The Hills Have Eyes (2006) User Reviews

If you're in the mood for one of 2006's most brutal movies...

[TheMovieMark · 7/10 · 14 March 2006]

Shocking. Disturbing. At times hard to watch. All words to describe the horror of being forced to watch Michael Moore take his shirt off. But these terms also accurately describe this brutally vicious upgrade on Wes Craven's 1977 low-budget horror classic.

What would you do if you were traveling through the desert and became stranded amongst a group of genetically-mutated freaks who were intent on killing you? You'd probably die. Granted, I would kick all sorts of genetically-mutated butt (not an easy accomplishment when said butt has a foot growing out of it kicking right back), but the average human would be in some major trouble, just like the Carter family.

The father looks like he could handle himself in a fair fight, after all he is a detective, but what are three girls, a boy, a cell phone-selling geek, and a pizza place (maybe two of you will get that lame joke) going to do against a bunch of unnaturally strong psychos? How will they survive? Will it be through might or strategy? You'll have to watch the movie to find out. And if you're squeamish then you'll most likely find yourself cringing in your seat and watching with your hands over your eyes. The Hills Have Eyes is a movie that knows exactly what it needs to do to satisfy its target audience, and it does it well.

Case in point... I'm not very vocal during movies. I usually don't clap and scream and hoot and holler like most the dorks sitting around me, but there were a couple of scenes where I literally said aloud, "Ooooooooooh, crap!" Of course, one of those instances was during a trailer for Phat Girlz, but one scene of violence left my mouth hanging open for about 30 seconds. Then I realized that my mouth was agape like some buffoon, so I quickly closed it.

It takes a lot to shock and disturb me these days, so congrats go to The Hills Have Eyes for accomplishing that. It comes at you fast and hard and isn't interested in sugar-coating the violence it's about to serve up. The intensity level starts high and never gives you an opportunity to take a bathroom break. I highly recommend you address any and all bladder issues before the movie begins.

For me, the main drawback of the movie was the "hero." You can argue that he was more of a "regular guy" and not a typical macho hero, but I felt he transitioned a little too quickly from a gun-hating wuss to an ax-wielding killing machine. My hat's off to the dog though; that canine rocked! Easily the coolest dog in a movie since the German Shepherd in The Lost Boys.

"I like horror movies, Johnny, but I liked to be creeped out more than being subjected to a lot of gore. Would I like this?" It's very doubtful. I'll make this as blunt as possible: this is a movie that contains severed body parts, brutal shootings, axes to the head, a person biting off a bird's head and drinking its blood, and disturbing violence to helpless women.

If that description turns you off then you know to save your money. However, if that fits your style then the movie will succeed in giving you exactly what you want. But I have to say that if you think this sounds like fun for the entire family then I'll have to decline any invitations to sit down with you for a family dinner.

Not bad , but still prefer the original by a mile

[sebastianhennessy · 7/10 · 18 November 2006]

What made early Wes Craven movies so special were these eary and daunting atmospheres he was so good in creating ; And this is what Hills Have Eyes 2006 totally lacked. Firstly the music through out the movie was awful and totally cliché and unfortunately diminished any depth that HHE was trying to show. I did like the nuclear mutant idea , but then seeing them reminded me on how the original HHE villains had way more presence on the screen and they had no make up !!

Now I did like the actors , they played their respective roles well The effects were good + I did like how they twisted the original script and added some new ideas instead a complete knock off of the original So my final word not a bad movie , but lacked atmosphere/suspense , which is so important in horror/slasher movies , shame !

Disturbingly creepy

[roadbytheriver · 7/10 · 23 October 2023]

Let me start by saying that it is a truly disturbingly scary production. Very realistic scenes can satisfy horror enthusiasts. The cast gives a good performance. They seem to realize that they are in a serious horror movie. This leaves a positive impact. The production starts quickly and continues that way. The music played at the opening event signals that a frightening atmosphere will be experienced from the very beginning. I think it is one of the movies that those who like the genre should watch, but as I said, it may be a little disturbing. One of those that will be impressed for a long time.

What you can't see , can kill you!

[HiddenVoice · 6/10 · 9 March 2006]

This film is genuinely creepy and effective.Mostly due to its atmosphere.The cinematography serves as an effective technique to scare people.Here is one film that is disturbing and fun at the same time. The story is quite interesting and thankfully not ruined by its execution.It doesn't play like the usual horror slasher ,where a madman starts slashing teens throughout the film with endless amount of gore.This movie is more of a psychological horror thriller.

An American family goes on a trip where they are stranded in the middle of a desert.It just so happens to be a place where governments once tested atomic bombs.Little do they realize that this atomic zone has hidden eyes watching all over them.Slowly the tension rises as the deadly mutants ,who are obviously hungry ,are angry with their visitor breaching their territory leading the whole family to a horrifying conclusion.

