Recensioni degli utenti

The first "The Hills Have Eyes" creeped me out so of course I had to see the second. This time the good guys have guns (in my best southern accent).

A military unit was sent out to the New Mexico desert to bring aid and supplies. Of course, when they get to the seemingly abandoned outpost they run into the rejects of The Toxic Avengers.

I was thinking, "OK now. Now we got some bad mofos with guns, it's about to be on. These circus side show freaks are about to get dealt with military style!" Oh yeah, I was hyped.

Of course there wouldn't be much of a movie then if that happened. After all, these missing links did survive nuclear testing, so what're a few dudes with guns? Prepare for some serious casualties in horrific fashion and more mutant on human violence.

I had actually liked the remake of Wes Craven's Hills Have Eyes, which was shown here last year. Directed by Alxandre Aja, it was top notch violence and gore which actually sent a chill, because the victims were an innocent family out for a holiday, and to see them getting systematically deeper into trouble, somehow makes it rather horrific to sit through.

While its predecessor was shown here with cuts, The Hills Have Eyes II is shown here in its full gory glory. However you wonder, just where did all the blood and gore had gone. Written by father and son team Wes and Jonathan Craven, the follow up movie (also a remake of the sequel to the original) seemed to be lacking in flavour and spirit. Sure the mutants are back, but there's very little space given to set them up, or enough time for you to identify and distinguish one from the other.

Did director Martin Weisz opt to play it safe? There's tension built, but nothing too riveting. The narrative is simple and straightforward, without much thought into trying to capture the X-factor why the original had worked somehow. Attempting to shock just for shock's sake, the movie opens with the birth of a child, in the most un-Discovery Channel manner, before introducing us to the victims, I mean, characters, and a short scene to link the events from its predecessor.

Again the military's dirty hands are in this one. Gone are the family, and in comes a small squad of National Guard trainees. It's soldiers versus A-bomb mutants, so the numbers come in handy to build up the body count. But in fact, none of them died in any creative manner. It's the usual hack jobs, and more uninterestingly, through the use of their carbines. Boring, and I guess too many movies outdoing one another in the creative death department, has taken its toil on this one, where simpleness and sure death like falling from great heights without the camera flinching, go unappreciated. Truth is, you know that it's a camera trick, and boy, are there a number of recognizable indoor shots for this outdoor movie, that makes it look cheap.

By the time it takes for these rookie soldiers to complete their training to the dark side and become cold killers (fighting for their own survival), you'll be more than in a hurry to head for the exit. To enjoy this movie, the usual leave your brains at the door cliché applies. Just make sure someone doesn't take a real machete and help you put it there.

Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.

'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliché in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.

Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliché. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.

'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin.

'The Hills Eyes II', one of the most pointless and blatantly stupid sequels to come around in some time, is 90 minutes of incompetent film making at its finest. Or worst, however you choose to look at it. While 2006's 'Hills' remake was one of the year's best, and truly frightening, horror films, this sequel takes every spark out of what made that such an accomplishment. Part 2 never gets off the ground, and neither does its mind numbing dialogue. Worst of all, it's not that scary.

2006's remake followed a family who find themselves in the middle of the New Mexico desert, deserted, and one by one being picked off by deranged and sadistic hill people. People who, as a result of the military testing the atomic bomb on their land years ago, have become who they are. Surviving off travelers who wander into the region. The sequel puts audiences in the same desert, now occupied by the military as they covertly investigate the hills and what might have happened to that poor family. When a group of military trainees are brought to the campsite, they find it deserted with no signs of life. A grim reality soon befalls them, as they come to the realization that they're not alone. And the bloody fate that was handed to many before them will soon become their destiny.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that 'Hills' has no legitimate reason to exist. But because last year's remake was received well both at the box office and by critics, it came to no surprise that a sequel would be rushed into production while there's still money to be earned. There's no rhyme or reason to it this time around, just an unbelievable and ridiculous set-up to pave the way for thoughtless characters, unoriginal killings, a non-existent story, and slipping interest. Originally, director Alexander Aja made Craven's cult classic into a remake that was a unique and thoroughly disturbing experience. One that gruesomely crossed the line on more than one occasions. Its frank display of violence, sadistic torture, well-rounded characterization, and white-knuckled suspense were all effectively used to shock and repulse audiences. The second time around, it's rehashed hand-me-downs. There's no style, no grit. It tries to build up tension by dismembering bodies, when all it really does is make for a been there, done that kind film, where even the gore seems tame compared to more recent bloodbaths.

