The Hills Have Eyes Part II (44%)

Before:

With six films completed, I am slowly plodding my way through all things directed by the legendary Wes Craven. So far things haven't been exactly amazing but at the same time it hasn't been terrible either. Of the six films, three of them I would recommend and three I wouldn't. Through my review system a film needs a score of 63% or higher to be recommended and therefore Craven is sitting on the fence between being a good director and a bad one.

So with an average score of 57%, I now turn my attention to his seventh film, The Hills Have Eyes Part II. Will it bump up the average or will it bring it done? Will I recommend it, will I not? In other words: will it be any good?

My guess is that this film will fall into the not very good category. I can't see it being as bad as Swamp Thing but I do believe it will be worse than the original The Hills Have Eyes. There are a few reasons why I believe this to be true. One reason is that I didn't like the first one very much and sequels usually aren't as good (usually, but not always the case). Craven has improved as a director since he made the original but then again, his last two movies don't come recommended.

Another reason why I believe this movie will be no good is as follows. When I began collecting the films of Wes Craven, on DVD or Blu-ray, this film was very hard to find. All that was available was a full frame terribly transfered version on DVD. This version would be unacceptable by my rules (posted here). So in my search for a legitimate copy I came across a few reviews (which I try refrain from reading) which lambasted this film. I barely read them but they basically said it is one of the worst films they have ever seen (and that was just in the first few sentences). I can't believe it could be worse than Swamp Thing, as well as I am under the firm belief that the original isn't as good as people say.

The last reason why my beliefs on this film lean towards to the negative is that when it finally was released in a new widescreen print, on both DVD and Blu-ray, it was released with no features. None! Nothing what so ever!! That's a bad sign in general, but when Craven won't even talk about a film you know it must be bad. But then again I could be wrong and I could be pleasantly surprised.

Once again I know very little about this film. Well, maybe I know more about it than many of the films that have come before it but I still don't know very much. I know it is a sequel to the original and thus will have a similar story. I know that Michael Berryman returns as Pluto, although he did die in the original. I know that people and/or critics don't seem to like this film very much. And I know that this is the last film Craven made before he would become the legend that he is.

So there you go. That's the pre show entertainment and it's coming to an end. The main feature is about to begin and I need to quieten up while it plays. It's time to discover if this sequel is better than the original or it's time to see how bad a film The Hills Have Eyes Part II actually is. All I can say is, please god let it be better than Swamp Thing.



Review:

Film Rating: 44%

Breakdown (How The Hills Have Eyes Part II scored 44%):

Directing: 6 out of 10

Better handled than it's predecessor, The Hills Have Eyes Part II, is a better put together film but is also shorter on story and is still missing anything resembling substance. Not terrible but no more than a 6 for Mr. Craven.

Re-playability: 4 out of 10

Pretty weak film to watch again. Not gory enough, not enough nudity, not enough excitement. Too much darkness, too much stupidity in the characters actions. I wouldn't watch it again unless I had to and if I did I guess things could be worse.

Originality: 4 out of 10

Repeats of the first films scenes, a truly unoriginal score, and nothing very creative in the writing. It does work well enough as a sequel to the original though and for that it gets a 4.  

Production Design (Special Effects/Sets/Locations): 5 out of 10

Nice locations and one half decent set that ultimately comes off worse than it should have due to the lack of good photography. The special effects are only slightly better than the original film here and again poor photography allows for the viewer to see very little of the very little that exists. A low, low 5.

Costumes and Make-Up:  3 out of 10

The mutants look more like mutants. The costumes they wear are slightly better. The costumes worn by the normal folk are  generic but look okay, except for Janus Blythe who looks too 80's with her hiked up pants and tucked in shirt. In general the make-up is fairly weak, leaving no lasting impressions and looking pretty fake more times than not. A 3 because I feel generous.

Script: 3 out of 10

The story starts off well, setting up what looks to be a promising sequel. But then returning characters disappear and never return and dead characters return for less than convincing reasons. The second half of the film loses any semblance of story and turns into The Hills Have Eyes done by way of a slasher film. Oh, and there is a dog flashback.

