerable mother than the rest of the soldiers, and it was even more stupid to keep trying to make us feel even WORSE for her by showing it three more times for no reason. This movie was a joke.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Excellent Horror, How They All Should Be.
Chad Kinnair11 January 2012
The Hills Have Eyes I to me was totally unrealistic and quite over dramatic, there was no part what made me feel safe whatsoever. However, I decided to buy the Movie Box Set anyway as it was £4.29 on, I watched the first entry and I thought it was disturbing, I gave the second one ago, even after reading the consumer advice of Very strong bloody violence, horror and sexual violence. I must admit, this entry was much worse with the rape and the sex etc. but it was definitely the best out of the two. This is how horror films should be. Disturbing and slightly unrealistic. It was brilliant. Me and my friend think it is the most disturbing horror film we've ever seen and the best. At times it gave me a chuckle with the mutants lusting etc. but the rape was realistic and what unfortunately happens in reality today. Greatly written, amazing film
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Predictable Collection of Clichés
Claudio Carvalho22 June 2007
A team of trainees of the National Guard brings supply to the New Mexico Desert for a group of soldiers and scientists that are installing a monitoring system in Sector 16. They do not find anybody in the camp, and they receive a blurred distress signal from the hills. Their sergeant gathers a rescue team, and they are attacked and trapped by deformed cannibals, having to fight to survive.

The 1977 "The Hills Have Eyes" is a classic of horror and the 2006 version is an unnecessary, but good remake. This sequel is shameful, using a predictable collection of clichés and violence to explore the success of the original movies. The rookies soldiers have the most imbecile and unreasonable attitudes along the story, probably because they have been trained by the ridiculous sergeant, facilitating the retarded evil creatures to destroy one by one. This disappointing film was a great deception for me. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "O Retorno dos Malditos" ("The Return of the Damned")
30 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Acceptable following with the mutants cannibals attacking again
ma-cortes3 February 2009
Between 1945 and 1962 the United States conducted 33 atmospheric nuclear tests. Today the government still denies the genetic effects caused by the radioactive fallout located in sector 16. A team of soldiers(Jacob Vargas, Daniella Alonso,Jessica Stroup, McMillian, among them) from National Guard carries supply for a scientific group . But a mysterious unseen deformed humans drag away and attack them. The anthropophagous beings murder and dismember the soldiers one by one, having to combat to survive.

This unsettling gore-feast contains thrills, chills horror, grisly murders and lots of guts and gore, including, stabbing, impalement, beheading, among others. The killings are gruesomely committed by the cannibal mutants who hold an eerie make-up by Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger , an excellent craftsmen.The storyline by Wes Craven borrows from the commandos war movies along with the classics¨Texas chainsaw massacre(Hooper)¨, ¨The hills have eyes(Craven)¨until recent films like ¨Wrong turn and House of 1000 corpses¨, and of course the first part directed by Alexander Aja(2006).The creepy maniacal creatures appearance deliver the goods plenty of screams, terror,violence and blood. Atmospheric and suspenseful musical score by Trevor Morris. Colorful cinematography and a little dark during underground scenes by Sam McCurdy. The motion picture is professionally directed by Martin Weisz(Rohtenburg). The tale will like to horror and gore buffs. Rating : acceptable and passable, but isn't apt for squeamish
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Rushed out sequels are always a mess.
insomniac_rod2 October 2007
The premise of this awaited sequel was really good and after the huge success of the remake I expected a lot sincerely.

The sad truth is that this movie is really absurd and inept. The situations are dumb and beyond reason and the acting is truly awful.

This time there aren't likable characters or violins unlike the remake. Also, the gore is not that abundant and when it happens it's truly bad.

The violence is minimal and it's a shame because there are many arguments that make you think that there's room for heavy violence. I mean, there's a SWAT team that is hunting a family of cannibal mutants. You surely expect something different! When I watched it on the movies I wanted my money back.

Anyways this is a clear example of how rushed out movies turn out to be a mess and demonstrate poor quality on all aspects.

