"The Hills Have Eyes II" follows a group of National Guard trainees. Among them are Napoleon (Michael McMillian, Amber (Jessica Stroup), Missy (Danielle Alonso), Seargant Jeffrey (Flex Alexander), among others. They are sent out on their last day of training and stop by a base camp of scientists doing research in the New Mexico desert, only to find it empty. After hearing cries of help on a radio and seeing a flashing signal coming from the hills, they decide to climb up there, assuming it is a man who needs help. Meanwhile, Napoleon and Amber are back at camp, where they discover a dying man in an outhouse, and are attacked by a mutated man. They run to catch up with the rest of their crew, and soon after the mutated cannibals begin to pick them off one by one. Finding themselves trapped high up in the cliffs, they enter a labyrinth of tunnels inhabited by the psychotic mutants, and try and reach the bottom and make it out alive.
I have to admit that I wasn't too excited for this film. I thoroughly enjoyed Aja's 2006 remake of Wes Craven's 1977 film, I thought it was the best horror remake yet. But, a sequel? I wasn't so excited about the idea. I can tell you though that this film is much better than the 1986 sequel to the original - now that was a bad movie. Luckily, this film doesn't follow that one at all. The film was written by Craven and his son, and it was done very well. I'm a fan of Craven (I mostly like his earlier work though, aside from the "Scream" series), I think he's an excellent horror filmmaker, and this film was written very well. The story begins rather strangely with a rather disgusting birth scene, from there focuses on the trainees, and then becomes a pure cat-and-mouse game between the trainees and the cannibals. It was a pretty intense film (as was the 2006 remake), and I found myself entertained and interested throughout the movie, which is always a good thing. I thoroughly enjoyed the sequences in the mine tunnels, they were creepy and a wonderful setting for a battle between the characters and the cannibals. The acting in the film was good. None of the cast are major stars, but their performances were nothing below average and they played their characters believably enough. The characters are severely underdeveloped though, which was something the 2006 remake didn't lack.
Bloodshed and gore is a huge part of this movie, and it doesn't let up on any of it. Non-stop severed limbs, stabbings, shootings, impalements, and heads smashed into mush - if you're expecting a blood-soaked movie, you're gonna get one, probably more so than the previous movie, which was gory enough. While the movie didn't need to be so gratuitously violent, I guess it didn't really hurt it, but it didn't make it any scarier. It got quite a few cringes out of the audience though. One problem I had with this film though was the make-up effects on the cannibal villains. They weren't bad, they looked really good, but I just thought they were way too over the top. The cannibals in the 2006 film were much nastier and inhuman than those in Craven's 1977 film, but in this movie they are so disgusting and so over the top that I felt it was bordering on campy. They shouldn't look like normal people, but I felt it was over done - they should have stuck with similar makeup that was used in the previous film, but I assume they were made much nastier for shocks. Clichés are present as well, but nothing too serious. More than anything though, I wasn't happy with the way the film ended. It was too abrupt, too fast, and didn't make much sense. It leaves it open ended for another possible sequel, but I hope they don't decide to make one.
Overall, "The Hills Have Eyes II" is just an okay horror movie, but it's much more violent than scary. I prefer Craven's 1977 original and Aja's 2006 remake to this anyday, but this film is worth seeing if you enjoyed the previous one. It was bland and could use improvement, but it isn't a bad way for a horror fan to waste an hour and a half. Again, not great and definitely not as good as the remake, but worth a look for people who enjoy these films. I went in with pretty low expectations so I wasn't too horribly disappointed with this, although I can see why some would be. 5/10.
I have to admit that I wasn't too excited for this film. I thoroughly enjoyed Aja's 2006 remake of Wes Craven's 1977 film, I thought it was the best horror remake yet. But, a sequel? I wasn't so excited about the idea. I can tell you though that this film is much better than the 1986 sequel to the original - now that was a bad movie. Luckily, this film doesn't follow that one at all. The film was written by Craven and his son, and it was done very well. I'm a fan of Craven (I mostly like his earlier work though, aside from the "Scream" series), I think he's an excellent horror filmmaker, and this film was written very well. The story begins rather strangely with a rather disgusting birth scene, from there focuses on the trainees, and then becomes a pure cat-and-mouse game between the trainees and the cannibals. It was a pretty intense film (as was the 2006 remake), and I found myself entertained and interested throughout the movie, which is always a good thing. I thoroughly enjoyed the sequences in the mine tunnels, they were creepy and a wonderful setting for a battle between the characters and the cannibals. The acting in the film was good. None of the cast are major stars, but their performances were nothing below average and they played their characters believably enough. The characters are severely underdeveloped though, which was something the 2006 remake didn't lack.
Bloodshed and gore is a huge part of this movie, and it doesn't let up on any of it. Non-stop severed limbs, stabbings, shootings, impalements, and heads smashed into mush - if you're expecting a blood-soaked movie, you're gonna get one, probably more so than the previous movie, which was gory enough. While the movie didn't need to be so gratuitously violent, I guess it didn't really hurt it, but it didn't make it any scarier. It got quite a few cringes out of the audience though. One problem I had with this film though was the make-up effects on the cannibal villains. They weren't bad, they looked really good, but I just thought they were way too over the top. The cannibals in the 2006 film were much nastier and inhuman than those in Craven's 1977 film, but in this movie they are so disgusting and so over the top that I felt it was bordering on campy. They shouldn't look like normal people, but I felt it was over done - they should have stuck with similar makeup that was used in the previous film, but I assume they were made much nastier for shocks. Clichés are present as well, but nothing too serious. More than anything though, I wasn't happy with the way the film ended. It was too abrupt, too fast, and didn't make much sense. It leaves it open ended for another possible sequel, but I hope they don't decide to make one.
Overall, "The Hills Have Eyes II" is just an okay horror movie, but it's much more violent than scary. I prefer Craven's 1977 original and Aja's 2006 remake to this anyday, but this film is worth seeing if you enjoyed the previous one. It was bland and could use improvement, but it isn't a bad way for a horror fan to waste an hour and a half. Again, not great and definitely not as good as the remake, but worth a look for people who enjoy these films. I went in with pretty low expectations so I wasn't too horribly disappointed with this, although I can see why some would be. 5/10.