The Hills Have Eyes Review

Reader Comments

1. axleu 03/09/2006 @ 10:21pm

   I hated (like ALL my friends) Hostel (not funny, not sexy, not shocking for a second, and the first 40 minutes, oh my god, soooooooo long!), but I’m ready to bet I’ll love Aja’s The hills have eyes!!!!

2. jon pais 03/09/2006 @ 11:30pm

   “I’m ready to bet I’ll love Aja’s The hills have eyes!!!”

   Why, exactly?

3. logboy 03/09/2006 @ 11:38pm

   theyre already talking DVD details, with Aja saying the MPAA’s requested footage-removal will be reversed and a 50 minute making-of will be done to a high standard, so I would expect that to arrive in a few months - the dates between cinema and DVD are tightening as fangoria rightly say…

4. Pygar 03/10/2006 @ 4:28am

   I really think you need to see the original film, as I believe the remake follows the original events closely. I’d be interested in how you view the same degrading events presented by a different director. In the original, a burning scene near the start sets up the fact that the hill-dwellers mean business, setting up the peril for the rest of the family. The baby in peril was also in the original and effectively provided taut suspense for the remainder of the film.

   I’d like to hear if you think the original was as degrading?

5. collin a 03/10/2006 @ 6:09am

   I’m with Pygar, Todd. You should try and see the original fim. Early-ish Craven has always proved pretty fascinating to me, and while all of the above Pygar enumerates does appear, it never struck me as so mean-spirited as what you describe.

   Definitely not try to change your opinion or tell you you’re wrong for thinking so, just curious to see how you’d react to the original film b/c I don’t think I’ve read anything from you quite so venomous before! I’ve reacted to films that way in the past (thinking of THE CELL) and have tried re-visiting / re-evaluating them, with mixed results.

6. Caterpillar 03/10/2006 @ 7:27am

   I would like to know if Todd is a father? I know I’m looking forward to seeing a toddler threatened with a gun while its mother is violently and repeatedly raped but I also know that my attitude towards that kind of twisted stuff may very well change as soon as I have a wife and/or children of my own.

7. CTDeLude 03/10/2006 @ 7:54am

   I’m kinda amazed nowadays the length in which people will go to defend something so unredeemable as unrepetant gore and the savagery of rape in film. I understand all about context and am freely willing to accept the use of gore and violence within context; but seemingly this is nowhere near the case from Todd and Canfield’s descriptions. Isn’t their a point when enough is enough? I can accept that horror films can be well made and well thought out despite the critical reaction they often receive. But just like we don’t accept the badness of UV despite it’s somewhat well done action why do we accept the depravity of a film just because it has some “really cool gore?” I don’t get this dual way of thinking, especially in regards to horror films when fans often seemingly just let things go despite how bad a film can be just because it’s horror.  I don’t count myself a prude but I can’t get my head around that.

8. dullboy 03/10/2006 @ 8:09am

   I don’t understand how people seem to be getting all up in arms about the depravity of this film (or the defending of it) when the original was just as fucked. Everyone should have known what to expect from a director such as Aja remaking a movie that was already obscene and repulsive. First thing you have to accept is that the original film was “entertaining” (or interesting as I like to put it) enough to make you want to see the remake. If not, then don’t see it. I thought the first Hills was fucked (as was Craven’s previous film of that era, Last House), but I accepted that as groundbreaking and ballsy and interesting enough to warrant subsequent viewings. Knowing that “it’s only a movie” as the trailer of Last House suggests, I don’t feel guilty for doing so. The only place where I think Aja failed remaking Hills is that he didn’t add sympathy like the original did by showing the deformed family’s interaction among themselves...how Ruby had learned that what they were doing was wrong and was willing to fight her family for that.

9. Kaz 03/10/2006 @ 9:37am

   I amazed that there’s a review with spoilers in it.

   How am I supposed to use your review to decide if I want to see the film if you ruin the film for me?

   That makes it a not at all helpful review despite the level of insightfulness.

   Apparently, reviewing films without spoilers is a lost art.

10. Joshua 03/10/2006 @ 11:36am

    After a few days of thinking about it and talking to a couple of people I’ve decided to just take the movie as it is. Good old fashioned splatterpunk. Sure I wish Aja had made a better movie but I’ll take what I can get.

    One thing I’ve always been interested in seeing is a movie like this only without the radioactive mutants. The family gets stranded and just eventually tear each other apart.

    As for the rape & murder & all the grisly stuff...yes it’s all bad in real life but that’s what some viewers are in the theater for. The same folks who watch BD/SM Nun/Prison/Swamp Feast of the Bloody Damned Vixens from Hell and enjoy it all will get at least a couple of splatter laughs. This will be a good movie to throw on, get hammered, and hoot it up with buddies.

11. Marten 03/10/2006 @ 12:34pm

    Let’s face it, people are becoming increasingly desensitized to the Horror genre and old tricks don’t cut it anymore. That’s why directors like Aja & Roth are pushing the envelope in the hope of resuscitating interest in such films to bring in more viewers/ticket sales. Unfortunately, most of the so-called Horror films nowadays elicit shock and disgust rather than scares and horror. I confess to being morbidly curious, hence, do watch most of these films. So, no matter how much you analyze the merits - or the lack thereof - of films like Hostel, Saw, Cabin Fever, Wolf Creek, Hills Have Eyes, etc. they’re all guilty of the same sin. The last time I felt creeped out was when I watched Ju-on. Back then, Hollywood hadn’t jumped on the Japanese-horror-film-remake bandwagon yet and the movie felt like a fresh breeze in a rather stale genre.

12. BtoFu 03/10/2006 @ 12:49pm

    Going to see Hills tomorrow, going in fresh despite some of the critique it’s been getting.

13. Todd Brown 03/10/2006 @ 12:58pm

    Caterpillar: yes, I am a father - my son turns five in a couple weeks - and the film definitely hit some hot buttons as a result.

    Kaz: Could the spoiler warning have possibly been any more obvious? If you can’t read what’s right in front of your face then don’t come crying.

    Marten: as I say in the review I very specifically don’t think Hostel makes the same error this film does. I get where you’re coming from on the de-sensitization issue but that’s a different kettle for another time ...

    Anyway ... as should be clear to most regulars here I have no issue at all with the depiction of violence on screen. The one caveat to that is that the violence needs to be grounded in something more substantial than ‘rape is fun!’ and Aja seems perfectly happy to stop there. I think Hostel is ultimately pretty shallow and will fade from memory pretty quickly but Roth’s goal is very clearly to inspire horror and repulsion. Aja is looking to inspire cheers. It’s a major, major difference.

    And yeah, I know I should see the original ... I’ve been meaning to dip into old Craven for a good while now ...hard to clear out the constantly growing stack of new stuff enough to dip into the old classics.

14. Kaz 03/10/2006 @ 2:17pm

    Todd,

    I saw the spoiler warning. I didn’t even read the review. My point is that why review the movie if you’re going to spoil it? You’re simply posting your comments so that other people can agree/disagree with your assessment and not helping those that haven’t seen the film.

    A review with a spoiler in it is as pointless as it can get.

15. Todd 03/10/2006 @ 2:21pm

    Sometimes when talking about the issues a film raises you need to directly address specific moments within the film. That was the case here. I’d rather be specific and substantive than vague and pointless.

16. axleu 03/10/2006 @ 3:50pm

    “I’m ready to bet I’ll love Aja’s The hills have eyes!!!”

    Why, exactly?

    ‘cause I liked his first two movies (Furia: a lot, and High tension: pretty “cool” too bad for the unnecessary twist), and it’s just a premonition, if you like…

17. nathaniel a. landry 03/10/2006 @ 4:58pm

    Hi I’m new, but I always pass through and check out the site, I saw the review and more than likely I won’t be seeing it anytime soon because of the rape scenes. I wanted to check this out since I liked High Tension, but if the rape scenes are that bad, I’ll have to pass.The reason why, recently a VERY loved one of mine was raped and it’s something that is REALLY hard to fathom and get off your mind. While I didn’t take it seriously before, well, I KNEW it was serious, it is something that you overlook until it hits home, and it hits you pretty HARD. Todd, thanks for the heads up on this ‘cause I would have been PISSED if I spent 8 bucks to see this....peace!!

18. Kurt 03/10/2006 @ 5:41pm

    Hostel is ultimately pretty shallow and will fade from memory pretty quickly but Roth’s goal is very clearly to inspire horror and repulsion.

    Todd: There is more going on subtext-wise (even it is very, very near the surface) in Hostel than about 95% studio-horror remakes. Really, Land of the Dead (which is also flawed), Dark Water (which is more of a drama than a horror) and The Ring and only about 10% of the Dawn Remake had anything to say other than cheap thrills. Hostel isn’t perfect, but there is at least something to chew on.

19. JohnnyBender 03/10/2006 @ 6:51pm

    Saw a sneak preview of this in Toronto last Thursday. My friend Dan and I thought it was hilarious.

    Was it just me or did it seem like the director was schizophrenic? He goes from pushing the boundaries of “acceptable content” in a hollywood film, to the standard underdog saves the day slow-motion walk over the hill. It was ridiculous!

    I loved Haute Tension. What the fuck happened Aja?

20. Todd Brown 03/10/2006 @ 8:48pm

    Yeah, there are definitely some weird tonal shifts, I’m with you there Johnny. It starts with really over the top - and really fun - action, then shifts into extreme realism (as realistic as you can get given that half of the characters are mutants), and then just winds down into incredibly obvious cliches. The shotgun drop was one of the most insanely obvious, telegraphed moves I’ve seen in a long time ... it’s like he just ran out of ideas and went with old faithful but didn’t even execute it particularly well.

    And Kurt, I’m not saying that Hostel’s got nothing going on subtextually because there is something there, I just think it’s a pretty slender thread. I know you got more out of it than I did, though ...

21. Gummo 03/11/2006 @ 3:59am

    Aww, I loved ‘Hills’. Not a patch on Haute Tension, nowhere near.. but it pumped new life into the (very dated and showing it) original, and it was fun, fun, fun.

    Perhaps i’m just too desensitised, but personally I didnt think it was as violent as I was expecting.. Aja’s previous offering really putting the viewer through the wringer.

    It certainly didn’t disappoint me at all though.

22. dullboy 03/11/2006 @ 11:04am

    Todd, I don’t see how Aja is saying “rape is fun” in his movie. To me, that scene was very disturbing and not at all thrown in just to grab some “cheers”. This scene was pretty dead on to what appeared in the original, and I’m sure Craven was out to shock and show the brutality humanity can produce; not try and promote it.

23. Nicolas 03/11/2006 @ 7:23pm

    It’s weird (and seems horrendously hypocritical to me at least) to read about exploiting rape and violence for entertainment from you Todd, given the miriad Asian sex crap you promote with ghomorrahy (sp), whereas no one in the theater I was in seemed to find the HILLS rape (NOT explicit in any way shape or form BTW… I Spit on your grave was a hundred times more explicit 30 years ago) entertaining in the least. Perhaps you’re mixing your own reactions with the “intent” of the filmmaker? The only time the violence becomes “enjoyable” in HILLS is at the end, when payback is served, and rightly so. The cathartic nature of that violence is nothing new and it’s been used in a thousand action movies.

    I’m with the guy who thought it was a nice update to a badly dated movie, nothing more, nothign less. kIt also had a nice little “Straw Dogs” vibe going thru it (including Doug’s broken glasses).

    Hats off to Aja, I liked this better than Haute Tension.

24. Nicolas 03/11/2006 @ 7:46pm

    And no my first sentence was in no way an attack on you or your fantastic website… it’s just that some of the video releases you promote on youtr home page are a thousand times more exploitative (and REALLY pointless) than the movie we’re discussing.

25. steve 03/11/2006 @ 9:53pm

    i’m inclined to agree with dullboy here. i really don’t see how the trailer scene’s intent was to entertain and have us “revel in degradation.” i doubt there was a single person in the theater who wasn’t horrified by its brutality. there is nothing in the direction that even suggests glee or enjoyment. the fact that you believe its sole purpose was to “get the adrenaline flowing” says more about you as a viewer than any foul play on aja’s part.

26. Todd Brown 03/12/2006 @ 1:37am

    Perhaps you’re mixing your own reactions with the “intent” of the filmmaker?

    If you’re suggesting that I enjoyed that scene at all then you’re absolutely wrong.

    As for us talking about other films that employ sexual content, well, I’ve come down hard on Miike - a director I generally like a lot - in the past for employing rape fantasy in his films and am on record calling Ichi the Killer one of the most mysoginistic things ever put to film. On the other hand I’ve also written a positive review for Nacho Cerda’s Aftermath. Like the violence it’s not the presence of sexual content, even exploitative sexual content, that’s the problem, it’s the way and purpose to which it is used and I don’t believe for a second that Aja had any purpose other than to give the audience a kick. Why I believe that is a mix of the perspective from which the scene is shot, the way it is cut, and the complete and total lack of any sort of purpose or context to it. He’s not trying to say anything at all with the scene - or with the film as a whole - which leaves the only real option being that it’s there for entertainment.

27. Todd Brown 03/12/2006 @ 3:47am

    Another thought on the ‘Aja’s intentions’ thing ... should’ve included this earlier, but hey, it was early ... it’s still early ...

    If you want to know what Aja intended with the film all you need to do is look at how he balanced things in the ‘update’. First he stripped out vitually all of the subtext, satire and social criticism - a fact absolutely every reviewer agrees upon whether they like the remake or not - leaving only a single token line that refers back to the original underlying purpose of the whole thing. Then he replaces that with new and extended scenes of gore and violence. So much new gore that the remake actually has a longer running time than the original despite all of the removed elements.

    Now, I can only assume that Aja made those changes believing that they would make a better film. That being the case what does this tell you about Aja’s approach? It tells me that he believes less thought, less subtext, and more gore makes for a better film. The gore is the only element he cares about and he obviously believes context or purpose are unnecessary and irrelevant.

28. Javier Diaz 03/12/2006 @ 4:21am

    This is a useless waste of filmstock. Wes Craven (and Mr. Aja) have no sense of what entertainment should be. Filling people’s heads with sick imagery is NOT entertainment. I’ll do everything I can do avoid Mr. Craven, Mr Aja and Fox Searchlight in the future.

    Never been impressed by Mr. Craven’s ‘talent’. His self-proclaimed best movie ‘Red Eye’ is just awful too.

29. jon pais 03/12/2006 @ 5:22am

    For a horror film, The Hills Have Eyes was deadly dull, completely void of any real tension, I couldn’t wait for the whole family to get whacked it was that insipid, and yes, leaving the rifle beside the mutant was pure laziness on Aja’s part. The gratuitous rape scene, while repellent, was wholly unnecessary.

    Instead of being filled with terror, I laughed throughout the better part of an hour. What a waste of celluloid. I think I’ll have to pass on the DVD and the 50-minute making-of. And Todd, I think you were being a bit generous in calling the movie technically flawless. After seeing this and UV, even Scary Movie 10 will look like a masterpiece.

30. steve 03/12/2006 @ 8:28am

    i think we’re forgetting that the movie is a remake and the rape was present in the original. as for the direction - we’ve seen high tension, we know how aja directs horror, we should have known what to expect. he strips the genre down to its bare, primal minimum so as to create the most visceral experience possible. to me it was clear he cared about the family and didn’t see them purely as “meat.” after the horrifying ordeal they go through, you cannot help but sympathize with them - a conceit not at all dissimilar to hostel, which is an inferior film. it also isn’t fair to assume that aja believed he was making a better film as THHE is his favorite movie of all time. he was bringing his own style and approach to it.

31. Marten 03/12/2006 @ 9:35am

    Just saw this yesterday. How unoriginal and formulaic. Just when I thought Aja was an up & coming director with a promise to bring new life to a tired and stale genre, he churns out another piece of cinematic turd straight out of the Hollwood Horrorfilm assembly line.

    Let’s see...how many times have we seen this story before. It goes something like this: A group of friends/college co-eds/family take a long cross-country roadtrip and happen to drive through an abandon town/cursed village/ex-nuclear test site - oh, and let’s not forget the obligatory stop at the decrepit gas station. Then night falls and all hell breaks loose when a group of grotesque backwoods inbreds/genetically-deformed/anomalous creature strikes and a kills all but one/two/three who save the day. Oh, and let’s not forget the other obligatory cut-up bodyparts-hanging-from-the-ceiling scene and an ending that hints at the survival of one of the villains. Hmmm....didn’t we see this in Jeepers Creepers, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Wrong Turn, Cabin Fever, House of Wax, Wolf Creek, etc. etc. etc. etc.

32. steve 03/12/2006 @ 9:54am

    why did you pay to see it, then? the story was clearly described in the trailers. it was never advertised as anything more than what it was.

33. Marten 03/12/2006 @ 10:18am

    Just like you said, “he was bringing his own style and approach to it.” After seeing Haute Tension - not a classic by any means but had many moments of originality - I thought he might “approach” this film differently. Unfortunately, his approach was rather banal and insipid.

34. jon pais 03/12/2006 @ 12:09pm

    Exactly, Marten. It was so full of cliches, I began to wonder if I was watching a parody of a horror film. Then I stopped thinking altogether and just laughed throughout the last hour or so, occasionally jumping out of my seat to shake my fist and shout, “Kill ‘em all!”

35. Gummo 03/13/2006 @ 10:24am

    Man, couldnt help but post another comment here.

    Its a remake! Of a 70’s flick..a genre that has been copied/rehashed etc over & over. Its hardly going to be bleeding original.

    Perhaps im missing the point here - but as for too violent? eh? isnt that the point? I watched the original and thought “how dated.. how tame” The remake at least pumped new life in to a tired movie. You just cant please some people.

    I still think Aja did a damn fine job. Except the ending (dropping the shotgun) even that made me groan outloud. A very bad move indeed!

    Still overall, flaws and all, I thought it was a blast!

36. Montgomery 03/15/2006 @ 6:41am

    I’ve got to disagree entirely with your opinions on The Hills Have Eyes. First, I found it one of the few recent horror films with a believable set of protagonists worth caring about. That is what made it so awful to watch, and so terrifying to experience (for me). You can disagree, obviously, but particularly compared to Hostel the emotional attachment that as afforded the protagonists is unusually great.

    As for the trailer scene: it is certainly NOT intended for us to enjoy. It is there to disgust and anger us. If that’s the effect it caused, then it suceeded. Yes, the mutants are enjoying what they’re doing: that’s why it’s so twisted. But it is that very anger that you have towards the “glorification” of the elements of that scene that we are supposed to feel. Except, it is not Aja glorifying them, it is the mutants reveling in their evil. Why is the political subtext taken out? Because, frankly, it was weak to begin with. It weakened the first film as a gutteral experience because it was sloppy and frankly not that great of an idea. Aja pays his respects to it, but refuses to linger in the “intellectual.” He is interested far more by finding a way in to his audience and flipping on their base instincts. It may not have worked for you, but it worked for me and my group unlike any horror film of recent year.

    So, yes, this version is based on the earlier one, but I can’t imagine that audiences would not laugh at the constant reminders of the mutants origin and their “similarities” to our protagonists. In fact, if I had to say anything, I feel the film didn’t distance itself enough from the political untertones of the original. Becuase that’s not its point. Its main goal is to dig deep down into your stomach, disturbing and angering you enough to understand Doug’s transformation.

    I nearly leaped out of my seat in applause when Beast got Goggle, and when Doug’s revenge started, my adrenaline was racing like I have not felt in a movie theater in a long time. Artaud would be proud.

37. Tina 03/15/2006 @ 9:52pm

    If you don’t like it stay the hell out of the theater!!!

38. David 03/19/2006 @ 5:21pm

    The Hills Have Eyes is everything that Eli Roth promised we would see in Hostel, but failed to deliver. Any true horror fan would not label Hostel as a horror film. Aja’s Hills Have Eyes is horror in every sense of the word. If it elicited a response from you than Aja did his job. You should feel horrified and disturbed. If the rape scene in this film didn’t disturb you than you need therapy because you have a hole in middle of your soul.

    Also, horror films never intended to be anything more than popcorn films. There was never a need for script continuity, common sense, etc. Those are the very elements of the horror genre. They afford us the ability to poke fun and be scared at the same time. At least this film delivers the goods as far as blood and gore are concerned.

    This one makes up for Hostel (which offered 45 minutes of tits, ass, and low rent soft-core porn. I could have rented XXX films instead).

39. horror fanatic 03/22/2006 @ 11:20pm

    If u like Rape, Blood, and Goofy men that look like Jabba or the cyclopse from the movie ‘The Goonies’ then you will love it! Only people who are not true horror fans will think this is actually scary! HAHA girls were the ones jumping in the theater I practically was enjoying my popcorn. Its totally crap! Only little 14 yr olds will think this is ‘cool’ and who made this? Hicks living in the midwest? A girl getting raped from the back and front is something only teenagers can think of as scary! ITS A TOTAL SCI-FI FILM, not horror or scary at all! The trailors are MISLEADING! Im so mad after reading all the reviews from the people who got their $9.50 back, I was about to walk off only if I knew I could buy myself dinner at least! CRAP movie! SAVE YOUR MONEY b4 the first half!! The whole family except 3 die in the end...its stupid and soooo predictable, not scary at all!!!

    Wes Craven is an idiot and I think he just humilated himself and his reputation with this idiotic film.

40. Montgomery 03/23/2006 @ 4:31am

    Wow, man, terrifically intelligent reply. You really make your points in a mature, post-adolescent way. I guess my opinions really are just moronic! Thanks for showing me the way!

41. kang 03/27/2006 @ 8:52pm

    Maybe it is time to separate gore from those creepy horror film...of course gore scares people, but i think in this case, let’s film a car crash accident and then call it a horror movie. It scares people but..

    I still enjoy creepy horror =). A real car crash,beheading,raping scene scares me all the time, but leave it to snuff film.

42. pennie 07/25/2006 @ 12:49pm

    aleexit

43. A_Frost 08/08/2006 @ 6:14am

    Thanks for a chance to post here Wanna download some music for 10cents? Welcome 24/7 365.

44. waleed 09/12/2006 @ 1:40am

    OMG ........ this movie made me wanna kill those men in it

    A boy sees his mother torn apart infront of his eyes and he just RUN AWAY god dammit u are holding a GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    and why is the rape scene there for I have to say that the writer and the director are SICK people this scene made me sick and i hated the whole movie for it dammit

    if i were one of those hill guys i would have killed tortured the writer and the director for thinking of putting this rape scene

45. diamond 10/14/2006 @ 9:45pm

    I sat through about a half hour of “The Hills Have Eyes”, not expecting great cinema, but not expecting to be completely revulsed either. Blood and gore I can handle, but when forcible rape and the mistreatment of infants are considered a form of entertainment, I have to worry. The scenes invloving the rape of the youngest daughter, and the (assumed, as I walked away after that) abduction of the baby and rape of the mother were possibly the vilest things I’ve ever seen offered as entertainment. I do not know how this movie ever made it with an R rating...it should have gottem a U for unviewable. Horror movies should be entertaining, they should scare the hell out of us and show lots of gore for no reason. That’s what it’s all about - scares, blood and gore. But movies that take the violation of women and girls lightly have no place being offered as public entertainment.

46. mother 03/21/2007 @ 7:51am

    I DID NOT LIKE THIS MOVIE WHATSOEVER! I would never recommend it for anybody else to watch, to like it you would have to be sick and twisted.  I can’t believe somebody would even imagine making a movie about something like this.  For those of you who did like it, are you not family oriented?  It hit cloes to home for me. My daughter at the time was the same age as the baby girl in the movie, my parents did just celebrate there 25th anniversary, and I do have a younger sister. For the little sister to be raped, it was disgusting, disturbing, and immoral. Then to suck on the mother’s breast was over the line for me.  That is the baby’s source of food, to portray it as anything else, or take that aaway from an infant is inhumane. Then they took the baby, what were they going to do eat her? I didn’t like anything about this move.

47. MEDVED4902 04/02/2007 @ 11:20pm

    6566t9784HI1300sMEDV EDVER YNICE SITE 496586566t9784
    -----

Post Your Comments

• Next Entry
• Previous Entry