Hillside Cannibals

Quite possibly the worst movie I have EVER seen. The Zappa reference is to a song he performed called "Cheapness" (he may have deliberately misspelled it, but I don't remember how.) On the live version of the song he introduced it with a Frank-esque discussion of "cheap" monster movies and how inept performances made them "great"--to laugh at. This was released well after Frank passed. Just goes to show he was ahead of his time.

Funny, as this masterpiece was ending, and the credits were rolling, I had to wonder who is SO desperate as to actually WANT their name on this picture in any way.

I only gave no stars because the selection menu did not offer negative numbers.

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.

Alright, I was in Blockbuster today on my lunch break and spotted to preview sleeves for this (both copies were actually rented out). It claimed to be the tale that inspired the Hills Have Eyes. Um, WHAT?! That is the most bogus claim I've ever read! Hey director/script writer: watch the documentary on the original Hills Have Eyes (1977) 2-disk by Anchor Bay. In it, Wes Craven states that the inspiration for the Hills Have Eyes was a cave-dwelling medieval (sp?) family in the British Isles (the Seaney-Beane family I believe). Wes Craven should sue the hell out of the "production company" of this "film" for libel! I am insulted that anyone would try to cash in on film-renters' ignorance of a subject by just plain lying. I came across another video box for "When A Killer Calls" which claims to be more like the urban legend (the babysitter and the man upstairs) than the original When A Stranger Calls. RUBBISH! I CALL SHINANIGANS!!

Great start. Really threw a curve ball at us we did not see coming.. only then to slow to a absolute snails pace after the 15min mark. Ended up skipping through the movie and was able to piece it together as it ludicrously predictable. Should be called hillside caveman.

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!