|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 2, 2005 11:06:48 GMT -5
 One more "Never-ending Shame" series reviews, and one of the last ones, too: “The Hills Have Eyes” is one of Craven’s few undisputed masterpieces. **SPOILERS** A couple, Ethel (Virginia Vincent) and Rob Carter, (Russ Grieve) their daughter Lynne (Dee Wallace-Stone) and her husband Doug Wood (Martin Speer) as well as their children travel through the desert on the way to California. After being accidentally lead into a military testing zone, they become stranded in the middle of nowhere. Trying to make the best of the situation, Bob decides to leave to get help, leaving son Bobby (Robert Houston) in charge, which infuriates sister Brenda (Susan Lanier). As night falls, they become convinced they are being stalked by a family of freaks living in the desert preying on families who become lost, and are forced to fight back to save themselves. The Good News: The one thing I really like about this movie is the gradual formation of suspense as we get to discover who’s attacking the family. Being trapped on an open road in the middle of nowhere is a pretty terrifying ordeal for anybody, and here, Craven forces upon us the ultimate traveling nightmare. The darkness that surrounds the family is terrifying, as anyone or anything can hide in there and creep out to injure or kill them. 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. The one scene that really got me was watching one of the characters run down the highway in the dark as these crazy laughs were heard echoing alongside him. That was a pretty terrifying ordeal, and it only gets better from there. The event that kick starts the film into overdrive is one of the most horrendous acts ever committed to screen, and the audacity to pull it off and make it be as stunning and striking as it is a huge testament to the genius of Craven. To do something like that is pretty ballsy, and it also works in his favor to keep the audience on the edge of their seats. By subjecting this scene to us, we play into his hands because now, we don’t know what else he will throw at us and we become anxious and nervous as the waiting game begins. If he pulls that on us, what else will he do, and that is a trick from a master filmmaker. The best part of the film is the events that follow after the aforementioned great shock, as it kicks the movie up a little and gets very exciting. After that, the film is all action until the last second of the film, and that appeals to me. It isn’t so much a horror film as it is a horror-thriller with action overtones, and to successfully switch over is a great trick, since it works wonderfully. Also great is the family that serves as the protagonists. They have a creepy air around them that makes us all become scarred of them. Their look is the main part, as they look positively crazy. Adorned with all kinds of feathers and deformed features, the family is crazy personified and is a look and behavior that only “The Devil’s Rejects” have been able to top, so this is one large feet. Their behavior is also a large part of their creepiness, as they behave like true deranged people would. The family is one of the best parts of the movie. The Bad News: About the only thing I can find fault with this movie is the non-traditional storyline. Most slashers work by having a group of people trapped in an isolated area getting picked off one-by-one. This one isn’t like that: a group of people is trapped in an isolated area and are picked off in one scene and features the victims turning against the killers. The Final Verdict: This one is pretty underrated and features a lot of genuine suspense that catches viewers off-guard. It has a terrifying storyline that works for many people and delivers shock after shock. Highly recommended for fans of this type of slasher, while others maybe disappointed with the non-traditional slasher story. Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, an after effect of a dead animal, attempted rape and scenes with children in danger |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Dec 2, 2005 11:53:12 GMT -5
Sounds like the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre...
I think you're beginning to out-pace me in writing Reviews, here Slarrr. Do you put these up anywhere else online? Almost all of mine also grace the pages of IMDb, except for a very few. How to Make a Monster being one of them--my review was way too long and has so much profanity that I gave up editing it for use on that site!
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 2, 2005 12:03:05 GMT -5
Everything here goes to IMDb, Q. I've got over 170 reviews there and counting, so I've got a ton. What's your IMDb account? I want to see your other work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Dec 2, 2005 12:13:35 GMT -5
Boulderdash!
I've only got about 50 reviews on IMDB. Some very early ones aren't even reviews, just thoughtless opinions. Just about everything on here is also on IMDb--and also on my website.
