User Score
4.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 98 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 44 out of 98
  2. Negative: 44 out of 98
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. Sep 19, 2012
    10
    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. [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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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 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
  10. Jan 2, 2013
    6
    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.
  11. 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
  12. Oct 12, 2012
    9
    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, angryThe 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
  13. Sep 19, 2012
    6
    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.
  14. Sep 19, 2012
    10
    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.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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, 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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!!
  21. 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.
  22. 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. Collapse
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. Feb 2, 2013
    4
    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 theIt 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
    Expand
  31. 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
  32. Apr 21, 2015
    8
    This is trash,gory and it has a lot of action.The acting is not that good and the story is not original but thanks to the action scenes and all the gore,the movie is never boring.
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.