User reviews

A Wes Craven classic, he truly nailed the suspense and the awkward atmosphere of the beginning. Almost nothing is revealed to the viewer until the later half of the film, which greatly increases the horror of the movie as a whole.

Despite the crappy cheesy costumes and really bad wigs this still manages to hold up pretty well because its all go from beginning to the end and it should have you one the edge of your seat. Basically a cast of unknowns, with Michael Berryman's performance the stand out.

Along with the Elm street series it's arguably the greatest contribution from Wes Craven.

This style of movie has been copied over and over since, but this one stands out from the rest for genuine horror fans.

Unusually, this is one film that I ended up watching long after I've already seen the remake; I always try to see the original films first but this Wes Craven chiller slipped me by. Sadly, I was left feeling disappointed and let down once it was over, mainly because the remake is, surprisingly, superior in every way: the actors are better, the gore better, the direction better, and the music better. The remake also sticks VERY closely to the plot of this film, so all of the surprises and twists were well choreographed in advance and there was little to intrigue me here.

For a '70s horror film, it's not a bad effort: there are some good chills and the film makes a horror star out of Michael Berryman, the bald bad guy who traded on his appearance here for the rest of his career. The problem is that the low budget hurts the proceedings somewhat, with the rest of the cannibal family resembling hippies rather than mutants. Despite the savagery of their actions, they end up laughable instead of frightening. Another problem is Craven's direction – it feels insipid rather than inspired and in light of Alexandre Aja's excellent job on the remake, I can't help but feel it's lacking. Some of the cast don't help, with Susan Lanier standing out as one of the most irritating screamers in horror history (the dog's great, though). Back in the day, THE HILLS HAVE EYES was a shocking and depraved horror flick; today it's a dated intrigue that doesn't stand up alongside fellow '70s movies like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It's okay but I'd recommend the remake over this any day.

Wes Craven first directed a film back in 1972 called Last House on the Left. If you haven't seen it...do so...for it is quite an experience. It blends dementia, depravity, cruelty, and blood and guts with values and basic moral and philosophical questions(at a very base level). He next directed The Hills Have Eyes, which many feel might be his best work. It is a horror classic to be sure for a number of reasons. It has the struggle of an innocent typical American family with a gang of cannibalistic subhumans that live in the desert. This struggle is intense, and blurs the boundary between normal and abberant behaviour(just as Craven did in LHOTL). The basic story is one of survival, not just survival of life but a way of life. The cast does a fine job...some of the psychos are quite convincing, as are the "normal" characters rather good in their roles. The story builds rather slowly but crescendos after the first death and we are given one climactic event after another. The real stars of the film, however, are the dogs...which are integral to the plot, and the desert itself, which establishes a mood and atmosphere of bleekness, desolation, and futility. Craven did a fine job with his second feature, and I would have no problem saying it was one of his better films. I would even concede that technically it is vastly superior to Last House on the Left, however, for me at least, not as horrific or chilling. Just as with Last House, much of the subject matter of the film is decidedly outrageous, with an infant possibly being served up for Thanksgiving Dinner its high point(or low point if you prefer). Unlike Last House, Hills is not nearly as graphic in its action, leaving a bit more to the imagination.

I saw this for the first time in the late 80s. Found it to b disturbing then. But when i saw the remake in 2006, i found this to b very mild. Jus revisited it again. The plot is about a family taking the wrong turn off the main road and finding themselves being hunted down by a cannibal family. Talking bout this original, some scenes i found to b comedic. Maybe if the remake didn't exist, this movie wud have still been disturbing. Well this movie does deserve some respect among horror fans. The dress of the mother of the cannibalistic looked as if she is some gypsy woman. One member wearing bear skin in a desert n most of em wearing necklaces made outta some teeth. The cannibalistic clans looked more like dirty hippies n Mexican bandits rather than ferals. The scene where the kids on the radio r asked about their defence strength n the reply they get..... was really comedic. Sitting ducks. Hahaha... The scene wher the old ex cop is roasted alive n his eyeballs r shown.... Comedic? This movie lacked the tension, atmosphere n suspense. It lacked the brutality. Remember Texas chainsaw massacre being brutal, atmospheric n tensed without blood n gore. Agree the remake by Aja is hands down much superior than this original but Craven shud b applauded for making this n Last house... in the 70s. Except for Berryman, the cannibalistic male members looked more like Mexican bandits who hasn't taken bath for months. Avoid the 1984 sequel like plague. The sequel contains unnecessary tremendous footage from the first part.