It's a sad state of affairs when deformed mutants who capture women for breeding purposes fails to keep your attention. It's a bore, nothing more. 'Hills' has no bite. Despite a jump or two here and there, there's nothing very scary about this by-the-numbers horror flick. It feels like something you'd see on the Sci-Fi channel, only with some F-bombs, a blood splatter here and there, a rape, and a graphic birth scene that's more gross than shocking. It's cheap. And with 'Hills', you reap what you sew. With no effort given, you can't expect anything in return.

Replacing Aja with Martin Weisz as director was the film's first big mistake, all he does is drain the film of any sort of emotional resonance. But even more shocking is the uncharacteristically bad script penned by Wes Craven and his son, Jonathan Craven. You ask, how bad could it possibly be? This is the kind of dialogue that makes any comparison look like Shakespeare. Craven has had his fair share of clunkers in the past, but I'd never expect something like this from him. It's so unintentionally funny, you have to wonder, is Craven playing a joke on this? Or did he dump this one on his son after the studio payed him off? The film's characters are one-dimensional talking heads with no emotions or common sense. The acting is just as bad. The only character who may win you over is 'Napoleon' Napoli, the scrawny kid who doesn't fit in with the others. Even the deranged and instinct-driven villains, who we might have found some favor with in the deepest of our thoughts a year ago, are met with indifferent. You don't hate them, you don't like them. You honestly couldn't care less. Just like this movie.

Even if you were giddy with fear during 'The Hills Have Eyes', as I was, you'll have a tough time finding anything to enjoy in this piece of garbage. It's as generic as generic gets, and there's absolutely nothing here we haven't seen done many times already. I can't express this enough, avoid 'The Hills Have Eyes II' like the plague. It's frightless, unoriginal, frantic, and a bore. Stick to the remake or Craven's original vision. Because if you don't walk out after the first thirty minutes, don't say I didn't warn you.

THHE2 is entertaining in that you'll laugh a lot and cringe and probably say "oh sh*t!" and "get your face away from the goddamn hole you dumb**s" or things along those lines but I don't know if its really worth seeing- I was very annoyed throughout the entirety with the horrible military characters who don't seem to know the first thing about combat.

Yes there was more violence, gore, and a higher body count than the first one but I am still am debating whether that cancels out my feeling throughout the whole movie about how ridiculous it is (and not a good ridiculousness like Dead Alive or Feast). My time would have been better spent watching Aja's remake for the 5th time.

So go for some laughs, or go for some gore, but don't go hoping to come out of it satisfied.

The 2006 remake of "The Hills Have Eyes" was a decent slasher-in-the-desert flick; forgettable but entertaining nevertheless. So here we have the 2007 sequel.

A group of National Guard trainees go to a mysterious camp in the New Mexican desert to resupply and train, but they find it abandoned. They soon discover that the barren "hills" are infested with a bunch of hideous mutant cannibals. Can they get out alive?

I was actually impressed with the serious and sometimes moving vibe this film has. It may be a gory slasher flick, but the filmmakers make it respectable. The cussing-every-other-word tends to bring the respectability down, but I was in the Marines and this was how enlisted guys talked in the field, generally speaking. By "moving" I refer to the love & loyalty that members of the team reveal for each other over the course of the story and the accompanying score.

Some complain about the stupid mistakes the soldiers make but, remember, they're trainees, and National Guardsmen at that, not career soldiers. Besides, mistakes are always made in the heat of life-or-death combat.

I heard someone else complain about Jessica Stroup being too good-looking to be a soldier, but I've seen some hot enlisted babes. One girl I knew from high school enlisted in the army and she sent me a pic of her at an Army party in Europe wearing a bunny costume and she was as hot as any Hollywood starlet you'd care to name (she's now a cougar Colonel, lol).

The problem with this movie is the thin plot. My description above is the entire story. The whole film's an intense survival situation.

Those who like gory slasher or survival flicks should like this, especially if you prefer military-oriented stories. I'm only giving it a fairly low rating because it's not a film I'm anxious to see again. There's just not enough depth, epic-ness or hot women for my tastes (although Jessica Stroup has a really cute face), but that's just me.

The film was shot in Morroco (of all places) and runs a short-but-sweet 89 minutes.

The DVD I saw is the unrated version.