A mess that let down the fans of the remake like me. That's why sequels are never welcomed; at least this movie isn't as terrible as the 1985 sequel to the original.
18 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Strong Return for Hills
PoisonKeyblade27 March 2007
After the sensational remake last year that was leaps and bounds better than the original 1977 production, the future of The Hills Have Eyes franchise looked very promising indeed. The remake put director Alexandre Aja, who was also behind 2005's horror masterpiece High Tension, into the spotlight. While Aja remains absent in the sequel, his directing style is mimicked almost perfectly in this newest installment of horror master Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes. This time around, Wes Craven worked closely with his son, Jonathan Craven, to develop a script that would please the fans and take the series in a completely new direction. Martin Weisz takes over the directing chair for The Hills Have Eyes II, bringing the grizzly and dark horror script to the screen in gritty colors and nasty splashes of extreme gore. For horror fans, The Hills Have Eyes II is the treat of a lifetime. Michael McMillian, Jessica Stroup, Daniella Alonso, and Jacob Vargas are the main players in this highly entertaining horror sequel.

After the events which took place in the first film, the remaining four family members made it to safety. The National Guard was sent in to secure the area of Numa Flats, New Mexico, along with scientists that were testing the area for nuclear radiation. When the National Guard arrives and discovers the place completely deserted, they get lured deep within the hills where a menacing family of inbred, cannibalistic mutants, starts picking them off one by one.

The plot is different than one would expect, and while the concept sounds rather ridiculous, most of the movie is actually pulled off quite well. The events play off like a weird mix of Wrong Turn, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and The Descent. The makeup of the mutants is very realistic and, at times, incredibly disturbing. There is a whole new batch of mutants to be seen in the second helping of Hills; Chameleon has a nasty growth on his back that makes him look like a big chunk of rock, blending in with his surrounding, and there are many others with equally strange and innovative abilities that they use to pick off the humans like flies. Just like in the first Hills, this second installment also contains a rape scene, but the one here is far more realistic and frightening. The atmosphere and overall tone of the film is increasingly effective, and the soundtrack is often fitting with the situations.

The acting is probably the movie's weakest point. Besides the acting from the two leads Napoleon and Amber, the acting is pretty hokey and ridiculous. Much better actors could have been selected for a picture like this. There are loads more characters in this film, which makes for more deaths and, somehow, more character development. We already know these characters because they're mostly stereotypes, and that is why they are so likable. The deaths splatter all kinds of blood everywhere, and they never really seem to hold anything back. The length of the movie, which could have been a major problem being so short, was actually perfect. It never dragged on and it never felt too short, although the movie is pretty fast-paced. The action is tense, and the suspense is perfectly built with careful precision. It is pretty obvious that, unlike most of his other projects, Wes Craven actually put a great deal of work into making this new Hills the best it could possibly be.