Throughout the film,I was hooked,especially from it's opening sequence and I knew I was in for something special.It was an interesting setting and the execution was impressive.The film Directed by Alexandro Aja, recently directed french thriller HIGH TENSION, really understands the basis of the film and gives you a frightening experience.The movie may just be too gory and disturbing but it's intriguing shots and effective cinematography and atmosphere makes it a stand out horror remake.The mutants are scary as hell ,especially when they come out of no where.It's also scary to see a family entering into the predators zone ,it's their territory and there is no escape for the prey.Leading them to a terrifying and gory conclusion.The empty desert is breathlessly scary.It's a fantastic setting for a horror film.A group of people in the middle of desert with no signs of life whatsoever,not knowing what their surrounded by.

The writing is decent and acting is by the numbers,better than most horror films or remakes.This could be considered as cult horror remake.I enjoyed this thriller.Still the film relies more on gore than psychology.It is unnecessarily too gory at times.Though still not as gory as the interesting but disgusting horror film HOSTEL.

An intense experience for anyone,quite possibly disturbing for everyone.Horror fans have been waiting for something like this.

Not terrible, fun ride

[trentonbb · 7/10 · 3 August 2021]

The movie is thrilling, with great monster moments of terror. I felt uncomfortable, but that was intended. A great re-invention of Wes Cravens 80s flick. Not sure it would be PC in 2021, but still a fun watch.

Another Wrong Gas Station movie

[oykas13 · 6/10 · 12 February 2017]

It always begins with the Wrong Gas Station. In real life, as I pointed out in my review of a previous Wrong Gas Station movie, most gas stations are clean, well-lighted places, where you can buy not only gasoline but groceries, clothes, electronic devices, Jeff Foxworthy CDs and a full line of Harley merchandise. In horror movies, however, the only gas station in the world is located on a desolate road in a godforsaken backwater. It is staffed by a degenerate who shuffles out in his coveralls and runs through a disgusting repertory of scratches, splittings, chewing, twitching and leering, while thoughtfully shifting mucus up and down his throat.

The clean-cut heroes of the movie, be they a family on vacation, newlyweds, college students or backpackers, all have one thing in common. They believe everything this man tells them, especially when he suggests they turn left on the unpaved road for a shortcut. Does it ever occur to them that in this desolate wasteland with only one main road, it must be the road to stay on if they ever again want to use their cell phones?

No. It does not. They take the fatal detour, and find themselves the prey of demented mutant incestuous cannibalistic gnashing slobbers, who carry pickaxes the way other people carry umbrellas. They occupy junkyards, towns made entirely of wax, nuclear waste zones and Motel Hell ("It takes all kinds of critters to make Farmer Vincent's fritters"). That is the destiny that befalls a vacationing family in "The Hills Have Eyes," which is a very loose remake of Wes Craven's 1977 movie of the same name.

The Carter family is on vacation. Dad (Ted Levine) is a retired detective who plans to become a security guard. Mom is sane, lovable Kathleen Quinlan. A daughter and son in law (Vinessa Shaw and Aaron Stanford) have a newborn babe. There are also two other Carter children (Dan Byrd and Emilie DE Ravin), and two dogs, named Beauty and Beast. They have hitched up an Airstream and are on a jolly family vacation through the test zones where 331 atmospheric nuclear tests took place in the 1950s and 1960s.

After the Carters turn down the wrong road, they're fair game for the people who are the eyes of the hills. These are descendants of miners who refused to leave their homes when the government ordered them away from the testing grounds. They hid in mines, drank radioactive water, reproduced with their damaged DNA, and brought forth mutants, who live by eating trapped tourists. There is an old bomb crater filled with the abandoned cars and trucks of their countless victims. It is curiously touching, in the middle of this polluted wasteland, to see a car that was towing a boat that still has its outboard motor attached. No one has explained what the boat was seeking at that altitude.

The plot is easily guessed. Ominous events occur. The family makes the fatal mistake of splitting up; dad walks back to the Wrong Gas Station, while the dogs bark like crazy and run away, and young Bobby chases them into the hills. Meanwhile, the mutants entertain themselves by passing in front of the camera so quickly you can't really see them, while we hear a loud sound, halfway between a swatch and a swatch, on the soundtrack. Just as a knife in a slasher movie can make a sharpening sound just because it exists, so do mutants make swatches and swatches when they run in front of cameras.

I received some appalled feedback when I praised Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects" (2005), but I admired two things about it: (1) It desired to entertain and not merely to sicken, and (2) its depraved killers were individuals with personalities, histories and motives. "The Hills Have Eyes" finds an intriguing setting in "typical" fake towns built by the government, populated by mannequins and intended to be destroyed by nuclear blasts. But its mutants are simply engines of destruction. There is a misshapen creature who coordinates attacks with a walkies-talkie; I would have liked to know more about him, but no luck.