After having announced himself to the horror hordes with The Last House on the Left, Craven's next horror pick would be this, The Hills Have Eyes, another slab of grit and grime.

A nuclear family head across the desert in their giant trailer only to break down and find there's beasties in the hills hungry for their blood.

It has become very much a popular cult pic with Craven fans, which is understandable given the brisk pacing, moments of intensity and suspense, while the allegories and messages are smartly inserted. But the low budget does affect the product, it looks cheap and renders much of the violence and sexual aspects (implied or otherwise) as being not very frightening or stomach churning. While some of the acting is very poor, further adding a cartoonish feel to what should have been a nerve shredding experience.

Above average for sure, but not the masterpiece some would have you believe. 6/10

"The Hills Have Eyes" is personally one of my favorite horror films of the '70s era, I'd say this one is just below Tobe Hooper's "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". I love the whole atmosphere the film gives off, and how brutal the film is. "The Hills Have Eyes" follows a normal American family on a camping trip who accidentally crash their station wagon and trailer in the middle of the California desert. The gang consists of Bob and Ethel, and their teenage children Bobby and Brenda, and their adult daughter Lynne and her husband and infant. Their father goes out for help, while the rest of them wait at the trailer, but they are unknowingly being watched by a family of cannibalistic mountain people that are hungry for flesh. As night falls, the clan of mountain-dwelling cannibals close in on the family, attacking their little safe-haven Airstream trailer, and begin to brutally slaughter each of them as they fight to save their lives.

One of the more memorable exploitation films from the 1970s, this gruesome little chiller is a nice addition to the list. Wes Craven, writer and director of this movie, does a great job at setting a mood, atmosphere, and having plenty of scary moments throughout. The desert in the film is eerie itself, it's such an empty and genuinely creepy landscape for a horror film to be set in. Along with this is the brutality factor - this is a harrowing little movie. The violence is shocking and strangely realistic, and it makes it more unsettling than it could have been. I can see why Mr. Craven has gone on to direct so many other successful horror films, such as "Scream" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street", because he's good at what he does.

The acting here isn't bad, we have Dee Wallace Stone ("E.T.", "Cujo"), but most of the other actors are unknowns, who give decent performances. Some of the acting was admittedly over the top and a little laughable at times, but what could you expect from a low-budget '70s horror flick? This film comes to a close in a rather odd way, fading out into a red screen. The ending was surely abrupt and I'm sure there were other, better ways to conclude the story. But, again, the rough abruptness is another addition to the movie's raw atmosphere and visceral quality. This isn't a pleasant movie, and I think anyone who has seen it can agree on that.

Bottom line - "The Hills Have Eyes" is one of the best horror/exploitation films to come from the '70s era. Not the best, but it is definitely close to it. It's brutal, raw, unsettling, and it made me uncomfortable. Any movie that has the power to do that must really have something going for it. Definitely worth a watch, it's a classic midnight-movie. One of my many personal favorites. If you like this, I'd also recommend Craven's debut picture, "Last House On The Left", which is also a visceral exploitation B-movie classic. 9/10.

For years I have wanted to see this film. It is very difficult to find on video in England, which is surprising considering the cult status of the film. When I finally obtained the film in mint condition I was quite disappointed. The plot concerns a clean cut All-American family who leave the road and trek across the desert in search of a Silver mine (as if rational people would do something this idiotic). They find themselves on a bomb testing range which happens to be inhabited by a wild family of cannibals who attack the family once it goes dark. With half of the family dead the family resort to the same savagery as their cannibal counterparts in order to stay alive. THE HILLS HAVE EYES is a very well made film, with a doubtful but imaginative premise. Just one problem - it's simply not very scary. The cannibal villains are pretty crap and are often more funny than anything else. The film eventually resorts to typical Seventies exploitation tactics as people get burned, shot, blown up and raped, plus a dog gets dismembered, but even scenes seem tame after all this time. Infact the film seems like a commercialised, toned down variation of the director - Wes Craven's debut feature, THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT. Overall THE HILLS HAVE remains one of the key horror movies of the late seventies, but in my view it is either vastly over-rated or has aged VERY badly. The final verdict? THE HILLS HAVE EYES is just another average horror movie, no more, no less. My Rating - 6 Out Of 10.

