The Hills Have Eyes II (2007)

[Neville]

(Contains spoilers and  bad grammar)

As far as remakes go, the remake of "The hills have eyes" was very good. Not only it respects the original, but the bigger budget allowed unexpected nods to other genres -adventure films and spaghetti westerns- and director Alexandre Aja even found time to ass some unexpected political subtext to the whole thing, without neglecting the gore and the horror.

This sequel, on the other hand, sucks. It's not probably as bad as the original "The hills have eyes II", which I refuse to watch, but as sequels often do, it manages to take all the superficial elements of the first film (in this case the 2005 remake) and combine in such a fashion that you end up wondering how they could work in the first place. Gone is the suspense, gone is the atmosphere, and even the tons gore can't replicate the sickness of the original. Before you ask, the political subtext is gone too, even if ironically the film now has American soldiers to battle against the mutants.

So, basically what we are left with is your standard, present-day slasher film: Shaky cam in all its glory, characters so badly developed that they are perfectly interchangeable, lots of easy scares and some of the stupidest decisions ever taken on a slasher film, such as the moment where a GI Jane decides to take a pee behind a rock without telling her partners... despite having just told that mutants kidnap and rape every woman they can.

Damn. Considering how moronic the script is, I should be happy these soldiers aim their rifles with the right end.   

[Snivelly]

I made it through about 40 minutes of this turkey.  I hate movies that don't even bother to give you any kind of dramatic set-up before things start trying to kill and eat people, and this movie didn't even try.  Big disappointment.

[Shadow]

(Contains spoilers and  bad grammar)

Karma for the honesty. 

I avoided this one because it looked like it insulted the average soldier more than the audience.

[Torgo]

Did a dog have a flashback in this one as well?   

[Neville]

(Contains spoilers and  bad grammar)

Karma for the honesty. 

I avoided this one because it looked like it insulted the average soldier more than the audience.

Thank you. 

You did well (by avoiding the movie, I mean).

[Joe]

uhg i too was super dissapointed with this s**te fest, its got a cool premise but after the skirmish in the begining when the troops started talking it all went downhill. come to think of it i didnt even enjoy the gore soley because it was pointless and i could give a rats ass about anyone, the film, or the director. i just kept thinking about what else i could have done with that 8 bucks. it wasnt as bad as the hitcher remake but its hangin out in second.

[DodgingGrunge]

It's not probably as bad as the original "The hills have eyes II", which I refuse to watch

Correct, sir.  The original sequel was much, much worse.  The remake got rid of the motorcycle gangs, replacing them with National Guard recruits (in training), and gave the story some "characters", a term I use loosely.  But that being said, I quite enjoyed it in a masochistic  sort of way.  It reminded me a lot of Wes Craven's Mind Ripper mixed with bits and pieces of Carnosaur 3.     Sure, the protagonists are bumbling idiots, the villains are superhuman (and take the time to set up Rube Goldberg-ish traps), and the premise is rather, well, brutal (rape, etc).  But Hollywood spending millions of dollars to create a story that might as well have been a $1 Giallo picture is a testament to a steady moral decline, of which I am supportive.

The remake of the original, however, I detested.  I enjoyed being able to see the nuclear test town and all, but I actually wanted the family to die (they annoyed me, especially the son).  Not to mention the remake ruined one of my favorite endings of any movie ever.

[Neville]

[quote author=DodgingGrunge

Sure, the protagonists are bumbling idiots, the villains are superhuman (and take the time to set up Rube Goldberg-ish traps), and the premise is rather, well, brutal (rape, etc).  But Hollywood spending millions of dollars to create a story that might as well have been a $1 Giallo picture is a testament to a steady moral decline, of which I am supportive.

[/quote]

You sound so enthusiastic that it makes feel like watching it again. Luckily, I know better  .

BTW, I don't want to imagine how the characters in the first sequel were, if compared to them the characters in this one look like... well, characters.

[DodgingGrunge]

You sound so enthusiastic that it makes feel like watching it again. Luckily, I know better  .

Admittedly I have a soft spot for tasteless horror movies that make it to theatres and in the case of remakes, I appreciate the interest they generate in the (usually superior) originals.  When I ran a video store in the late nineties, it was difficult to convince anyone to watch the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre or Dawn of the Dead.  And while I really dislike the Saw movies, their popularity has given me an opportunity to really gross out my friends with films like Cannibal Holocaust and Schramm (thought they'd seen it all... haha).

But so as not to trick anyone into seeing Hills Have Eyes 2, I should probably clarify my first post.  This movie was terrible.  For me, it was terrible in an entertaining way.  But such reactions are idiosyncratic (not the terrible part... there's consensus on that).  If all it takes to make you smile is a head exploding, then by all means seek this out.  If you require some semblance of a sympathy-garnering story or a good-triumphs-over-evil sort of conclusion, this is probably best avoided.  The only reason this film has characters is so that they can be killed in amusing ways.  Furtherance of violence.    There is nothing in this story to change your life for the better or teach you something of value.  Kind of like the setup of a slasher film.  Introduce the teenagers, make sure at least two of them are engaged in a sexual relationship, and drop in a killer.  Shoot.  Cut.  Release.  Rinse and repeat.

[felgekarp]

I'm hoping they'll release a box set with both originals and new versions on, from Neville's description part 2 sounds like a great film 

[Neville]

Now, this is funny: this afternoon I picked the last number of my favourite fiolm magazine and it contains a fairly possitive review of this movie. And it's not your standard "Rolling Stone"-style magazine, but a relatively obscure magazine populated by a bunch of middle aged reviewers that probably don't go out much.

They praise the ultra-violence and nightmarish images it contains, alright, but also it's daring and provocative political message (duh) and even some of the characterisation (can't remember any). Honest.

This said, they admit in the final paragraph that In terms of camerawork and storytelling it falls much shorter than the 2005 remake.

I hope people don't take the review verbatim and rush to the theatres to watch this, although I'm pretty sure the magazine doesn't have much simpathisers, and most of the buyers will rather focus in the Fritz Lang monography rather than in the reviews o horror films currently on theatres.