Review of The Hills Have Eyes (1977) by Derek W — 30 Oct 2008

I'm still debating over which film was better, I want to lean to the original work, but I also want to lean to the remake. Both have their perks, but where the other lacks the other fills the gaps. Regardless, I loved both films and this is truly a stepping stone to the modern horror movement (or what it should have been, but we can blame the Grudge for that.) Both stories are the same, but then again they are not, but its truly worth a watch.

For the synopsis, I'm following this films, not the remake. Now both follow the same old concept of going out in the desert getting lost and being eaten by crazed cannibals, but the background stories seperate them. While the remake follows the post-cold war trend, referring to the clans rage based from nuclear mutation, the original straight up focuses on inbreeds. To me, this inbreed of one family is much more disturbing then any nuclear bomb. The main characters follow the same ol' traits going out getting killed in the most brutal of ways, the family fights for survival, the question is will they survive?

THE GOOD:

The thing about both Hills Have Eyes (Forget the sequals) no matter how many people they chop up, it never gets old, unlike Friday the 13th and Holloween H20 in space (I dont know I'm rambiling), I feel almost like the slasher genre was soley fitted for the Hills Have Eyes. What stays true is the realisim of each attack, it all feels organic, too close for comfort, thats what makes these films so great. A reason why I enjoyed this film is the backstory. No doubt, the 2006 remake relied less on cannibal dinners, family mettings and so-forth, I think thats where the new one failed. To me, understanding these characters makes things much more thrilling, haunting and overall interesting. Another pluys for this film is the quietness of the setting, as comparison to most modern slasher films (The loud teen parties, the over-the-top sex sequence, the loud noises, whiny cheerleaders screaming) both films managed to incorporate the landscape to their film, making it almost itself a character. The land almost becomes as unforgiving as the madmen. Finally, another reason why this film rocks, is just the sheer suspense that many others nowadays lack, you never really like the "good guys" but you never hated them either, regardless of reasons to watch the film, it will incorporate some form of emotion in you.

THE BAD:

Each film has some negative side-effects. For this film, the movie reaches a peak and kind of stays there, leaving the film uncertain and never fully giving it a resolution. Addionally, the film has a political stance somewhere, yet even when it seems to peer out, it hides again. This film leaves me uncertain and craving for an resolution. Supporting cast of the family is somewhat bland, yet it picks itself up off the ground with the villans. Maybe the movie lags on a bit too long, maybe its sometimes too quiet, but regardless its worth a peek.

THE UGLY:

Call me crass, but most of the villans don't look like inbreeds, some never looked really that weird, but maybe its just the time frame. I mean its been what, 32 years?

BOTTOM LINE:

Wes Craven created a worthwhile movie with a nice lil' backstory. Regardless of failed attempts to create sequals as interactive, both Hills Have Eyes and its remake stand high on the trone of slaughter. I suppose thats a good thing, just don't make anymore remakes, please?