Nobody in this movie has ever seen a Dead Teenager Movie, and so they don't know (1) you never go off alone, (2) you especially never go off alone at night, and (3) you never follow your dog when it races off barking insanely, because you have more sense than the dog. It is also possibly not a good idea to walk back to the Wrong Gas Station to get help from the degenerate who sent you on the detour in the first place.

It is not faulty logic that derails "The Hills have Eyes," however, but faulty drama. The movie is a one-trick pony. We have the eaters and the ea-tees, and they will follow their destinies until some kind of desperate denouement, possibly followed by a final shot showing that It's Not Really Over, and there will be a "The Hills Have Eyes II." Of course, there was already "The Hills Have Eyes II" (1985), but then again there was "The Hills Have Eyes" (1977) and that didn't stop them. Maybe this will. Isn't it pretty to think so.

A good, gory retelling

[Gafke · 7/10 · 10 March 2006]

Three generations of the Carter family - father Bob, mom Ethel and their kids, Brenda, Bobby, Lynne, Lynne's husband Doug and their baby Catherine - are driving across the New Mexico desert en route to San Diego. Looking to cut some time off of their drive they unwisely follow the directions given them by the slightly creepy gas station owner and head out onto a dirt road in the middle of nowhere. Unbeknownst to the Carter's, another family lives in the high desert hills, a clan of irradiated mutant cannibals who set a clever trap for the Carter's. One minor car crash later, the Carter's are stranded in the middle of nowhere. Bob Sr. and Doug head off in opposite direction looking for help, leaving the women and children alone. When night falls, the cannibals descend upon the Carter's, raping, killing and stealing baby Catherine away. What's left of the Carter's must now become as savage as their tormentors if they want to survive and get the baby back.

This is a shockingly faithful remake in some ways and an entirely new story in others. Fans of the original film will be happy to see that the storyline does not deviate very far from Wes Craven's original tale, but fans of Aja will be quite pleased with the gratuitous gore on display as pick-axes, baseball bats and even po'd German shepherds are used as weapons. The film is very bloody and tense with a grim, filthy atmosphere; you can almost smell the rotting body parts. Everyone turns in great performances despite some moments of clunky dialog. The desolate scenery is a character all its own; hellishly hot and red, littered with vultures and crows.

My only major gripe with this film was that not a lot of time was spent with the cannibal family. They don't have a lot of dialog and what they do have isn't the greatest. The idea of Family Versus Family that was so prevalent in the original film is missing here, and instead it's Family Versus Monsters. Which is fine, but as a fan of the original, I really would have liked to see the mutants interact with each other more and been given a sense of their family dynamics. And Billy Drago, perhaps the most severely underrated actor of his time, has perhaps three minutes screen time total and one line of dialog despite the fact that his name is in the opening credits and he's playing Jupiter, the head of the mutant family. Will somebody PLEASE give Billy Drago some decent screen time for gods sake!

That said, I did enjoy this remake very much. It was impressively faithful, but it was also willing to present some new ideas. The script is idiotic in several places and there's some downright silly music towards films end, but these are perhaps petty gripes on my part. All in all, it's a fun two hours of blood, scares and horror. As far as remakes go, this is one of the better ones I've seen.

It may take place in 95 but this film feels very 70s-ish; gritty, brutal and nasty. Fans of the original will want to see it at least once, as will fans of films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Wrong Turn.

Pretty good.

Aja sees Craven's 1977 and raises him one HELL of a remake

[jackalman22 · 8/10 · 15 March 2006]

Alexandre Aja, you have a new fan.

Before this movie was released in theaters, I made sure to watch Wes Craven's original endeavor. Let me just start out by saying that compared to today's standards and conventions, Craven's classic "The Hills Have Eyes" seems almost mild when compared to Alexandre Aja's remake. However, purists too skeptic to check this movie out should rest assured that the film is very, VERY faithful to the original. The characters, story, and overall progression of events remain unchanged, however, the quality of all said elements has increased dramatically since the original 70s release. Furthermore, like any other quality remake, there are twists, there are surprises, and for people who think they're getting the same film with updated technology, think again.

The film starts out with the nuclear bomb test-radiation disclaimer, and from there, to those who've screened the original, the familiar New Mexico desert setting is presented for all to take in. Make no mistakes, though. Aja never misses a beat, and he makes sure to take advantage of any opportunity he can when it comes to scaring the living crap out of the audience.

After a very vivid and graphic opening, the film gets rolling, mixing elements of freshness with both nostalgia and familiarity. People who saw the original will know what they're looking at, however their eyes will also be glued to the screen due to the overall difference in presentation and cinematography. The familiar gas station attendant is shown to the audience, and soon after, the Carter family + in-law stroll in. From there, the real fun begins.

Aja and his fellow screenwriter did an amazing job adding depth and dimension to the family members, ensuring that throughout the course of the film, people in the audience would certainly be able to connect with or identify with at least one member of the Carter family. This is accentuated by very strong performances by all the actors. Recognizable, seasoned actors are chosen for the older family members, while younger, relatively lesser known actors are chosen for characters like Bobby and Brenda.

I really could not complain with any of the performances. With all the craziness and gruesome things happening to the family, the actors' reactions are all portrayed very realistically, with emotions dead-on with very few hiccups in line delivery. One performance that stood out in particular to me was definitely that of Aaron Stanford (Pyro, X2 and the upcoming X-Men 3). Despite the fact that Standford was merely a year old when the original 'Hills' was released, he more than proves his acting credibility and fits the role of Doug very well. He does the role justice, and fills the shoes of the protagonist very well. I could go on and on about the performances of the rest of the cast (which are all extremely solid), but you want to know more about the movie, right? One cannot help but compare this film to original. There are 3 reasons I feel Aja's remake tops Craven's original: 1) the emphasis Aja places on the Carters, 2) the make-up effects, 3) the excessive gore.

Whereas Craven gave the deformed family clan plenty of screen time in 1977, Aja opts to shroud them in mystery for much of the film's duration. In many ways, the family emphasis is almost reversed in either film. Aja makes sure to hide the deformed family members from the viewers until just the proper moment, while Craven made their names and personalities as clear as day. I personally think the less information there is about something, the scarier it becomes to the person dealing with it. Aja realized this, and presented it very well.

Speaking of presentation, one cannot help but watch in sheer awe and amazement at some of the deformities displayed by the irradiated family members. I personally have not seen such drastically deformed individuals first hand, and I'm not sure how accurate their portrayals were in 'Hills' '06, but one thing is for sure: they were damn gruesome. Do not be fooled, the little child shown in the commercially televised trailer is NOT representative of the rest of the film.

And then there's the gore. Ah, the gore. Monsieur Aja, you are the brainchild of modern horror, and you definitely know how to ride with the best of them. No body part is taboo in this film, and for all you gore fanatics out there, there are no annoying instances where the camera "looks away" when someone or something is, say, struck with the menacing swing of a weapon. For all those who've said "But I wanted to SEE what happened to him!", rest assured, you will indeed see what happens to everything in this film.

The Hills '06 will satisfy your blood-lust. Alexandre Aja takes Craven's original film and builds on it in just about every way. Better acting, better visual effects, better make-up, better story presentation (i.e. no unanswered plot holes or abrupt "halts"), and much, MUCH more gore. This film is not for the squeamish, and it is my opinion that it will suppress the doubts of any skeptics who, upon seeing this film, may have badmouthed horror movie remakes in the past.

Only thing that caused me to dock it a point were the questionable courses of action some of the characters took. Alas, such things may always fall into the category of "typical horror movie no-no's." Furthermore, I wasn't really horrified while watching this movie. A more accurate description would be that I was highly impressed and satisfied.

Horror movie fans: see this film as soon as you can. Non-horror movie fans: if you see this, prepare to have your world rocked.

See this movie people, it's pure gold.

S10 Reviews: The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

[suspiria10 · 7/10 · 10 March 2006]

Plot: A family taking a road trip to celebrate the mother and father's silver anniversary run afoul of another type of nuclear family, one that is cannibalistic and mutated.

Alexandre (High Tension) Aja wrote and directed this remake of the 1977 Wes Craven (who is attached as a producer) semi-classic. It sticks pretty much to the source material story-wise. Almost all of the original is replicated here but a few new wrinkles were thrown into the mix mostly having to do with Jupiter's clan and their origins. A little bit of a political slant is thrown in for good measure but it's not awfully heavy-handed and most will glance over it. The remake turns up the style quite a bit over the original no surprise considering the better budget and change in directors. The gore got bumped up significantly and the family looks more disgusting than ever. Now for the big question, how does it stack up to the original?. I say it did pretty well. The original had it's flaws as well as this one but I think they were both done honestly and Aja did an excellent job trying to pay homage to the original and breathe more life into it. The acting is as good as you'd expect with a pretty good cast. Lovers of the original should be OK with it, I am.

Both the original and the remake score a 7.5 or 8 on my scale.

Why you should not see this movie

[lauram1985 · 1/10 · 11 March 2006]

I am a big fan of horror movies and have am fairly good at watching gore. I went into this movie expected a bloody, slightly frivolous, but fun, movie. I left about an hour into it crying hysterically and about to vomit. Bloody deaths are one thing, but watching a father being burned alive at the stake while his teenage daughter is being raped by mutants and his other daughter is having her breast milk sucked out of her by another mutant who is holding her BABY AT GUNPOINT is another. I was getting my coat when the girls' mother comes into the trailer to defend her daughters and gets shot in the chest by the mutant with her (now crisp) husband's gun. I was too distraught to ask for my money back but I wish I had. The "blood bath" in this film was not-only excessive, but offensive. If this movie had an underlying message behind the deaths, I may have been able to objectively quantify the film, but gruesomeness for the sake of shock value alone is not worth $9.50 and my Friday night.