For being the sequel to a remake, The Hills Have Eyes II is, for the most part, surprisingly solid. This movie takes the series in a new direction with excellent deaths and edge-of-your-seat action. Which leaves one remaining question: is it better than the remake? The remake was certainly loads better than the original, and this one is right on par with the remake. It has more characters and character development, more gore and blood, better mutants, and an interesting plot. If they ever make a third Hills, it will be extremely difficult to top this movie in any way. While Dead Silence was a highly original horror throwback to past horror movies, The Hills Have Eyes II is a ghastly, disgusting horror thrill ride that will be remembered for years to come.
18 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Eyes II
adamtrentonguy21 March 2007
This movies is basically in the category of what you see is what you get. The Hills Have Eyes II is what you would expect of course it's not going to be an Oscar nominated film, it's just pure entertainment which you can just lose yourself in for 90 minutes. This movie is about a group of soldiers who find themselves against mutated hillbillies. In the desert and on their last day of training they find themselves fighting these hillbillies. This movie is full of blood and guts and is extremely violent. The Hills have Eyes II is a wonderful gory film that will keep you wanting to close your eyes. But keep watching and enjoy the movie. Make sure to watch for all that gore flying through.
32 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Join the army! Meet undiscovered mutated humanoids… and get killed by them!
Coventry3 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, let's not get confused here. If this is a sequel to a remake of an original horror classic, does that mean it also automatically is a remake of the original horror classic's sequel? Here's to hoping that's not a general rule, as Wes Craven's own sequel to the original "The Hills have Eyes" – released somewhere during the mid-80's – is easily one of the worst and absolute most redundant horror movies ever made. Part two didn't have an actual plot and re-used footage of the original only to further exploit the success of the genuinely gritty and petrifying premise. Craven also wanted us to believe even dogs suffer from flashbacks and painful memories, as the loyal German Shepard of the Carter family re-experienced his bloody fight with one of the mountain hillbillies. There were quite a bit of alarming signs indicating us that this sequel would be a horrendous failure as well. The remake came out barely one year ago and here's the sequel already? The incredible speed of its release righteously causes you to question the quality of the script. Don't they need a little more time if they want to come up with a film that should be scary, menacing and disturbing? With his excellent film, Alexandre Aja nearly single-handedly altered the general opinion about horror remakes, as he had the courage and intellect of changing essential elements in the plot and adding more nauseating gore than anyone could ever had hoped for. Also, Aja is quite a talented young director and made himself noticed with his French instant cult classic "High Tension", but who is this new director? Aja's "The Hills Have Eyes" was an unexpected hit, appreciated by both experienced and older generations of horror fans as well as the younger and over-enthusiast target groups. It's a really good film and, even though an avalanche of new sequels and clones will be inevitable, it's highly unlikely that one of them will ever equal the surprising quality level of Aja's smashing hit. Bearing all this in mind, plus a rather large dose of personal skepticism, I must admit this rushed sequel really isn't as awful as anticipated. The screenplay is routine and clichéd horror fodder, introducing a fairly large number of characters with few or even no backbone and tastelessly depicting how they get slaughtered by traditionally repulsive-looking freaks. After the events of the first film, the US army has set up a camp in the middle of the New Mexican desert to investigate the effects of the nuclear tests, which took place there in the 50's and 60's. For the horribly mutated survivors of the miner's community that stayed there during the radioactive testing, the scientists and researchers form a tasty starter until the main course of incompetent soldiers arrives by truck. They are just supposed to drop off food and supplies but encounter their ultimate military training exercise when faced with the relentless humanoids that live inside the remainders of the mines.

This basically is just another by-the-numbers slasher with dumb characters who are, even after losing several of their friends already, still stupid enough to separate themselves from the group and act like easy targets to kill. It's also very easy to point out which ones will make it out of this adventure alive, especially when one of the soldiers is against all types of violence and another one continuously stares at video images of her cute 3-year-old son. "The Hills Have Eyes II" completely lacks – as to be expected – originality, logic and plausible situations. The mutated miners aren't nearly as menacing as their colleagues in part one, mainly because they aren't organized this time and only just behave like drooling and sex-hungry prototype monsters. Since you don't care for the amateur G.I. Joe "heroes" and definitely don't feel any sympathy for the eyes in the hills, this film is a whole lot less compelling and involving than last year's original. Most peculiarly, this second film isn't nearly as violent and gory as the first! Sequels usually compensate the lack of suspense and the absence of surprise-twists with extra bloodshed and more graphic killing sequences, but the action in this sequel is really tame compared to the sick footage featuring in its predecessor. There are a handful of scenes to satisfy the bloodthirsty horror fanatics – mainly showing soldiers falling down cliffs or getting shot by their own guns – but there sadly aren't any outrageous pick-axe battles or virulent dog attacks. What a shame! What's the point of a sequel if it even fails to surpass the level of grossness and/or gratuitous filth of the original? Luckily enough the film is never boring or unnecessarily sentimental, and you'll have the most fun spotting all the things that don't make the slightest bit of sense! For example, wallets falling out of people's bloodied heads, women without any muscle power cast as tough-ass soldiers and – my personal favorite – assigning the ONE soldier with a speaking disability to operate the radio communications.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A dull debacle
fertilecelluloid16 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Martin Weisz, who directed the solid "Rohtenburg", will be taking the heat, with Wes Craven, for another shabby "The Hills Have Eyes 2". The memory of the legendary original, which boasted an unbelievable storyline and a dog having a flashback, will be erased forever by this more technically polished remake (in name only). A bunch of National Guardsmen (and women) are sent to a desert research area surrounded by hills filled with mutants. One by one the weekend soldiers are picked off. That's it. There is some hardcore violence and a reasonably brutal rape scene, but there is precious little else to get excited about. The film's "heroes" are the usual bunch of clichés and the mutants, a far cry from Craven's original "family", mostly resemble Brian Thompson from "Cobra" coupled with some creatures Stan Winston had left over from the "Wrong Turn" shoot. Much of the action takes place in caves, ala "The Descent", and is well shot by Sam McCurdy. A laughable aspect is Wes and Jonathan Craven's addition of a sympathetic mutant who skulks around his cave like Leatherface in Hooper's original "Chainsaw". Weisz will be blamed for this dull debacle, but he's not really at fault because he does his best to maintain suspense and squeeze some freshness out of the contrived situations. Not a fan, unfortunately.
16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Poorly Written with Average Acting
McBitter25 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
'The Hills have Eyes II' is truly a disappointment compared to its first film. This movie is about a group of "army members" on a search and rescue mission gone wrong.

Though the film has a so-so plot of its own, the hills 2 two copy cats some of its original scenes. There is a suicidal nut who blows off his own head, a rape scene, and three survivors. The hills have eyes one anybody? The film was basically a sad mess due to its compulsive and pointless cussing, poorly written script, adequate acting, random arguing scenes, a predictable ending, the cast who looks to weak to be in the army let alone in an army horror film, and a lisping idiot. How angry this film made me.

The gore level was just as bad as the first with some original death scenes sure to make you cringe.

So as far as the hills two goes, wait for the DVD and skip it in theaters. You don't want to waste too much on this seems to be three hours actually eighty five minute long movie.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A nice sequel...
Thanos Karagioras13 February 2014
"The Hills Have Eyes II" is the sequel of The Hills Have Eyes and in this movie we have about the same story in which a group of National Guard trainees this time is being stalked by a group of psychotic people who live in the desert and they are also mutants, and for one more time they are far from civilization.

I liked this movie not as much as I liked the first one and that's it because this movie it had not many scenes with suspense and the story was not as nice and breathtaking as the first one. I also did not like it as much as the first one because of the cast and their interpretations which were not as good as I expected to be.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Makes more sense than you would think.
rwcoleman8 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I just returned from seeing the movie and it was pretty D*** good! I loved the first one and was eager to see this one as well but the reviews turned me off a little. DON'T BELIEVE THE REVIEWS! Let me tell you- If you are a fan of good horror movies then you will like this flick! There are plenty of "jump out of you seat" scares and more than enough gore for the fan of blood and guts.

Just a couple of quick points: If you were thinking like I was that these are soldiers and should slaughter the mutant hillbillies then think again! These are trainees who have faults that the movie highlights early on while they are on a training exercise. Plus because they are trainees they receive a limited amount of live ammo. So thinking: mutants vs soldiers is incorrect. Think more: Experienced mutants with years of killing experience vs military trainees with no experience killing and limited ammo! It evens the odds a bit don't you think?

Secondly the movie has some real intense scenes that are tough to watch. It starts at the opening credits with a woman giving birth and almost never lets up from there. There is a rape scene in the movie as well and those can be tough for people to watch sometimes but it is short and leaves a lot to the imagination. It will probably be extended in the "unrated" DVD release of the movie. Even with these scenes the couples around me all thought it was a good movie.

Lastly my only real criticism of the movie is the acting. Flex is horrible as the Sgt leading the soldiers. He would have been better as one of the trainees. Spitter is also miscast as a trainee because he doesn't look the part. Lee Thompson Young does a good job and is believable as PFC Delmar Reed and Daniella Alonso as PFC Missy Martinez is freakin gorgeous even in army gear and has a bright future. Everyone else is average and pretty forgettable.