GRADE: C+ (or B for gory slasher fans)

Even though it was generally well-received by genre fans, I found the remake of classic "The Hills Have Eyes" to be a typical modern remake. The casting was questionable and the overused shaky-cam was nausea-inducing. French director Alejandra Aja bypassed the original's subtle commentary on the American family post-Vietnam for some half-assed shock scenes that he claimed better fit the contemporary American situation. Huh? I also found the storyline to be much too close to it's predecessor.

Well, the sequel is a surprising improvement (and significantly better than the original's sequel from '85, too.) The storyline is different, the shaky-cam is only used a couple times (and less...shaky), and the filmmakers were wise enough to ditch the half-baked social commentary for a straight-up horror gorefest. And it's a lot of nasty fun! There's lots of very sick ideas here that most horror fans can probably appreciate. The acting is average, the characters are pretty much indistinguishable, and it's rather formulaic, but if you can get past all of that, then this one is good times.

A team of trainees of the National Guard brings supply to the New Mexico Desert for a group of soldiers and scientists that are installing a monitoring system in Sector 16. They do not find anybody in the camp, and they receive a blurred distress signal from the hills. Their sergeant gathers a rescue team, and they are attacked and trapped by deformed cannibals, having to fight to survive.

The 1977 "The Hills Have Eyes" is a classic of horror and the 2006 version is an unnecessary, but good remake. This sequel is shameful, using a predictable collection of clichés and violence to explore the success of the original movies. The rookies soldiers have the most imbecile and unreasonable attitudes along the story, probably because they have been trained by the ridiculous sergeant, facilitating the retarded evil creatures to destroy one by one. This disappointing film was a great deception for me. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "O Retorno dos Malditos" ("The Return of the Damned")

Between 1945 and 1962 the United States conducted 33 atmospheric nuclear tests. Today the government still denies the genetic effects caused by the radioactive fallout located in sector 16. A team of soldiers(Jacob Vargas, Daniella Alonso,Jessica Stroup, McMillian, among them) from National Guard carries supply for a scientific group . But a mysterious unseen deformed humans drag away and attack them. The anthropophagous beings murder and dismember the soldiers one by one, having to combat to survive.

This unsettling gore-feast contains thrills, chills horror, grisly murders and lots of guts and gore, including, stabbing, impalement, beheading, among others. The killings are gruesomely committed by the cannibal mutants who hold an eerie make-up by Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger , an excellent craftsmen.The storyline by Wes Craven borrows from the commandos war movies along with the classics¨Texas chainsaw massacre(Hooper)¨, ¨The hills have eyes(Craven)¨until recent films like ¨Wrong turn and House of 1000 corpses¨, and of course the first part directed by Alexander Aja(2006).The creepy maniacal creatures appearance deliver the goods plenty of screams, terror,violence and blood. Atmospheric and suspenseful musical score by Trevor Morris. Colorful cinematography and a little dark during underground scenes by Sam McCurdy. The motion picture is professionally directed by Martin Weisz(Rohtenburg). The tale will like to horror and gore buffs. Rating : acceptable and passable, but isn't apt for squeamish

This movies is basically in the category of what you see is what you get. The Hills Have Eyes II is what you would expect of course it's not going to be an Oscar nominated film, it's just pure entertainment which you can just lose yourself in for 90 minutes. This movie is about a group of soldiers who find themselves against mutated hillbillies. In the desert and on their last day of training they find themselves fighting these hillbillies. This movie is full of blood and guts and is extremely violent. The Hills have Eyes II is a wonderful gory film that will keep you wanting to close your eyes. But keep watching and enjoy the movie. Make sure to watch for all that gore flying through.

This one was... fine. Far less successful than the first but not entirely unentertaining. It started off kind of irritating with a very dude-bro air to it and a lot of bad acting/annoying characters... which both of which continue to persist throughout the entire film.

Compared to the first with one thing about it that made it so successful, this one did the opposite on this crucial thing... they put gore before story. The plot was very light here and felt like it was more a vehicle to see mutant mutilation and shock value rather than having a solid story.

As stated, it wasn't entirely unsuccessful it just wasn't anything special like the first one. Would recommend if you like dudes, guns and mutants.

The premise of this awaited sequel was really good and after the huge success of the remake I expected a lot sincerely.

The sad truth is that this movie is really absurd and inept. The situations are dumb and beyond reason and the acting is truly awful.

This time there aren't likable characters or violins unlike the remake. Also, the gore is not that abundant and when it happens it's truly bad.

The violence is minimal and it's a shame because there are many arguments that make you think that there's room for heavy violence. I mean, there's a SWAT team that is hunting a family of cannibal mutants. You surely expect something different! When I watched it on the movies I wanted my money back.

Anyways this is a clear example of how rushed out movies turn out to be a mess and demonstrate poor quality on all aspects.

A mess that let down the fans of the remake like me. That's why sequels are never welcomed; at least this movie isn't as terrible as the 1985 sequel to the original.

I myself am not one who cared for the 2006 remake of The Hills Have Eyes. When it comes to inbred psychos, Wrong Turn has my heart on that one. Anyway, I gave this one a chance for whatever reason, and I found myself enjoying it so much more. It's still not a great movie, but definitely a dang fun one, one more tolerable than the, what I found to be, stale first installment.

The action is more intense, the crazies are crazier and the movie is more engaging altogether for the type of genre it needed to be. I do not know why so many people dog this film. It is certainly better than some of the other horrors that came out in the 00s and I would enjoy to watch this anytime I could; I was very satisfied with it as far as I can remember. Hopefully will be watching it again soon!

A lot of things the actors did in the movie was pretty head scratching but solid movie.

I do not necessarily agree with the negative reviews of this movie. I thought it was entertaining and just as uncomfortably brutal as the first movie. Some of the characters are unlikable, but the movie itself is still pretty enjoyable.

Poorly trained soldiers go to the desert in New Mexico to bring equipment, but they are not aware of the details behind the special operation being conducted there. This leads to them getting ambushed and fighting for their lives.

The sheer brutality of this movie is evident in the first few minutes of this movie. The underlying plot is these mutants are eager to procreate, leading to some uncomfortable scenes. Fortunately this movie keeps some of the same vein as the first one and ends well. In this reviewer's opinion, it's an entertaining film.

You hear lots of comments on how absolutely horrible this movie was. While I agree that this movie was not as good as The Hills Have Eyes (2005), this movie isn't horrible. There are some decent jump scenes, probably around 5. There is also lots of gore, and it's not the pointless gore that you see in some movies, it has a point to the mutants- its their food. But the story line is average at best, it needs more character development. The acting is not noticeably good or bad. The title still fits, the hills do have eyes, but its not as creepy.

This movie is entertaining. Although some parts are illogical and drawn out, the majority of this movie is okay. The story line in THHE2 is not as logical as it is in THHE 2005. In the 2005 remake of THHE, you get the sense of 'This could happen in real life (well sort of anyway)' which makes it all the more creepy and scary. Even without the jump scenes, it would have been creepy. Another thing that helps the first one is that you don't get to see the mutants until 45 minutes into the movie, which makes you wonder, but when you do see them you are (happily) scared. But in the 2nd the mutants are in your face from the very beginning, and it is too difficult to imagine what happens as real, therefore you aren't particularly scared.

All in all, this movie is not bad. It's not anything special in my opinion, but I believe it is worth watching. It deserves about a 6 or 7 out of ten.

Therefore I would say, 7/10.

As one can see if they look at the writing credits, the script for this movie was written by Wes Craven and his son Jonathan. I was excited to see what the Son of the Professor of Horror could bring to the festivites.

The script was the best thing in the movie by far. It was a little rough, though...needed a bit of polish. A little more time in the writing stage, methinks. The story, on the whole, was well told and was only slightly predictable as far as who would die next/how exactly or when the next jump scare would be. The ending was satisfying...though I could certainly do without nearly every horror film released within the past few years having some pseudo-tough rock song during the end credits.

The script that the Mssrs. Craven gave to the film is what earned the score of five out of ten...but the script is not the only component to a movie.

The direction was lackluster, the score was like something rejected from a Nightmare on Elm Street sequel...one of the REALLY bad ones (like part five, two's score was much better than the movie deserved), the CGI was the worst I've seen in years, and the nail in the coffin (if you will)...this movie is one of the worst make-up jobs I have ever seen come out of KNB. Even some of the foley work was bad... The film felt rushed.

Why is that? Why were they so pressured as to say okay to a few poorly mixed foley tracks, for God's sakes? Why couldn't they film Flex Alexander and Daniella Alonso's close-ups out in the desert instead of in front of a green screen? Why would KNB, one of the greatest make-up effects houses out there, put out inferiour product? I fear that it's Fox Atomic's fault for intentionally forcing this movie out of the gates just to make the one-year mark and take in as much money as possible. Some productions can do that well, such as Saw...some cannot, such as this. The production suffered heavily because of Fox's greed. Hopefully, the box office take will suffer just as much.