Cinematography: 4 out of 10

In  Invitation to Hell Craven used Dean Cundy as his cinematographer. Here we have David Lewis. Who? Exactly. Boring and bad framing of shots and scenes that are so dark you can barely make out what is happening on the screen. It does look better than the original though with some nicer colours and one or two shots that are pleasing to the eye. Only one or two though. A 4 seems fair.

Editing: 5 out of 10

Better edited than the first Hills, with no awkward cuts or bad juxtaposition of cuts but still rather generic and nothing much to it. Not terrible by any means but not great. Plus it does drag on and could of been cut by at least 10 minutes. A mid range 5 for those reasons.

Acting: 6 out of 10

Not great acting but not bad acting either. A few familiar faces pop up here and there but most have given better performances. Michael Berryman is better here than in part one, and the rest of the cast does an alright job. Plus the mutants, when talking off screen, sound more realistic and less wooden than in the original. Worst performance in the film is by John Bloom as the reaper. Pretty bad but again, not as bad as anything in part one.

Music: 4 out of 10

Craven uses Henry Manfredini here to score his film. At least I think he does. It says he does in the credits. But the music sounds like it is stolen from Friday the 13th right down to the cha-cha-cha sounds that signify Jason Vorhees is near. I like the music but it is totally unoriginal so it gets a low 4.

***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***

***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***

After:

Of the seven films I have now seen directed by Wes Craven, The Hills Have Eyes Part II is not his worst. With that said, it is his second worse. The first The Hills Have Eyes was no great shakes either. It wasn't that good, that gory or even that scary. The remake in 2006 was miles ahead in quality and scares and took the film to places that the original could only dream of.

The remake was followed by a sequel a year later. That sequel was and still is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. It is so bad it makes a movie like this one actually seem okay. The sequel to the remake of The Hills Have Eyes is not a remake of the sequel to the original film. The new sequel puts a new set of mutants up against a bunch of soldiers and it just plain sucked the life from me when I watched it.

This sequel tells the story of a bunch of teens who go out to the hills, led by survivors from the first film, and subsequently get whacked off one by one by the mutants. Robert Houston returns as Bobby, Janus Blythe returns as Ruby and Michael Berryman returns as Pluto. The rest of the cast are all new characters, one of them is played by Penny Johnson who will one day become First Lady Palmer in 24. 

There are many problems with this film. So many problems its hard to begin to think about where to begin discussing them.  So let's begin with Craven's directing then. While not as bad as the original film he still manages to let this one slide. It's not a terrible job but after seven movies you would think he would be better. That's not really fair of me to say as his debut The Last House on the Left did show a lot of promise, Summer of Fear was well put together and Deadly Blessing was his best effort to date. But somewhere along the production line of this film he seemed to get lazy.

It is an overall better acted, better shot and better edited film than the original but otherwise it is worse in every aspect. The writing is lazy and there are scenes that don't seem to have been written at all. Written by Craven, he must of been smoking something funny when he put pen to paper. He has long scenes of people calling out each other's names in the dark. Minutes upon minutes of this in this movie. He has a few funny lines spurted out by various characters but otherwise there is very little comedy here but one can't help but laugh when the dog has a flashback of years before.

Speaking of the dog, Beast, this animal is supposed to be the same Beast as in the original film. It is now eight years later and Beast hasn't aged a day. He looks just as young and vibrant as he did in the original film, where he was no puppy. And in the first film it is Beast who kills Pluto. Pluto, played by Berryman in his best performance so far, died in the first film but now we are told he was just maimed and has made a full, scarless recovery.

The two other characters that return from the first film have no reason to be in the film except to link the stories. Bobby returns at the beginning only to cower out of going to the desert and he is never heard from again. Ruby returns, seems like she is going to be a hero and then gets knocked unconscious.  She is never heard from again and even forgotten by the rest of the survivors.