But I don't live on Elm Street so I'm okay. Still, I didn't find this to be particularly scary or anything. I haven't seen Wes Craven's Last House On The Left but it seems to be in the same sort of documentary/amateur horror genre. It does look very novice and it's far from Craven's best work but it is slightly interesting.

Plus, I have no clue what all the fuss is about regarding the shock and gore. There is hardly one spot of blood in this movie and I just finished watching the uncut version. Horror and gore is implied but never really shown or excessively displayed.

I kind of felt that the character of Pluto was quite sympathetic even tho he was one of the bad guys. I felt sorry for him when the dog bit him. But none of the other characters provoked anything out of me. They were just either dull or stupid and not even in a typical horror movie way. Wes Craven kind of shoots himself in the foot by limited the possibilities early on, resulting in a movie with an annoyingly abrupt ending and no subtext or subliminal quality whatsoever. It works perfectly as a Drive-In movie but as a horror it's weaker than a twentieth-time-around tea-bag.

The DVD sports a truly dodgy looking 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer, Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1 that fails to impress at all and a bunch of features, including Audio commentary from director Wes Craven and producer Peter Locke, An all-new featurette featuring Wes Craven, Peter Locke, Janus Blythe, Susan Lanier, Dee Wallace, Michael Berryman and cinematographer Eric Saarinen, 'The American Nightmare' documentary (directed by Adam Simon and is actually really good), Stills gallery, TV spots, Trailers.

I guess if you're a fan then it is a must buy.

Wes Craven is a director who did a lot to revive interest in the horror genre, but he also did a lot to ensure that we were unlikely to get our horror the way we used to. While I personally have nothing against his mega-successful "Scream" franchise and have enjoyed both films immensely, I feel sad knowing that Craven will never be able to recapture the awesome low-budget effectiveness of his earlier works. He has developed his directorial skills a LOT since then, but any horror fan will tell you that slicker does not necessarily mean scarier. Now that Craven has successfully broken free from the genre that has provided him with a living for over a quarter century (and has moved on to directing inspirational films with Meryl Steep!), we will never see another film like his "The Hills Have Eyes", which is raw, intense horror at its best. The film doesn't quite have the same impact as Craven's earlier "Last House on the Left", but it is a more skilful piece of work, and is still one of the most frightening genre flicks ever made.

Like all great horror films, the plot requires very little description. The upper-class, white-bread Carter family are on a road trip to California and decide to take a detour through the desert to check out a silver mine that the parents received as a silver wedding anniversary gift. They ignore the warnings of a crazy old man they encounter at a gas station who warns them to stay on the main road, and end up wishing they'd listened to him after their trailer becomes trapped in the middle of nowhere with a broken axle on the car. It soon becomes apparent that they've stumbled into an area that is populated by a family whom the Carters would never have to worry about encountering back home in Cleveland. The members of this family are named after planets in the solar system (Jupiter, Mars, Pluto etc.) and are able to survive life in the desert by praying on unsuspecting travellers like the Carters. After a night of unbearable hell, the Carter family has lost some of their members and most of their supplies and decide to take revenge once daylight hits. They end up acting more violent and psychotic than the villains.

Not even David Lean has used the desert to better effect. Craven's direction here is top-notch, and does a terrific job at conveying the isolation of his location and the helplessness of the whole situation. He takes his sweet time building up the mutant family's attack on the Carters, so that the tension almost becomes unbearable. By the last act, the film is less concerned about the heroes finding their way out of the desert, but about whether or not they are going to end up stooping to the level of their enemies. Of course, these themes of vengeance and family were covered by Craven before in "Last House on the Left", but this time around, he ensures that they will reach a wider audience by presenting them within the confines of a more straightforward genre film. The main factor that prevents this film from being superior to "Last House" are the villains, who are somewhat cartoonish and not quite as memorable as Krug & Company. However, they still do provide plenty of menace, and like the "Last House" gang, exude a certain likability when they're not acting vicious, especially Michael Berryman, who steals every scene he's in as the dim-witted Pluto. All in all, "The Hills Have Eyes" is an unforgettable experience and one of the best films of its kind. Even though videotape copies of "Hills" have been in the darkest depths of moratorium hell for years, every horror fan should go out of their way to check it out. Especially since we just don't get them like this any more...

The second film directed by Wes Craven is a lot less impressive as his debut, the notorious Last House on the Left. But Craven can't really be blamed for that because he obviously was a lot more careful when he wrote the script for The Hills have Eyes. Last House on the Left almost destroyed his career before it even begun and the shocking character of that movie made him pretty hated among critics and producers. Craven obviously kept that in mind while working on the Hills have Eyes and so, the villains are a lot less "human" and it doesn't at all contain perverse -or even erotic - sequences.

Especially the character-building in The Hills have Eyes is a bit of a letdown, according to me. The villains are supposed to be a bunch of savage and cruel madmen, but they look pretty organised to me and they're overall rather 'normal'. The protagonists of the film - the entire Carter family - fail to impress. As a viewer, you never feel connected with them and you don't really care whether they'll make it or not. Michael Berryman really became the icon of the film and that is well-deserved. Due to his naturally inherited disease, he looks spooky and primitive. Casting him for the role of Pluto really was a brilliant idea. Other positive aspects of the film include the terrific use of settings and locations, the solid directing by Craven and the raw character of the film. Craven uses the hot and hopeless desert as a powerful tool of suspense and atmosphere and I guess that's the most perfect element in the entire movie. Even though I think The Hills have Eyes doesn't belong to the absolute top of horror, it's Craven's second best film without a doubt. I'm not a fan of his modern work and I truly loath Scream.

The Hills have Eyes recently received a special double-disc DVD edition which is a real treat for the fans. It contains fascinating commentary tracks by Craven himself and producer Locke. Besides that, the extra disc contains a documentary about the greatest directors in the genre in which they express their love and motivations towards horror. It's called the American Nightmare and I certainly recommend giving that a look as well.

Wes Craven's second film is well-crafted and frightening to say the least. LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT was more realistic (almost too much), but this perfect drive-in movie leaves you wanting more. It must have been an unbearable shoot. Check out the 2-disc DVD.

A definite 7 out of 10 with Michael Berryman giving the best performance. Perfect locale in these California mountains that is scarier than the Bates Motel. Great cast with all unknowns. Dee Wallace was quite touching as the young mother and the old Grandpa Fred in the beginning was authentic to the max! Even if you're not a big horror fan, you should check this out late at night. Wes Craven has a good eye and feel for blood relations!

Despite owning Anchor Bay's 2-Disc Set for close to two years, it's only now that I managed to catch up with this horror 'classic' – which had been the missing link for me from among all those seminal releases that the genre spawned throughout the 1970s; consequently, I also hadn't watched the 2006 remake – even if I mildly liked its director Alexander Aja's SWITCHBLADE ROMANCE (2003).

Anyway, while I concede that the original is perhaps genre exponent Craven's best work, I can't deny being slightly let down by the film: the desert setting is notable and the action of its latter stages effectively handled…but, despite a plethora of mutant cannibals for villains (in itself, a neat concept), what we see is never really scary or even very disturbing! This is all the more baffling when considering that Craven's preceding film had been the notorious THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972); that said, some of the death scenes here are remarkably vicious (such as that of the old man at the derelict service-station) – while others are just plain bizarre (the one devised for the head of the city-folk, a retired cop crippled by a heart condition, and Mars' own at the very end).

The premise of having a group of stranded travelers at the mercy of a family of maniacs is obviously reminiscent of Tobe Hooper's THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974), another influential (with numerous sequels, prequels and remakes to its name) genre outing from this same creative era which, ironically, also didn't quite impress me as much as I had anticipated – though, cumulatively, it's an altogether more intense experience than Craven's film. While the cannibal family (many of whom are named after planets!) – and especially Michael Berryman's lanky and odd-looking Pluto – have acquired iconic status, their characterization is rather sketchy; John Steadman as the old man and Janus Blythe's Ruby, then, appear as the human members of the clan – who are resented and eventually attacked by their own kin for being 'soft-hearted'.

Still, the victims don't fare much better (the impossibly naïve mother being a liability above all) – and their final dehumanization, not to mention resourcefulness in the face of crisis, isn't exactly believable if inevitable so as to generate the requisite crowd-pleasing heroics. One of the latter folk is played by Dee Wallace, soon to tackle the lead role in Joe Dante's THE HOWLING (1981) – curiously enough, yet another popular horror title which doesn't do much for me! Incidentally, Craven states that his intention with the film was to blur the line between Civilization and the wilderness: symbolizing this is the fact that the travelers' Alsatian dogs – which play a major role in the proceedings – are called Beauty and Beast and, while the former quickly (and gruesomely) expires at the villains' hands, the latter repeatedly triumphs over them! By the way, I followed the film with its much inferior (and partly recycled) sequel – made by Craven himself and featuring three cast members (four, if you include Beast) from the original; see my comments about it elsewhere.

Shot on 16mm, tiny budget, inexperienced crew - these are the limitations that make people creative, and this is no exception. It's standard family stranded in the middle of nowhere hunted down by crazies plot but Craven does a great job seeing as this was only his second movie. The only reservation after all these years is that the actors playing the cannibals seem quite tame and cultured with the exception of the son "Mars" who looks totally inbred. I'd prefer to duke it out against these guys rather than the ones in the remake or the characters from wrong turn. but even so, this is from a day when things were basic, simple, and so much better

I feel like in Cravens catalog there are two movies that stand out as particularly brutal: The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes. These two movies.... Are B. R. U. T. A. L.

Like scary brutal. It is really hard to watch parts of this movie. I'm sitting there like my god this lil flick here is nastyyyy. The initial trailer entry scene is ahhhhhhh HARD to watch.

Also the 2000s remake isn't the worst of all the corny remakes out there of vintage horror. Matter of fact it too is pretty shocking.

This movie really stands out alongside Cravens Last House. The sexual violence found in both movies can honestly be incredibly upsetting to watch. In a way, one may argue that makes it effective and therefore justifies the usage of some pretty horrific sexual acts. Or one could also honestly argue that it's horrifying and poor art. Either way Craven summons something sinister here anybody can recognize. But not all should watch.

This thing right here is a tough one. It is scary- but it can be repulsive in its attempt. There is zero mercy in the relationship you might formulate with your screen watching this mf. Craven name somehow makes the worst look good.

The Hills Have Eyes is one of the earlier movies directed by the creator of the Nightmare on Elm Street series, Wes Craven. How this film was ever given the title as a "horror classic" is beyond me. It's really not that good of a film. Psycho, the Exorcist, Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street; those are horror classics. This film just isn't scary. When the "monsters" in a film are borderline retards, it is a little hard to get scared.

Don't get me wrong, this film has some good scenes. When the "cannibal family" goes to take over the camper I was into it. However, the stuff before and after that was very mediocre. The latter part of the film was almost like a cat and mouse chase between the "good" family and the "bad" family.

Bottom Line: It's not a classic. It's not scary. Don't waste your time

On a road-trip through the New Mexico desert, a family stranded in the area finds that a group of inbred, cannibalistic hillbillies have targeted the group and are set on killing them for food, forcing the family into a desperate race to stop them and get away alive.

This here was quite the fun if slightly flawed effort. When this one works, it's mainly due to the fact that there's quite an effective atmosphere here of being out alone in the wilderness. The film does an incredible job in the first half of depicting the desert of this one as creepy and chilling which really makes it so that being trapped on an open road in the middle of nowhere is a pretty terrifying ordeal and forces the ultimate traveling nightmare. The darkness that surrounds the family is terrifying, as anyone or anything can hide in there, and this film provides that fear in spades as tons of times we see or hear all these sights and sounds that would terrify any sane person. That gets exemplified best in the one scene of the characters run down the highway in the dark as these crazy laughs were heard echoing alongside him, a pretty terrifying ordeal, and it only gets better from there. That comes from the rather impressive event that kick-starts the film into overdrive which is the main assault on the van as the family gets into attacking the trapped members during an insanely fun ploy here, as the mounting tension plays into the initial first trap before the charge into the van and all the battles to confront them attempting to escape as well as one of the most horrendous acts ever committed to screen, and the audacity to pull it off and make it as striking as it is a huge testament to do something like that. By subjecting us to this scene, it works to keep the audience on the edge because now we don't know what else will be thrown at us and become anxious as the waiting game begins. The best part is the events that follow as the film is all action featuring plenty of solid action as the brutal encounters offer a lot of great moments. Also great is the family has a creepy air around them that makes us all become scared of them, and along with their great behavior patterns are the best parts. It doesn't have too many flaws here as the main issue is the illogical manner of getting them on the shortcut which really makes no sense and features plenty of stupid character decisions to move them along. There's also the manner of the rather sloppier effects for the gore and kills which does take away a bit of their effectiveness. Otherwise, this is quite an enjoyable effort.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, attempted rape, violence-against-animals and children-in-jeopardy.

I had pretty low expectations after the debacle that was "The Last House on the Left" (Wes Craven's first movie), but I was pleasantly surprised by "The Hills Have Eyes" (his second movie). Doubtlessly influenced by advancements made in the horror/slasher genre since his film debut, Craven applied his lessons learned to this one and it's an effective movie, especially for its time (the modern horror genre was still pretty early in its development).

The balance and complexities of the large cast is pretty well managed and the pace is helped by well-timed switching between locations. The kills are solid (again, for its time) and the sexual stuff does not go overboard (geez, give it a rest...if you can't handle this you need to avoid a LOT of movies). Yes, some of the movie comes off as tropes or caricatures, but back in 1977 these tropes and caricatures were being built by films like this, not already worn out like they were 20 years later.

I'd say this ranks with "The Exorcist" ('73), "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" ('74), "Deranged" ('74), "Carrie" ('76), and "The Omen" ('76) as among the early leaders of the pack. I know, there are plenty of others in the mix and I may need to rewatch some of them to get perspective, but modern horror movies needed these precursors to achieve the game-changers in the late '70s like "Halloween" ('78) and "Dawn of the Dead" ('78).

When you watch "The Hills Have Eyes" just bear in mind the early era and predecessors...then you can appreciate the brutality that's offered here. The 2006 remake had much improved technology to bolster various aspects of the story, but it's barely any more shocking than what came 30 years earlier in the original. So well done, Wes Craven.

What a waste of time to watch this movie.

I don't have to give any spoilers because the film is covered by the following:

1. Talk talk talk ----- talk talk talk ---- and talk some more then 2. Stab stab stab ---- stab stab stab ------ and stab some more

THE END

I really can't understand that so much people like this movie. Some people say it's frightening. Sorry, but what is so frightening about this movie? you see everything coming from a mile ahead and it draws on and on. I watched this because I really liked Last house on the left and Nightmare on Elmstreet but the point of this movie is completely beyond me, certainly with an ending like that!

Despite being close to thirty years old, Wes Craven's "The Hills Have Eyes" maintains a distinct raw intensity - far surpassing the level of terror seen in horror films today. The plot in a nutshell; a family on vacation ventures from the main road, ends up stranded in the desert, and falls prey to a malevolent clan of inbred cannibals. Though the story idea may be far from original - it is the atmosphere, directorial style, and acting that raise the overall credibility of the film. The low budget and claustrophobic desert setting creates a sense of dread permeating throughout the entire film; while the grainy look of the print adds a sense of realism to the unfolding events. With a brisk running time of only 89 minutes the film doesn't waste a moment in setting the mood - then when all hell breaks loose it is unrelenting until the final scene. The actors portraying the Carter family bring sufficient emotional range to their characterizations, making it clearly evident that this a normal family being tested beyond the boundaries of civilized nature. It is also worth noting the performances by the actors who play Pluto and Mars (two of the baddies) - these characters are portrayed as both sadistic and devoid of any sympathy. Although the DVD print is grainy (as mentioned above), it is THE definitive version of the film and is thousands of times an improvement over the quality of the video release; quite amazing for a low budget film of this nature. Grim, violent, and symbolic; it is an amazing piece of 70's exploitation horror. "The Hills Have Eyes" is a classic in every sense of the word, and receives an 8/10.

This film maintains a lot of the "rough around the edges" quality that Craven exhibited in his debut film LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, but thankfully this film feels much more focused and has a lot less comedy in it. The characters feel a lot stronger to me but the real star of the show is the location.

THE HILLS HAVE EYES runs at a brisk pace and never falls into predictability, even having seen it several times. There are moments of pure acting brilliance, particularly the grandmother's reaction to her husband getting set on fire and some inspired lunacy on the part of the most colorful antagonists (Michael Berryman is a standout and easily gives the film an extra star).

That said, so much more could have been done with this film and its ending comes so abruptly that it's always left a rotten taste in my mouth. A major plot points rely on dumb character decisions and don't really make much sense (would that car trap really work after breaking an axle?) plus the attempt at exposition comes off as rather silly.

I've always wondered who those people are who live deep in the desert and what is going on in their mind and this film represents an extreme example, but they're made out to be so over-the-top that it misses what could have been a lot of interesting anthropological information like we got about backwoods folks in SOUTHERN COMFORT and THE LEGEND OF BOGGY CREEK. Also the interesting angle on survival in the heat of the desert feels curiously missing from this film and would have given it a whole new element of "ticking clock" suspense. The military testing range element to the location adds a little creepiness at the start but never comes back into play later. My favorite bits come early with the characters exploring around the delightfully creepy near-deserted gas outpost, only glimpsing their watchers momentarily.

All in all, this film is a classic of the genre and very enjoyable to watch. It does miss many opportunities though which I hope they addressed in the remake. It could be one of those rare cases where the remake improves over the original, though it would never be able to replicate that 70's Grindhouse charm.

I know this is considered a classic, but in hindsight and with everything that's come since, looks cheap and phony. Cannibals in the hills preying on trapped tourists in the desert below is a great idea for a plot. The tormented ordinary folk are ordinary enough, and those with the eyes in the hills ugly and scary enough, but the action sequences are cut crudely, and Papa Cannibal's growling and screaming in supposed backwoods hillbilly-speak became annoying. Then there's the requisite sappy bit bout the cannibal's daughter with a heart of gold saving the baby, like always. And why do parents come along on these trips? They should know they're always the first to go. When a scratch on a main character's closeups switches from cheek to cheek from shot to shot, well that's just glaring proof of cheap and slapdash. I know I've been spoiled by bigger budgets and talent in the meantime, but at this point i can't rate this any higher. Sorry.

Wes Craven's 'The Last House On The Left' is a horror milestone. It's a very crude and uneven movie, but still for me a very powerful one. It contains some scenes that are still extremely intense and disturbing, and that have rarely if ever been surpassed in subsequent horror movies. I don't known if Craven is embarrassed by it or what, but he seems to have distanced himself from it in his subsequent career. He went on to make several movies that were much more commercially successful, but were a lot tamer and much more viewer friendly. 'The Hills Have Eyes' is almost a transitional movie, the beginning of the slow journey from "old" Craven to "new" Craven. Compared to 'Last House...' it's a walk in the park, but alongside say the 'Scream' trilogy it looks the Manson family's home movies! Craven was still working with a very low budget compared to the mainstream, but for him it was a big step forward from 'Last House...' the results are not as shocking and confronting but it's a lot more consistent and technically more efficient, so I can understand why some horror buffs regard this as his best movie. Personally I find it difficult to choose between the two. The story concerns a family on a road trip looking for a silver mine they have acquired. There's Dad (Russ Grieve) a retired cop, Mom (Virginia Vincent), and three kids - Brenda (Susan Lanier), Bobby (Robert Houston) and Lynne (Dee Wallace). Also along for the ride is Lynne's husband Doug (Martin Speer) and their baby. Despite warnings from a local old coot (John Steadman) they stray from the main road and soon find themselves stranded in the desert. Little do they know that Jupiter (James Whitworth) and his cannibalistic clan, which includes sons Mars (Lance Gordon) and Pluto (Michael Berryman) have sniffed them out and are miiiighty hungry! Craven manages to create a lot of tension in this movie, the "normal" family are realistic and convincing, especially when things begin to fall apart, and Jupiter, Mars and Pluto are three fantastic baddies. Michael Berryman really capitalizes on his naturally odd looks (the results of multiple birth defects), and steals every scene he's in. Of all the cast Dee Wallace went on to the highest profile career ('The Howling', 'Critters', 'E.T.' etc.), but this movie made Berryman into a horror icon. James Whitworth is also terrific, and Lance Gordon gets THE line of the movie ("Baby's fat. You're fat... fat and juicy."), but Berryman outshines them both in the same way that Krug (David Hess) dominates his gang in 'Last House...' I like this movie a lot. I don't think it's as impressive as 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' or 'Dawn Of The Dead', but it still deserves a place among the best of 1970s American horror, and should be watched by anyone with an interest in the genre. If Craven had retired after the double punch of 'The Last House On The Left' and 'The Hills Have Eyes' he would be a horror legend. Unfortunately he didn't, and went on to be involved in some very lame movies (especially the sequel to this which should be AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS!) This decision has obviously proved to be very financially rewarding for him, but it is one that will forever divide horror movie fans.