Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
The Hills Have Eyes II
User Score
4.2 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 74 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 74
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 74
  3. Negative: 41 out of 74

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. [Anonymous]
    Mar 19, 2007
    6
    There will be some split audiences on this film. I cannot care either way because it was both disgusting on one end and somewhat brilliant to explore the mind of physchopathic lunatics on the other. Has some similarities to The Descent. I did not have any hate or love from this movie but if I had to choose I would take the positive side because I liked the acting. Michael McMillan was superb.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. ChristopherW.
    May 8, 2007
    1
    This film had a fantastic teaser trailer, and after seeing it, one might expect something more than one actually gets. I saw it in an empty theater, likely one of many empty theaters. I LOVED the first remake and thought it was one of the best horror films in recent years, but this one disappointingly played much like the countless direct to video 'fright flicks' that collect dust on rental shelves. I wasn't terribly bored, but I do recall talking on my cell phone during the third act. Oops!… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. Ryencoke
    Mar 24, 2007
    2
    Why all such the good reviews? This movie was a mockery to the series. The remake was possible one of the best horror re-makes to date. This movie was really just stupid, all they did was attempt to out-due the first one in gore & rape. Yes they did it, but it was pointless. I'm a person who loves gore and have no problem with rape. But when a movie has it's plot based on how violent they can make it, it's really very stupid. This movie was a stinker.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. syzygy
    Apr 1, 2007
    5
    Way more skill than imagination, the plot is retread, a homage to nothing, just a routine exercise to bank in on the money garnered by its predecessor. If you think of this not as a film but as a film school graduation project where you score the director on how well (or not) he executes the fundamentals of creating a basic mood, squeezing beleivable performances out of your principals, and splicing everything together neatly, then he passes. Your modest expectations might even feel a surprise or two. Altogether, forgettable otherwise.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. Mark
    Mar 19, 2007
    10
    This film is an epic in of itself. It is a miracle and unforgettable tale never to be foroggten. Wes Craven once again delievers his brilliance right to the screen. The scares come at the right times and the horror is downright unfrogettable. It is a filmaking achivement that nobody will ever surpass. Excellet.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. BrinaK.
    Mar 19, 2007
    1
    An offensive shame to popular culture. I have never seen anything so vulgar and disturbing in my life. It will haunt millions and may have imprinted itself on my life. The prolonged sequences of strong gruesome horror violence and the explicit rape seen should have earned this junk a NC17. The biggest movie mistake of my life. I would only recommend this movie to psychopaths, but I'm not that sick.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. ShryllK.
    Mar 19, 2007
    8
    I judge horror movies not as a critic, but as a horror moviegoer who wants some gore and some plot and suspense. This movie had little to work with but did a hell of a good job at delivering what it should have. A masterpiece.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. Anabelle
    Mar 19, 2007
    10
    The best horror movie to be released in the United States since The Descent. It is the goriest and the most vital in every way. It will be sure to generate controversy and shake up audiences. Once the word gets out that this movie is perfect, this movie will be a smashing success. I loved everything.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. MattF.
    Mar 24, 2007
    2
    This movie was by far one of the worst remakes I have ever seen. I dont see where all this controversy comes from there is little gore and the rape scene shows very little. Half of the deaths come from being shot or falling off a cliff, which is very uncreative especially considering the brilliance used in the first one with character development. Stay away from this, it is a money ploy and will make you want to leave. The most boring horror I have seen in a while.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. HootchieMomma
    Mar 25, 2007
    1
    Big Fan of the first movie.... HOWEVER, this was, honest to god, the worst movie I have seen in the past few years, possibly ever. Horrible acting. Such a disappointment!! Everything that happens in the movie, you sit there and ask yourself.. "why?" I wanted to love this movie like I did the original, but it just ended up pissin me off. Nothing like last years movie.. SUCKS!!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. HondoJ.
    Mar 26, 2007
    9
    Freshman director Martin Weisz ambitiously tackles the world's newfound nuclear fears with the terrific "The Hill Have Eyes II," a sparkling update of the Wes Craven classic. The American Southwest subs for the Middle East and mutant cannibals as terrorists in this thinly veiled metaphor of atomic terror and diplomatic ambiguity. What are we to make of the stunning imagery of National Guard troops, standing in for the American military-industrial complex, delivering nuclear materials to the region, then left shortly thereafter to deal with the horror unleashed by the power of the atom? Indeed, Weisz's interpretation of Muslim warriors as depraved mutant cannibals may be too saucy for the politically correct crowd, but others may find it a provocative statement on the war between cultures. This political thriller could use a little more confidence in itself and not rely on corny gore or wan sexual assaults, since the Cravens have created a masterpiece along the lines of "Z," "The Parallax View," and "JFK." I believed that the hills do have eyes, and that Oscar will have his golden eyes on this cinematic gem next February.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. PJR.