Finally, an excellent horror movie

[mecha_meg · 10/10 · 11 March 2006]

The Hills Have Eyes, although a remake of the original, was everything a horror movie should be. Typically, I'm not a fan of slasher flicks, but this movie had elements I like to see in a movie. I don't like to see the protagonists making stupid mistakes (the old "curiosity killed the cat" syndrome), I don't like being able to guess the villain 20 minutes into the movie (although this wasn't the scenario in this particular movie). I don't enjoy picking out who's going to do die first, and being correct. I don't think sex scenes have any place in horror movies. I like things to be important and advance the plot.

Although the movie had some "MTV" elements to it, it still adhered to the classic horror movie thrills. The thing I liked about this movie was the fact that they repeatedly "crossed the line", doing things that you wouldn't expect modern movies to do, nothing is off limits in this movie. Horrifying elements that made you, well, terrified. Lots of "boo" surprises, but also more complex and twisted than modern movies have allowed. I spent most of the movie with my mouth agape... It's not just the gore, although there is a lot of that. They didn't leave anything to the imagination, did not imply anything...they showed you everything.

It was admittedly a little slow at first, but then all of the sudden things began to take a turn for the wicked. One thing this movie did that most horror movies don't bother to do is go into character development. Not a lot, but more so than a typical thriller will bother to do.

This movie was so disturbing, I'm not sure I'd want to see it again. That "Deliverance" mentality...you see it once, you're glad you saw it, but so disgusting you're pretty sure you don't want to experience that again.

Any horror aficionado should see this movie.

Doug has just become one of my favourite characters ever!

[SoumikBanerjee1996 · 7/10 · 15 August 2022]

The Hills Have Eyes? More like the hills have some deformed degenerates who like to call you "Daddy" in the middle of the night!

Jokes aside, this came as a surprise! To tell you the truth, I never had high regard for campy horrors; to me, they are just okay for passing time, nothing more. Therefore, it goes without saying; that I didn't have many expectations, to begin with. Yet here I'm, mulling over what I just saw and also feeling quite ecstatic following my time with the film.

Unlike some of its contemporaries, there is a palpable tension here that they were able to uphold until the end credits started rolling! And trust me, it gets pretty dark in the middle, not to mention, the usage of practical effects and prosthetics took it to a whole new level! Well, all the performances do indeed come off, as you might predict, a bit cheesy, but I have to say I freaking cherished how they handled the character arc of "Doug" (Aaron Stanford).

P. S. That scene towards the ending; when the Camera tries to focus on Doug (Through the campfire) who's coming back to the RV, with blood all over his body and his face, and with him holding his little girl with one hand and the dog leash with the other; that shot, I thought was a great way to ascertain the badassery he had shown earlier!

Doug, my man! I will remember you!

Total garbage

[zombiehelldeath · 1/10 · 12 March 2006]

**SPOILERS** Utterly idiotic, sadistic garbage. If watching underage girls get raped by deformed freaks and then turning into superheroes and defeating the freaks' evil plot is your thing, you might like this 'film'. Totally unrealistic, the bad guys' motivations are never really explained- we know they were deformed from 'nuclear fallout', but we're never told why the freaks turn to cannibalism. The film moves along from one 'jump out and yell boo' scare to the next, stopping occasionally to rub the viewer's face in some sort of gross-out scene, and then it's back to the predictable cardboard cutout scares.

Mature content, but no one mature would want to see this tripe. 1/10, because this site won't let me give it a 0/10.

Genuinely horrific film with post 9/11 resonance

[harryfableson · 7/10 · 22 February 2006]

Oddly, I'd been having a conversation with a bloke I met in a pub about Straw Dogs just before I saw this film – and it does have echoes of that film. The gruelling, exhausting horrific scenes that make the audience start to want the protagonists to take revenge; as well as the bespectacled liberal(ish) hero who is driven to violence.

PROPER SPOILERS COMING SOON

Which isn't to say this won't satisfy horror fans. The opening is a refreshing change from the usual slow build-up dynamic we are (sort of) used to scary films employing in their first few minutes. And although there is black humour, this is a proper horror film that doesn't wink at its audience. Most of the deaths are seen as a wrenching events that tear at the fabric of the family we are on a journey with. So there are real seeming consequences to violence - not just a cast who it's fun to see being killed one-by-one.

