User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 97 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 43 out of 97
  2. Negative: 44 out of 97

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
    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. Sep 19, 2012
    Cool and creepy, i seriously cannot understand why critics hated this movie, are you all high? are you retarded? who knows, either way, i really enjoyed it.
  3. Sep 3, 2010
    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.
  4. Nov 26, 2011
    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.
  5. Jan 2, 2013
    Not as good as the first remake but it was still an enjoyable horror movie. The acting is a little weak and the plot could have been better but overall it wasn't that bad.
  6. Feb 2, 2013
    It should have seemed clear to Wes Craven that THE HILLS HAVE EYES was a film best left unto itself after the abysmal follow up he aborted on to the screen back in '85, but for some god awful reason, Fox decided it would be a great idea to allow Wes and his son Jonathan to write another sequel. The second attempt on THE HILLS HAVE EYES 2 is perhaps even worse than the first, save for the gory effects. It follows a group of the most untrained, annoying, and childish 'soldiers' the world has ever known as they investigate an abandoned research facility out in the deserts of New Mexico. As they soon find out, the lab was set up to find evidence of the rumored cannibal clan that was supposed to haunt the location, and more murder and mayhem ensues. THE HILLS HAVE EYES 2 is drowned in poorly drawn characters and dreadful dialog that has the audience cheering for each death. Anyone unfortunate enough to sit through the entire thing will at least be privileged to some excellent brain-splattering and gut-munching goodness, but the pain and suffering endured throughout the rest of the plot hardly seems worth it. It is better to forget that this sequel was ever made in order to spare yourself the unnecessary waste of time. -Carl Manes
    I Like Horror Movies
  7. Apr 21, 2012
    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
  8. Aug 12, 2012
    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 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:
  9. Oct 12, 2012
    The hills have eyes II was not, to be honest, something i thought i would enjoy, given that the army has never had a strong record of providing believable characters, but, if you will excuse my sudden burst of 'certified' criticism, most of the characters in this film are not only believable, but decent, only two of them didn't do well: jacob vargas, he seemed a little stereotypeish, angry mexican army guy... really, and whoever the fat guy was, how the hell did he even make it to the level of private??? but another thing that really surprised me was that this was scary... genuinely scary... this is a rather solid sequel to one of the best remakes in recent memory - samarathenymph xoxo Expand
  10. Sep 19, 2012
    Sometimes the acting gets stale, sometimes the film gets boring, and sometimes it does get murky, but it is still effective, and it is by no means a bad entry into the franchise, it certainly tops the original sequel to the original film.
  11. Sep 19, 2012
    Well cast, scary, not pg-13, like stay alive, it may have a small pacing issue, but that is really the only thing wrong, it is a great horror film, and that's what people need.

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.
    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
    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
    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.