Overall this is a great time at the movies for true horror fans. I can't stand PG-13 horror flicks. I am enjoying the return of R rated horror movies like Texas Chainsaw, Descent and now this. I can't wait for the next one (the movie sets it up for THHE 3). Remember these are mutants from a nuclear testing ground which the movie mentions is more than 500 square miles! Sounds like plenty of room for a part 3 to me!
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Less exciting and violent than Aja's remake,but still pretty watchable.
HumanoidOfFlesh31 May 2007
An area of desolate New Mexico desert known as Sector 16 has become a testing site for the U.S. military,and a group of National Guard trainees are sent in to deliver supplies.Once arrived,the unit discovers an empty camp and decide to wander around and investigate until deformed mutants pop out of the hills to slaughter the intruders.Alexander Aja's remake of Wes Craven's 1977 horror classic was exciting and gruesomely violent.This is not the case with "The Hills Have Eyes II".The film offers plenty of gore and violence,unfortunately it lacks foreboding atmosphere of dread,suspense,personality and realistic,sympathetic characters who were developed beyond average slasher movie fodder.There is a little bit of terror and quite nasty rape scene,but the characters are cardboard and one-dimensional.Still the film is much better than extremely horrible "The Hills Have Eyes II" made by Craven in 1985.My generous rating:7 out of 10.
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Well-written, very poorly made...
Fedaykin_Sadako23 March 2007
As one can see if they look at the writing credits, the script for this movie was written by Wes Craven and his son Jonathan. I was excited to see what the Son of the Professor of Horror could bring to the festivites.

The script was the best thing in the movie by far. It was a little rough, though...needed a bit of polish. A little more time in the writing stage, methinks. The story, on the whole, was well told and was only slightly predictable as far as who would die next/how exactly or when the next jump scare would be. The ending was satisfying...though I could certainly do without nearly every horror film released within the past few years having some pseudo-tough rock song during the end credits.

The script that the Mssrs. Craven gave to the film is what earned the score of five out of ten...but the script is not the only component to a movie.

The direction was lackluster, the score was like something rejected from a Nightmare on Elm Street of the REALLY bad ones (like part five, two's score was much better than the movie deserved), the CGI was the worst I've seen in years, and the nail in the coffin (if you will)...this movie is one of the worst make-up jobs I have ever seen come out of KNB. Even some of the foley work was bad... The film felt rushed.

Why is that? Why were they so pressured as to say okay to a few poorly mixed foley tracks, for God's sakes? Why couldn't they film Flex Alexander and Daniella Alonso's close-ups out in the desert instead of in front of a green screen? Why would KNB, one of the greatest make-up effects houses out there, put out inferiour product? I fear that it's Fox Atomic's fault for intentionally forcing this movie out of the gates just to make the one-year mark and take in as much money as possible. Some productions can do that well, such as Saw...some cannot, such as this. The production suffered heavily because of Fox's greed. Hopefully, the box office take will suffer just as much.
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Blood & guts survival in the desert
Wuchak27 July 2013
The 2006 remake of "The Hills Have Eyes" was a decent slasher-in-the-desert flick; forgettable but entertaining nevertheless. So here we have the 2007 sequel.

A group of National Guard trainees go to a mysterious camp in the New Mexican desert to resupply and train, but they find it abandoned. They soon discover that the barren "hills" are infested with a bunch of hideous mutant cannibals. Can they get out alive? I was actually impressed with the serious and sometimes moving vibe this film has. It may be a gory slasher flick, but the filmmakers make it respectable. The cussing-every-other-word tends to bring the respectability down, but I was in the Marines and this was how enlisted guys talked in the field, generally speaking. By "moving" I refer to the love & loyalty that members of the team reveal for each other over the course of the story and the accompanying score.

Some complain about the stupid mistakes the soldiers make but, remember, they're trainees, and National Guardsmen at that, not career soldiers. Besides, mistakes are always made in the heat of life-or-death combat.

I heard someone else complain about Jessica Stroup being too good-looking to be a soldier, but I've seen some hot enlisted babes. One girl I knew from high school enlisted in the army and she sent me a pic of her at an Army party in Europe wearing a bunny costume and she was as hot as any Hollywood starlet you'd care to name (she's now a cougar Colonel, lol).

The problem with this movie is the thin plot. My description above is the entire story. The whole film's an intense survival situation.

Those who like gory slasher or survival flicks should like this, especially if you prefer military-oriented stories. I'm only giving it a fairly low rating because it's not a film I'm anxious to see again. There's just not enough depth, epic-ness or hot women for my tastes (although Jessica Stroup has a really cute face), but that's just me.

The film was shot in Morroco (of all places) and runs a short-but-sweet 89 minutes.

The DVD I saw is the unrated version.

GRADE: C+ (or B for gory slasher fans)
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews