La colline a des yeux n° 2

Since Wes Craven himself wrote and directed this one, I was really expecting more than just another slasher movie. Still, it's pretty good, though. And yes, I'm sure dogs can have flashbacks too (they do have minds after all, don't they?)

Just watched this movie a couple of hours ago! Sure, I loved The Hills Have Eyes, and I had heard how horrible this one was, but I bought it anyway for $3. And it's not THAT bad! Really! If you don't keep saying "Gee, this movie is crap compared to the original", I mean, it's not a great movie, but it's not unwatchable. Some things are pretty annoying and/or stupid... like...

*When the girl finally admits to being the ex-cannibal sister Ruby, and that it was Bobby's family that was in the incident, THEY DON'T CARE! GEE, I was hoping they would at least react! P***ED ME OFF! That ruined some of the movie for me... The characters just don'tttt care.

*The characters, most of them, P*** ME OFF also. All they do is walk around saying "Yeahhh right, there's nothing to worry about, hahaha". The 'there's nothing to worry about' attitude Gets old.

*Hardly anyone finds out when someone has been killed. That's part of the fun of horror movies, for the people to find out someones dead, go tell the others, and freak out!

*The ending was ridiculus. So, the guy came up with that ingenius plot? Wow... he must be next in line for the Pulitzer! Brilliant.

But, it is just a movie.... Keep telling yourself that....

That's about it, now, with all that said, there dosent seem to be any good things about it... Annoying... Sometimes stupid, but never really boring... Not the worst choice for a boring day. Plus, there's not as many flashbacks as some people would lead you to believe...

5/10

The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 (1985) was a unwarranted sequel. But after all this was the eighties and sequels were in vogue. The first film had a fine closure and I still don't understand what was Wes Craven thinking when he released it? It was far too tamed to be an R-Rated film and it wasn't a true sequel (in my opinion). Too far fetched and inane. I wasn't pleased with the end results. I'll just pretend it never took place.

Not a bad movie but certainly not a good one either. A mediocre effort of Wes Craven. You could tell his heart wasn't in this project. But I would take one of these films any day compared ti the rubbish he's cranking out these day.

An okay time waster. Not a total disaster that some people might make you believe it is!

I liked the first one and after seeing this stupid rip-off of it I was shocked to realize that it too had been directed by Wes Craven! What is the matter with that guy? Is he schizo?

The only reason to see this garbage is that it could possibly be the only film in history where a dog has a flashback. (Not including movies where the dog is the main character.) Craven was obviously stretching for ANY way to pad this sucker out with footage from the first one. While he was at it he might have padded it out with some of the GOOD footage from the first one.

The Hills Have Eyes wasn't perfect but it did build suspense and had some genuine horror. Part II fails on every level.

Wes, be ashamed, be very ashamed.

A group of bikers, which includes some of the survivors from the original film, embark on a journey by bus to a biker race near the desert of the infamous incidents. However, because of a mistake they are late and decide to take a shortcut through the desert.

So, allegedly Wes Craven disowned this movie, claiming he only made it for the money. Sounds plausible. Unlike "Nightmare on Elm Street", "Hills" was not a film that needed a sequel. (Somehow, we have since ended up with a remake and sequel...) On the plus side, we have horror icon Michael Berryman, and Kevin Spirtas (who is better known to horror fans for "Friday the 13th Part VII"). So, while this is a pretty poor excuse for a horror film, it at least has a few familiar faces.

In 2019, Arrow Video released a special edition Blu-ray. It's a bit light on the features. There is a making-of documentary, but the audio commentary is provided by "The Hysteria Continues." For obvious reasons they could not get Craven to do it, but certainly there could have been some actor(s). Glad to see the special treatment, but this does not make it a better film.