The Hills Have Eyes II

User Score
4.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 99 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 44 out of 99
  2. Negative: 45 out of 99
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 4, 2013
    0
    Utter fail on every level! It is not even as cheesy as some 60's or 70's movies, people watch for laughs. This movie is just simply bad. The acting, the story, the effect, everything is the lowest quality. Avoid this like the plague.
  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 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
  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 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
  4. 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 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
  5. 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 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
  6. 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!!
  7. 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.
  8. 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 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
  9. 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 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Aug 12, 2012
    2
    In the opening subtitles, the audience is reminded of the bloody carnage that concluded the remake of the first "The Hills Have Eyes". It is safe to assume that any evidence regarding the mutant slaughtering that was bestowed upon that poor family was dissolved by the heat of the sun. This is so because, in this sequel, a military group has decided to base somewhere near the same placeIn the opening subtitles, the audience is reminded of the bloody carnage that concluded the remake of the first "The Hills Have Eyes". It is safe to assume that any evidence regarding the mutant slaughtering that was bestowed upon that poor family was dissolved by the heat of the sun. This is so because, in this sequel, a military group has decided to base somewhere near the same place without much precaution. The subtitles claim that they are "monitoring for undisclosed reasons."

    I wander as to what the hell they were monitoring in an abandoned desert; the words "undisclosed reasons" are not reassuring enough, especially in a horror movie, but let's move on. To no surprise, these people end up disfigured and discombobulated, while one ends up deep in the toilet with a few cuts so he can die of mass infection. Oh no, these mutants, they have developed their own sense of humor.

    Read more here: http://localmoviereview.com/hills-have-eyes-2-review/
    Expand
  16. Jun 12, 2015
    0
    >........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Metascore
32

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 18 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 18
  2. Negative: 9 out of 18
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.