And there's a political sub-text, for those that want it. In the scene where the protagonist walks through the model village used for nuclear testing, it's like an eerie ghost town - spooky: but we are also reminded, I think, that the brutality we've witnessed in the film could be chicken-feed to the horrors rational governments once considered inflicting on the civilian population of other countries. And there are parallels with more recent events. I don't want to say too much but the film does explore the effects taking revenge has on us; and the notion that we are responsible for creating our enemies. There's a scene where someone finds an inventive use for an American flag that could be read in two very different ways.

Maybe the beers I'd had with the Straw Dogs man made me a soft touch but apart from a few missteps (the last shot punch-line) this was a film worth thinking about.

Predictably Gory

[happy_hangman · 22 March 2006]

I have never seen the original version of 'The Hills Have Eyes', so I'm in no position to comment on the loyalty, or otherwise, of the script and characterisation of the current screen incarnation, directed by Alexandre Aja.

As part of the larger family-in-distress-from-bloodthirsty-hicks sub-genre, though, it's traditional fare. The cock-sure and homely are quickly offed, the spoilt blonde quickly becomes the lust-object of the aggressors, and the downtrodden liberal hero embraces brutality in order to protect what he loves. The mutant miners, too, as the slavering, gibbering, malformed gimps we have come to expect. That said, these are all tried and tested elements of the genre, so perhaps it would be redundant to complain that they are clichés.

To it's credit, despite the occasional lapses into astonishing improbability – the seemingly indestructible family pet who repeatedly arrives to save the day just in the nick of time, and the feckless teens who develop MacGuyver-type tricks and traps to counter attacks of their foes – it does have a certain unpredictability. There are violent set-pieces, of course, but most of these seem to emerge out of what passes for a plot – rather than from a need to see someone eviscerated according to a set cinematic schedule. How much this structure is borrowed from the original, or is a refinement of the same, I cannot say.

What really lets the film down is a lack of decent characterisation. We are not invited to sympathise with them – other than, in the most general terms, the unfortunate circumstance of being butchered by mutants – so, ultimately, we have no emotional investment in caring who lives or dies.

In the final frames we see the same electrical binocular view of our heroes as in earlier scenes, indicating, of course, that the defeated mutants are not their only threat…and that a franchise is on the way.

Mildly diverting, if predictable, gore-filled twaddle.

Gory Shocker

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 6 February 2010]

The last decade really has been something of a nadir where American film making is concerned . Remakes and sequels dominate the multiplexes and things show signs of getting worse . Earlier tonight I saw trailers for THE WOLFMAN and THE CRAZIES which sums up the lack of imagination from Hollywood . Hollywood was once a dream factory except the dreams in real life quickly fade while Hollywood dreams remain for eternity - at least in theory . I'll say one good thing about Hollywood studios and that is they've never had the insane temerity to remake the likes of ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES and CASABLANCA . Please for the love of humanity don't remake these masterpieces . But I have nightmares that it's only a matter of time

This film is a remake of Wes Craven's 1977 film and my expectations were not high . I'd seen the remake of THE OMEN a few days previously and did have the consolation that Craven's film isn't a firm favourite so French director Alexandre Aja should feel free to totally ruin his remake and there was no way he could emulate the nakedly lazy shot by shot recreation of THE OMEN directed by John Moore

Perhaps " pleasantly surprised " is the wrong phrase because there's very little here that can be called pleasant . It's a horror film and a rather stomach churning one at that . Despite an original opening scene the screenplay follows the same basic plot as the original as a family camping in the remote New Mexico desert find themselves under mortal peril . Aja has kept the most memorable scene from the original where a mutant does an Ozzy Osbourne on a budgie

After this the remake starts going its own way and develops the back story of who the villains are , something that from memory the original didn't . The mutants are descended from miners who refused to leave their town during the atomic tests of the 1950s . They are literally monsters in a remote wilderness and the make up effects are very good , especially one wretched creature who due to the size of his head is unable to leave his chair

As the narrative continues director Aja ratchets up the gore level and brutality to the maximum , some of which is rather stomach churning . It's not a film for the faint of heart but doesn't pretend to be and fans of the " backwoods brutality " sub-genre of horror will certainly like it

Retired cop takes his family through a desert and finds themselves being stalked by a clan of psychotic murderers.

[tbeales-1 · 7/10 · 20 February 2006]

I found the Hills Have Eyes to be a decent horror/thriller. Not too suspenseful, yet eerie all the same. I'm not a huge fan of Wes Craven, yet I do enjoy his movies from time to time.

The Hills Have Eyes takes the Carter family thru a terrifying experience. A retired old cop takes his family on a trip across the USA. Our story takes place in a desert. After making a wrong turn and being warned to, "Stay on the mail road, you here.", by a gas/junk store attendant. The Carter family find themselves being followed and stalked by an inbred clan of psychotic murderers. Kidnapped and tortured, the family barely escapes. Or do they?

I like this movie. It takes a little while to get going, but if you really think about the story and the characters situation it becomes very horrifying. I think the Hills Have Eyes is a must see.

Solid remake

[timhayes-1 · 7/10 · 27 March 2007]

Alexandre Aja's remake of the Wes Craven classic about a family besieged in the desert by cannibals. This film was a lot better than I thought it would be. While sticking closely to the original's plot, there are a few new twists added to the concept. The monsters aren't really fleshed out, but their past is given more of an explanation. The film is also gorier than the original. Again, this is more of an update tactic. Dan Byrd turns in another fine performance as does Emilie De Ravin. Ted Levine is appropriately gruff as the father. The monsters seem very interchangeable. Its obvious that there are several of them, but they have no personalities like they did in the original. I also don't remember the head of the clan being in a wheelchair with a bulbous head before either. Gone is the brute leader, in is a crippled brain. Some changes work. Some don't. Still, it could have been a lot worse.

Excellent Survival Horror Film

[beckmen · 8/10 · 14 March 2006]

I haven't seen the original, but I now want to because this movie rocked. The movie starts as a slow-boil suspense/horror movie, provides some decent jump-scares (at least in the theater) and spends some time building up character. The movie then switches gears and turns into a gritty, brutal horror movie more the likes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and further switches to gears to a action/revenge movie, but still with horror elements. It's scary, sick, nearly uncompromising (the unrated cut will undoubtedly be so) and disturbing, but also adrenaline-filled and riveting. Certainly NOT for the weak-stomached person. People were leaving the theater, and the IMDb boards are rife with people damning the movie for it's 'lack of moral substance' and 'taste'. This movie isn't for the average movie-goer. It's for the horror buffs. Alexendre Aja should be proud, and is 2-for-2 in my book having done this and High Tension.

A kind of poorly made and disgusting movie.

[ironcraftleague · 6/10 · 21 March 2019]

Going into this I never saw the original. However, I came out of it disgusted and confused. There's a certain scene that really bugged me to where I paused the movie for a breather (for people who watched you can probably guess that scene). The editing was weird at certain point and the digital effects were also weird, however there are some things I did like. I liked the "Breakfast Time" scene. I liked how it fixed the original a bit and did things different (according to what I have seen in some analysis reviews). Everything else is kinda done weird or disturbing. It's not enjoyably disturbing because of the nature of the film, and if it's intentional then I would lower the score because I simply didn't like that, but there was some things that I did enjoy. There's no charm or good execution. The family is passable I guess. This is a 6/10.

Not scary, just deeply unpleasant.

[Colmo2k4 · 1/10 · 19 October 2006]

I'm not sure why anyone would watch this - to watch graphic violence, to be grossed out by the moronic mutants, or laugh as the armed male protagonists turn tail and run when presented with a clear opportunity for a killing blow on those that have terrorised them? One minute, the boy is running away from an unarmed mutant, shooting blindly behind him, the next he has the awareness to set a booby-trap for the same mutant - and when it blows, he laughs, having witnessed his mother's heart being eaten moments before? There's no dark humour, and it's difficult to care for most of the protagonists, apart from the young mother, who gets killed anyway. Awful.

Scary and intense! A remake that beats the original!

[HarryWarden · 9/10 · 4 March 2006]

We've seen dozens of remakes in the past several years: Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Ring, Dawn of the Dead, The Fog. None could hold a candle next to the original films.

Could it be? After all this time, do we finally found a remake that's actually superior? You're damn right! The Hills Have Eyes is not at all like the other remakes in this ungodly trend. It's not a cheap cash-in. It's a movie made with respect by horror filmmakers for horror fans.

Sure, it has its share of problems: There are too many cheesy false scares, they added a corny patriotic subtext, and it sticks so close to the original that fans will find little in the way of surprises. But it's a leaner, meaner animal than Wes Craven's original film. The characters are more believable, the mutants are scarier, and the whole thing is incredibly visceral! This is the first studio horror film in years that I've liked...mainly because it doesn't feel like a studio horror film.

Funny side note: A girl next to me in the theater was silently weeping through the last half of the movie. Guess it made an impression.

A worthy remake

[bensonmum2 · 6/10 · 10 March 2006]

I've been a fan of the original The Hills Have Eyes since I first saw it during a midnight showing while in college. I had my doubts about the remake, but as I enjoyed Aja's High Tension more than I probably should have, I at least felt the film was in good hands. I still enjoy the 1977 version more, but my faith in Aja as an up and coming player in horror was not misplaced.

The film is very faithful to the plot Craven used in 1977 - a family traveling cross country finds themselves stranded in the desert and under attack from a mutant family living in the nearby hills. There are a few significant changes (the crater full of abandoned vehicles and the nuclear test city) probably due more than anything to a much larger budget, but these changes actually add even more interest and variety to the script.

There's a lot here to enjoy. The acting is great and definitely an improvement over the first film. I especially enjoyed Dan Byrd and Aaron Stanford's performances over the same characters from 1977. The new film is much more graphic than the first film. Aja doesn't skimp when it comes to showing the blood and gore. Aja has done his best to keep the brutality and savagery from the first film in his remake. And, for the most part, he has succeeded. One complaint I've already read on the internet is the movie is too slow. I completely disagree with that statement. I enjoyed the pacing throughout the film. The Hills Have Eyes may start off slow, but it builds to finale full of violence.

But there are a few areas where I had problems with the film. One thing that bothered me was the treatment of the mutant family. They never felt like real characters as there was virtually no character development within the mutant family. They are just there. I was also bothered by some technical aspects involving camera work and editing. The movies features what I consider to be way too many shots filmed with a hand-held camera and edited in a rapid, MTV style. Maybe I'm just getting old, but there were several moments during the film where I wanted to scream at Aja, "Be still and let me see what's going on". It was too much for me. Also, I thought the exposition was handled rather clumsily. The preaching like exposition given by the immobile mutant felt forced. Finally, and I realize many will disagree, I enjoy the low-budget look of the original. The look helped to give the movie a feeling that anything could happen. In contrast, Aja's film is much more polished looking. I won't go so far as to call it over-produced, but the look of the movie doesn't add as much atmosphere as the lower budget look.

In the end, while I did have problems with certain aspects of the film, overall The Hills Have Eyes is a solid horror film. Fans of the original should be able to find something here to enjoy that doesn't trample all over their memories of the first film.

Quite Possibly the most Mind-Numbing Movie I've ever Seen

[odrailgaug · 1/10 · 12 March 2006]

Another remake, another waste of everyone's time. Hollywood has become a thrift store for tired plots. Take this garbage movie for example: A family takes a road trip. Guess what happens next? The car breaks down! Guess what happens next? Psycho mutants pick off family members one by one. Guess what happens next? A main character emerges from among the survivors and proceeds to decimate the mutants in ludicrous fashion. It's like The Evil Dead meets an even crappier version of The Evil Dead with mutants modeled after that ugly fellow from The Goonies.

Lame.

And now, here's everything I hated about the movie's premise. First of all, why is it that Hollywood believes that radiation makes you some sort of super mutant? Shouldn't the victims just get cancer or radiation sickness? But the baddies in this film weren't merely free of such maladies; they were, in fact, enhanced with physical strength and apparent resistance to shot gun blasts, 80 foot falls, and pick axes to the lungs. Second, even if radiation could give you super powers, what about radiation provokes a primal urge to kill normal-looking people--and only normal-looking people? Why didn't these rabid uglies ever turn on each other? Does radiation poisoning lead to strong communal bonds or something? Third, if the mutants have not been eating each other and only been dining on unsuspecting vacationers, then are we to assume that they've been eating an entire family of "normals" each month since the fifties? AND, they've been reproducing--instead of having been left sterile? Fourth, Doug and Bob abandon their defenseless family to seek out help--and Doug's instructions are to just wander aimlessly until he stumbles upon someone able to provide assistance. Like someone who has a gun, perhaps. Like Bob, who just goes of by himself like the macho lone wolf no one needs in this predicament.

By the way, only Republicans can use guns, apparently. Thanks for the political commentary, Hills Have Eyes.

Unredeemable characters making unredeemable decisions. The most respectable protagonist was the dog.

Taking a cue from the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Wolf Creek, and The Devil's Rejects, the monsters were--surprise--rednecks. What is this trope? Do people in Hollywood think country people are frightening? Granted, rednecks irritate me just as much as the next guy, but I'm tired of seeing these cousin-diddlers in every single horror flick committed to film these days.

This movie was God-awful. I went to see it in hopes it would at least be enjoyable in the "it's so bad it's funny" sorry of way, but I was just left with deep regret and self-loathing.

Blood, blood, some guts and brains and burning flesh, but what is the point?

[Foustarino · 6/10 · 31 March 2006]

I've always loved desert movies. And road trip movies. And even some slasher flicks. But come on, this new version of "The Hills Have Eyes" is a complete waste of money, time, talent, and natural resources. Think of all the people working on this film, the time it took from their lives, and the chunks of the Earth's crust that went into creating it and you have to stop and wonder, what the hell good could it possibly do? Well, one quick answer is that audiences are treated--though all too briefly--to the beautifully talented Ted Levine and Kathleen Quinlan. Remember Ted Levine as the beastly bad dude in "Silence of the Lambs"? He receives his filmic revenge here when the cannibalistic mutants have at him.

So, aside from the veterans Levine and Quinlan, some great panoramic shots of the good ol' desert, and one subtle, sweet scene between Quinlan and her kids on the topic of "The Chronic," this re-make doesn't contribute much to the well-being of Americans--as the opening credit sequence leads audiences to believe it might. Wes, where are you buddy?