    Mar 27, 2007
    1
    I love a good horror movie, but, lord this flick pissed me off. Horribly acted (and I mean, really bad, especially the big guy with the Cindy Brady lisp), and an implausible, stupid story. The characters behave in ways that make you want them to die quickly and violently. At a merciful 89 minutes, this movie was still way too long.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. PatrickC.
    May 8, 2007
    3
    New horror movies normally are bad. Remakes of old horror movies are normally bad. But when you make a remake of Hills Have Eyes two, you know the movie is going to be bad. Sure enough, Hills brings the awfullness we all knew was coming. The movie isn't scary, isn't entertaining and quite frankly it's boring. Wes Craven should stop selling the rights to his old horror films and start making new ones.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  14. RockV
    Jun 4, 2007
    1
    I think it is a horrible movie. The rape scene is horrible principally, the violence is exaggerated. Not that it is bad to have violence in those movies, but the violence against womens in that way, especially after hearing what happened in the second movie, i was disgusted. I saw lots of horror movies, even those with rapes in them never made me angry like that. I understand people liked it, and that they gave a 10, but I don't understand what went into the creators heads when they wrote it. Mediocre movie.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. TylerD
    Jul 23, 2007
    3
    The Hills Have Eyes 2 flat out fails at everything it attempts to do. It's filled with terrible acting and a lack of sympathy mixed in with stupid characters and an even dumber story (if it's considered that.) The inclusion of soldiers being the main cast also takes away from the scariness. Overall, it fails miserably to live up to The Hills Have Eyes.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  16. JasenW
    Jul 26, 2007
    4
    This movie definitely didn't live up to my expectations. The story line had potential, but they blew it. Including women in the National Guard combat unit made the movie more of a comedy than a horror movie. The rape scene was a good touch and there was some good gore.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. MarkL.
    Mar 19, 2007
    10
    After shocking audiences worldwide with a breathtaking remake of his legendary original film, Wes Craven is back for more. This time, it is better than ever, and I mean every word of it. This movie is downright brilliant. It is scary and outstanding, controversial, offensive, disgusting and it is a true masterpiece for its class.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. PeterS.
    Mar 19, 2007
    7
    The fact that this film has turned into a political debate is outrageous. People should simply see the movie for what it is, and that is simply a decent horror movie follow up to a classic remake that will never be forgotten. It is nothing less or more than a reenactment of the 60s movie with more glamorous actors. It is fun, and yeah it has its nasty parts. But it is a horror movie people. Get over yourselves and just judge the movie from a honest standpoint.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  19. ElliottM.
    Mar 23, 2007
    1
    My question is: Who is paying all of these reviewers to give this such high scores?!? It's all noise, gross-outs, and cheap scares. We've seen it all before (more or less). Nothing about it lingers afterwards.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  20. BillyB.
    Mar 25, 2007
    0
    If you saw the first movie in this disgraceful series of terrible movies, you would know not to see this one, but strangely enough I went and saw it anyways and I have to say Mr. Craven, I'm very disappointed.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  21. ERG1008
    Sep 3, 2010
    1
    Sequel to the half-decent remake of The Hills Have Eyes. The best way to describe this film is if you imagine the cast of Hollyoaks joining the Military then acting like the Chuckle Brothers. Put simply, it's bloody awful.
  22. asylumspadez
    Nov 26, 2011
    0
    Terrible acting, Terrible script that does nothing but give you a reason why they are there just so the villians can get them. The entire film was stupid and nothing compared to the previous one.
  23. DJohnson
    Apr 21, 2012
    10
    Brilliant, creepy, brutal, that pretty much sums up what this movie is, at least to me, i really enjoyed this movie, it kind of reminded me of the descent
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
32 out of 100

Generally unfavorable - based on 18 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 18
  2. Mixed: 8 out of 18
  3. Negative: 9 out of 18
  1. Film Threat
    Reviewed by: Felix Vasquez, Jr.
    10
    This horror fanatic doesn't have room for Craven in his genre anymore. Collect your cash and call it a day already, Wes.
    Read full review
  2. TV Guide
    Reviewed by: Ken Fox
    50
    Though written by Wes Craven and his son, Jonathan Craven, this is pretty standard stuff: A lot of creeping through dark tunnels with just enough characterization to help you keep track of who's still alive, but not enough gore to really satisfy fans of Aja's bloodbath.
    Read full review
  3. Premiere
    Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    38
    As a fan of the genre, and someone who genuinely loves such recent horror efforts as "The Descent" and "The Host," I respectfully suggest that the atmosphere for horror movies might be better if moviemakers stopped making ones like this.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »