Hillside Cannibals

This movie was made to cash in on the success of the 2006 remake of "the Hills Have Eyes".

Not since Kurt Russell portrayed a jungle boy on Gilligan's Island has someone done such an amazing job of not looking like a primitive. The Cannibals in this movie are pathetic. They engage in what can only be described as "Ooga Booga" acting. It takes more to be threatening in a performance that simply slipping on a leather coat which was bought from a Salvation Army used clothing store, rolling in the mud, and yelling, while waving your hands in the air. The nylon wigs, and halloween makeup show more of an effort than many of the "movies" produced by this production company / video mill, but all in all there is very little meat on the bones of this cannibal film. The violence and gore will satisfy those that are purely into graphic scenes, but if you need plot or logic in order to suspend your disbelief forget it. Issues like why there are cannibal, how they got there, and why their victims arrive in the desert in the first place are not addressed. What the director obviously didn't realise is that when it comes to horror less is more. This is especially true when you have actors that are so over the top in their depictions that the cave man in the Pauly Shore film "Encino Man" seems like something put together by anthropologists in a documentary. We almost see more interaction of the cannibals relating to each other than we do the victims to whom we are meant to relate. The post-nuclear valley girl-looking cannibals brutally kill their victims and than daintily eat the body parts off a licence plate like canapays. At one point you can even hear the director tell two of the cannibals "Ok, now lick your fingers" as they gently nibble away on the flesh as if Miss Manners herself was standing off screen as a technical adviser instructing on etiquette. If you can look past the fact that the cave in which they live is lite up like a Macy's Christmas tree, you are left to wonder where the cannibals got the vanilla candles that burn in the knooks and cranies of the cave from time to time (Peir One?). Basically, what you have is a film that contains scenes of violence and brutality which are rendered ineffective by all the rest of the films content.

This film isn't that bad. Though is could have been better. The acting is weak for a horror movie, half the time people just looked annoyed rather than scared. On the other hand, if you LIKE your movies someone amusing and silly (and there are times when that is exactly what I am looking for) then this movie is for you.

What I did want to comment on was the above poster saying that Craven should sue. IF you would have actually looked at the movie jacket a bit closer you would see that the working title is actually "Hillside Cannibals: The Legend of SAWNEY BEAN. You would also then realize that is exactly who Craven said inspired his movie, "The Hills have Eyes." I don't know...not to be rude, but maybe you should do a bit of research before jumping the gun. The movie takes liberties with the legend of the Bean family, but since there is nothing in the way of hard evidence to corroborate whether or not the Bean family actually existed, it is pretty obvious that both the director of this movie and Craven himself have taken liberties with the retelling of the story.

Hillside Cannibals (2006)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

The Asylum's rip-off of THE HILLS HAVE EYES has five friends going into the desert only to quickly have three of them dead. The cannibals take a fourth victim and it's up to his girlfriend (Heather Conforto) to go back into the hills and try to save him. I'm not sure if The Asylum had their reputation in place back when this film was originally released but viewing it today one will more than likely already know about the company and the type of movies they release. This one here isn't nearly the worst thing they've done but it's also very clear that it's a pretty bad movie that only has a couple things going for it. I think the biggest problem is the horrible cannibals. There's not a single frame where you actually believe you're looking at some mountain cannibals who have been around for ages living off the land and people who enter their land. Their cave pretty much has nothing except for fake looking skulls and bones lying around. Was this meant to scare of? The cannibals also talk some stupid language and it's clear that it's never meant to make any sort of sense. There's also elements of the film that rips Craven's version including the young family member who at first goes against their families wishes. The performances in the film really aren't anything to write home about and especially those playing the cannibals but I think the majority of the problem falls on the director for not giving them some better range to act in. The only thing that really keeps the film moving along is the fact that it does contain some pretty violent and gory scenes. As a horror fan I really hate watching bad movies like this one and there not being any gore so at least they gave us that. I also like the way the film ended but most people probably won't get to see it as they'll have already turned the picture off.

It's tough to criticize this movie because really I knew what I was getting into with the lame cover art and the complete lack of a description on the back (the back of the DVD case is just a retelling of the Sawney Bean clan). Still, I was hoping for either something that was so bad it was funny or at least so bad it was amusing.

Instead, this is just so bad it's tedious. It's not a bad looking movie like most of the other shot-on-video productions that go straight to video, and there are some decent gore effects here or there, but the whole time it feels like the cast and crew are just sleepwalking through the thing for a paycheck. There's not a scent of originality here whatsoever - the whole plot was lifted from the original "The Hills Have Eyes", only without the fleshed out characters or compelling antagonists. Speaking of the antagonists - what the heck are a bunch of kilt wearing cave people doing in the mountains of California? Did I miss that explanation? Did I miss the explanation of why they behave like a high school production of The Flinstones? Yawn.

The only redeeming thing about this movie was trying to guess whether or not the lead actress was wearing a wig or not. I vote for yes. Either that or she should never work with her stylist from this flick ever again.

Congratulations, Asylum, you have suckered me once, but this is the last time I am using my hard-earned cash on one of your cop out excuses for cinema.

Storyline: (none) A group of teenagers drive into the desert and one by one they are slaughtered indiscriminately by the HILLSIDE CANNIBALS...unfortunately there is not much more to say about the story. Not unusual for the genre, right, but the film is really only something for completely painless gorehounds because of the basic premise: cheap cheap cheap. YES, the splatter and gore factor is quite high (and innovation-free), but the plot is so stale and the cinematic atmosphere so unfrightening that there is simply no joy...er...fear. I know, bad can also be good...but that doesn't work in every case, and not in the mid-2000s anymore.

The parallels to The Hills Have Eyes are more than conspicuous, but in terms of level even below "IThe Hills Have Eyes Part II (1984)". You have to (well ok...rather can) see it for the sake of completeness, Hillside Cannibals on the other hand is absolutely irrelevant, even for the most fanatical horror freak.

Conclusion: not suitable for beer evenings either. You will break off the "film enjoyment" (I'm guessing) prematurely and only get annoyed about the money you've thrown away. Cucumber!