Metascore
52

Mixed or average reviews - based on 28 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 28
  2. Negative: 6 out of 28
  1. Reviewed by: Heidi Martinuzzi
    80
    When Aja really starts in on the brutal slayings, he spares no one any comfort at all.
  2. Reviewed by: Nathan Lee
    80
    Snobs may balk, purists will be appalled, but this new and exceedingly nasty version of Wes Craven's 1977 cult shocker is awfully good at what it does. And mostly what it does is make you feel awful.
  3. Even as he reinvents, Aja invents. He's clearly working on a big budget for his first American film and has been told he can do anything he can think of. Visually, the movie is wildly alive, full of sure touches.
  4. If studios insist on remaking classic horror films, this is definitely the way to do it.
  5. 75
    French up-and-comer Alexandre Aja's full-bore do-over is a shockingly successful update of a seminal 1970s shocker.
  6. Reviewed by: Erin Meister
    75
    Hills is a far cry from its cheesy and predictable predecessor. "Gruesome" doesn't begin to describe the horrors that are revealed on-screen here.
  7. Almost 30 years later, it's just as primal.
  8. This remake of the 1977 Wes Craven cult classic is brutally horrific. And that's a compliment.
  9. Reviewed by: Robert Koehler
    70
    Besides proving to be a faithful mimic of Craven's filmmaking, Aja pours on the gore. But where Aja's version really leaps beyond Craven's both atmospherically and on the violence scale is in the second hour.
  10. 67
    Aja's version, while a killer ride in its own right, never manages the nagging subtexts Craven so handily injected into the proceedings. It's a topnotch nightmare, but this time you wake up.
  11. 63
    The Hills Have Eyes gets points for gore and general creepiness, and for occasional periods of tension, but it's not scary enough to linger long in the subconscious.
  12. Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    63
    Though this new Hills is both scarier and smarter than 95 percent of the other horror product out there, it's also indicative of everything that's wrong with horror movies today.
  13. 60
    Fans of the original won't be disappointed, but ultimately it's just another decent, arguably unnecessary, '70s horror remake.
  14. Where Craven and his director, Alexandre Aja, may have miscalculated is in making the genetically damaged demons, with their flesh-potato foreheads and minimal verbal skills, into monster action figures who take vengeance on the world that created them. They're not scary because they're victims themselves.
  15. 50
    What good is a wallow in sicko sadism if you take all the fun out of it?
  16. 50
    This slick, sick remake of the 1977 Wes Craven cult shocker is more of a glum bummer than a horror show.
  17. As with all ensemble horror movies, your first challenge is to guess which of the Carter kin will survive to destroy the creatures killing them, and in what order the family members (and their pets) will fall.
  18. There are scenes that may make your stomach feel uncomfortable for a moment but rarely stories that will upset your equilibrium.
  19. Alexandre Aja directs in full glop mode and the cast includes a few performers, including Ted Levine (from "Monk"), Robert Joy, and Kathleen Quinlan, who probably wish they were elsewhere.
  20. 50
    Some may condemn this gruesome, heartless exercise, but I prefer to savor the irony: three years after the Francophobia that accompanied Operation Iraqi Freedom, every bonehead in America will be lining up to see a Frenchman's movie about subhuman hillbillies.
  21. 42
    Thanks to assured direction and a fine cast, Hills isn't terrible, only terribly unnecessary.
  22. The net effect would be doze-inducing if in fact the Dolby didn't attempt to wake the dead.
  23. 38
    It is not faulty logic that derails The Hills have Eyes, however, but faulty drama. The movie is a one-trick pony.
  24. Reviewed by: Michael Phillips
    38
    The ratings board gets all twisted up about sex and skin, yet it cannot give you or your kids enough ax blades to the cranium. This week's evidence: the remake of the old Wes Craven horror item, The Hills Have Eyes, which should not be rated R. It should be rated NC-17, or ITTS-OW, which stands for Is This Thing Sadistic, Or What?
  25. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    38
    Nothing is right about this ridiculous horror schlockfest.
  26. 30
    An orgy of bloodletting and dismemberment that's more monotonous than shocking. Aja and Levasseur are to splatter what Liberace was to rhinestones: practitioners of gaud.
  27. Reviewed by: Kyle Smith
    25
    These man-eaters are deadly, mainly in their ability to bore you to death.
  28. Aja's stomach-churning remake (produced by Craven) follows the original with frightening fidelity, amping up the barbarity from a nine (on the 1-10 scale) to a 12.
User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 155 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 46 out of 75
  2. Negative: 24 out of 75
  1. CoryC.
    Sep 5, 2007
    10
    I wish I could give this a higher vote than 10. My favorite movie ever. Rape scene not needed? What the hell? The Carter family didn't I wish I could give this a higher vote than 10. My favorite movie ever. Rape scene not needed? What the hell? The Carter family didn't need to be attacked by the mutants, but they were. That's what Lizard wanted to do, and though emotional, it was awesomely done. You really feel like you know the characters before they kill them. It wasn't TRYING to do anything, I don't think. It wasn't shying away from the horror of what it would really be like to be attacked unawares by such vicious creatures. This was the most intelligently, well done movie I know of, and I loved it with a passion! Aja, I wish you would direct THe Hills Have Eyes 3 and continue the plot with Bobby, Doug, Brenda, Katheryne, and Beast. Full Review »
  2. Aug 23, 2012
    8
    This film is, at times, absolutely brutal and entirely un-enjoyable. But at other times it is dripping with an atmosphere of pure dread, fear,This film is, at times, absolutely brutal and entirely un-enjoyable. But at other times it is dripping with an atmosphere of pure dread, fear, and creepiness that will make you shiver. The suspense and intensity of the scares is as high as possible; prepare yourself for repulsion and a cranked up heartbeat. I've never really gasped to a movie; I'm a guy, and a hardcore horror fan, but I couldn't help it at times.

    Despite the buckets of disgust and horror, though, the great cinematography, combined with that, make this a horror film to be remembered. Brutal, gross, creepy, and intense, it's almost not a movie, but an experience. True Horrror.
    Full Review »
  3. Apr 9, 2012
    6
    If you compare this to the original Hills Have Eyes there are some differences but I have to say I enjoyed it. It really wasn't a Horror movieIf you compare this to the original Hills Have Eyes there are some differences but I have to say I enjoyed it. It really wasn't a Horror movie but it was pretty good. Usually remakes sucks pretty bad but this wasn't a BAD remake. Full Review »