Interestingly, my Passion of the Christ review is the one that's received the least love. 0 out of 4 people have found it useful. I thought I did a pretty good job, I guess I offended them somehow. I gave high marks on everything except character development--which was just awful. Jesus was the only character properly introduced--sort of. Boogeyman is the other one not very well respected--I think some of the fans of that movie are just attacking my review. The only positive thing I said about that one was about it's atmosphere.
In a sense, we're almost opposites in the realm of reviewing. I hate lots of stuff, and constantly tear apart movies--and you have lots of love to give. Of course, I'm deliberately watching crap.
My site has an essay I did for Kolej comparing Night of the Living Dead 1968 to it's 1990 counterpart. And a rant about the Mall of America.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Dec 2, 2005 13:06:29 GMT -5
The Hills Have Eyes was a huge disappointment for me. I expected a raw, primal, unforgiving horror and was given a relatively tame film in which the "victims" do more harm to the "bad guys" than is done to them. Here goes a review I once wrote:
It should’ve been much more violent, surprising, suspenseful and better acted – then you could really say The Hills Have Eyes IS a classic so many people want it to be.
What pisses me off most about this movie is that it is so damn merciful; just think about it: a menacing group of cannibals (who had problems to find their food lately) living in the hills of a desert nowhere and a group of ‘normal American people’ trapped just feet away from the hills... I mean, shouldn’t they’ve eaten them all? What good cannibal gets defeated by an average American father of the family?! Isn’t that kind of lame? So, my general grudge is that the man-eaters (huh! - but do they eat so much human flesh in this movie? ...good question, this) ain’t threatening enough. Even if some of them look the part – Michael Berryman certainly does – it soon appears that they’re easily tricked, be it by a dog or by a woman, or at least too stupid to do anything vaguely surprising themselves. Sure, the good guys die here too, but these aren’t very gritty deaths (except for the dude who’s set on fire, yeah), so nothing to boast of too much, still. And, a side note to Wes Craven: if you’re using a dog that’s supposed to be tearing people apart, the animal should not look like all it wants to do is play – at least pull its tail to make it slightly angry, for heaven’s sake! ...get rid of its playful look in the eyes and joyful wagging or we’ll never believe Mike Berryman’s in some kind of trouble, come on!).
I don’t HATE this movie, though: it’s got a good premise, the scenery’s well chosen and at certain moments I really liked its atmosphere. But it’s all just not as terrifying as I thought it might happen to be, and the ending... See, I love abrupt endings but in the case of The Hills I had a huge irritated ‘Now what?!’ all over my face. A nice ‘fade to red’ there, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankenjohn on Dec 2, 2005 14:42:40 GMT -5
:PWell, if the original didn't please you Bart, I hear the remake scored NC-17! Better for you... (They're editing it down to R and releasing an unrated DVD of course.  ) Anyway, I saw this movie last (2005) summer and very much enjoyed it. I wasn't looking for heavy canibalism, maybe that's why. Go figure... |
|
|
|
Post by 42ndstreetfreak on Dec 2, 2005 15:25:49 GMT -5
I love "Hills". It REEKs of the finest movie decade (the 70's), has some very powerful moments (the attack on the mobile home is still strong, in yer face stuff), interesting psycho's, a likeable (and strong) group of victims, and some great atmosphere.
SUCH a shame that it had to be so cut fro an 'R', and it seems that footage must be lost as it's never appeared, not even on the new DVD.
God bless the 70's and piss on any re-make...get your own idea and title!
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 2, 2005 16:44:06 GMT -5
I love "Hills". It REEKs of the finest movie decade (the 70's), has some very powerful moments (the attack on the mobile home is still strong, in yer face stuff), interesting psycho's, a likeable (and strong) group of victims, and some great atmosphere. I liked it too, I don't quite love it, but I will say top 5 from Craven. |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Dec 4, 2005 10:02:04 GMT -5
God bless the 70's and piss on any re-make...get your own idea and title! I'm with you on this--I'll see King Kong, but after that, I'm boycotting remakes. I'm avoiding the Hills Have Eyes, Evil Dead, Creepshow, Last House On the Left, Day of the Dead, The Fly remakes. Some of which are rumored, but that Creepshow and Fly remake news solidified my hatred and self-imposed boycott of Hollywood remakes. We're stuck right now in a very crappy time for Hollywood horror films. |
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Dec 4, 2005 10:36:06 GMT -5
The idea of constant remaking good horror films also gets on my nerves but, you see, I'm interested in seeing what can be done about The Hills Have Eyes, and I will hurry up to watch this one; from what I heard so far it may become everything Craven's film promised to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenril on Dec 5, 2005 12:49:14 GMT -5
As concerns the rumored Hills remake, I'm only vaguely interested in it because it's being helmed by Aja, the guy who did "Haute Tension".
***KINDA SORTA SPOILER FOR HT****
So maybe in this one it will turn out that the entire cannibal clan was actually the dog, who has multiple personalities that came out with the trauma of the car accident....
***END OF A SILLY SPOILER****
Well, maybe not, but I wouldn't put this kind of thing past hollywood these days...
As for the real Hills have eyes...
I think it's a bit overrated. So many people praise it as being a super-raw, almost primal exploitation movie... and as Bartwald pointed out it isn't really. It's the kind of movie that tricks viewers into thinking it's nastier than it really is.
And WORD about the dog. It's so "human" I thought I was watching a Lassie movie at times (what's up with him remembering to bring the walkie-talkie back to the family?). In the sequel he even gets his own flashback, just like a regular (human) survivor.
That said, this is definitely not without its merits:
1) 42nd is right, it's VERY 70's, which is to say full of dread and atmosphere.
2) The desert location is impressive. Yet more proof that often an actual location works a thousand times better than computer scenarios.
3) The lack of actual blood helps a lot to emphasize the atmosphere (it almost makes the only bloody bits --one flesh-eating scene and a ripped tendon --seem gratitous and pointless).
4) I like the fact that the grandparents get it so much worse: he's set on fire and devoured. Her corpse is left to rot in the sun and is even used as bait for one of the cannibals (um, maybe this was a spoiler. Sorry).
All in all, it's an okay suspense / horror thriller, and certainly a much better effort than "Last house on the left" (itself a rather overrated shocker, too).
But Craven's best? Well, it's certainly much better than his last 4 or 5 movies, but I happen to like "Summer of fear", "A nightmare on Elm street", "The people under the stairs", and even "Wes Craven's new nightmare" a hell of a lot better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Dec 5, 2005 13:37:39 GMT -5
I think it's a bit overrated. So many people praise it as being a super-raw, almost primal exploitation movie... and as Bartwald pointed out it isn't really. It's the kind of movie that tricks viewers into thinking it's nastier than it really is. 1) 42nd is right, it's VERY 70's, which is to say full of dread and atmosphere. All in all, it's an okay suspense / horror thriller... But Craven's best? "A nightmare on Elm street" And that's what I thought of it. Was feeling lazy.  |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 5, 2005 13:44:25 GMT -5
Yeah, okay. I'll accept that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Dec 6, 2005 10:20:47 GMT -5
All in all, it's an okay suspense / horror thriller, and certainly a much better effort than "Last house on the left" (itself a rather overrated shocker, too). But Craven's best? Well, it's certainly much better than his last 4 or 5 movies, but I happen to like "Summer of fear", "A nightmare on Elm street", "The people under the stairs", and even "Wes Craven's new nightmare" a hell of a lot better. Glad to see someone else that thinks Last House is overrated. |
|
|
|
Post by frankenjohn on Dec 6, 2005 12:02:21 GMT -5
All in all, it's an okay suspense / horror thriller, and certainly a much better effort than "Last house on the left" (itself a rather overrated shocker, too). But Craven's best? Well, it's certainly much better than his last 4 or 5 movies, but I happen to like "Summer of fear", "A nightmare on Elm street", "The people under the stairs", and even "Wes Craven's new nightmare" a hell of a lot better. Glad to see someone else that thinks Last House is overrated. I liked it. Especially Craven's opening message: "Remove any small children and pets from the room." |
|
)