That's not all that's bad. When The Reaper, played by John Bloom, crashes through a roof to grab a blind girl (who survives longer than anyone else) she escapes easily enough and instead of chasing her right away he just throws his arms around yells. When The Reaper catches up with each teenager he quickly kills them off but he, for some reason only knocks out Roy (played by Kevin Spirtas) and leaves him to wake up and come save the day by making a more complicated rip-off of the caravan explosion in part one.

With the sequel, it seems Craven has taken ideas from his original film, and put them into a slasher film. The movie plays out exactly how a slasher film works and the mutants here are just variations of the slashers that came before. The originality is completely gone from The Hills Have Eyes and instead we are left with a bunch of teens being hunted down by unseen mutants that can be everywhere and anywhere a la Friday the 13th.

Speaking of that movie, Henry Manfredini is that man behind it's music and the man behind the music for this film. Here's how I think he scored this film. Craven said: I like what you did with Friday the 13th. Can you do the same thing for this film? Manfredini said: sure. He went home, sat down to write something new and realized that Craven wanted the same thing. So he just took the music from Friday the 13th along with a few unused cues and handed it over. The music is so uninspired and has no sense at all of originality.

And finally (I'm sure there is more that I can't even remember) the film is so dark that for the most part you can't really see what is going on. It hides to much of the gore and the special effects. It hides to much sets and locations and it hides to much of the faces of both the mutants and the teenagers. Dark works for horror but this film is to dark and you end up squinting and moving closer to the screen just to try and see a little better.

So there you have it. Another bad film from Craven. That makes four bad films and three good ones.  The fence is tilting and it's tilting the wrong way for him. The Hills Have Eyes Part II has ended up being his second worst movie. But with all said and done I still don't think it was as bad as those previews of reviews that I glimpsed a few months ago made it out to be. It's not good and I don't really recommend it but it was better than Swamp Thing.

Written and directed by Craven it is actually shocking that this is the film he made before A Nightmare on Elm Street.  That film is also written by Craven and from what I remember the two films are on different levels. Nightmare is where Craven found success and where he became a legend in horror. If that movie hadn't come out when it did, I think The Hills Have Eyes Part II might of just pushed Craven into TV territory and left him there for good.

Invitation to Hell (61%)

Before:

Ok... I've got Invitation to Hell in my hand. I'm ready to go, ready to sit down and spend 100 minutes watching Wes Craven's sixth film as director. It's aslo the third (of four) of the entire 22 film collection that I know virtually nothing about. Three days ago I was rip-roaring to go, excited about watching some unbeknown hidden gems in the Craven catalogue. That was three days ago. Today I am a little more apprehensive, a little more nervous, a little less thrilled to be sitting down and watching this one.

Having watched five films in Craven's catalogue I was getting kind of excited. Before I had started watching his films I believed him to really only have nine films of a total of 22 that would be any good, but The last House on the Left ended up being much better than remembered and with Summer of Fear and Deadly Blessing being much better than expected, with the latter film being not only his best so far but a prelude of things to come, I was more energized in my endeavour to watch all things Craven.

But then I watched Swamp Thing and boy did it suck. It was his worst film so far and it was almost painful to watch at parts. It was also a huge disappointment.  I didn't think very good things of The Hills Have Eyes but this was much much worse. They don't get much worse than Swamp Thing and it really has made me lose faith in Craven. I've started to resort to my original idea of Craven being a pretty weak director, a director that got lucky a few times in his career but otherwise the rest of his films could be written of into the wind. Before Swamp Thing he was starting to show some promise but Swamp Thing was so bad I am now very apprehensive to go on.

I mean Invitation to Hell I had never heard of up until a few months ago, yet it is 29 years old. It is also a made for TV movie which is never a good sign for quality. True, I did like and recommend Summer of Fear which is also a TV movie but a) it was made in the 70's which was a different world for television than the 80's and b) it came before Swamp Thing. Now I've got this film to contend with.

I know nothing about the plot or how well critics or audiences fared with this film. I do know the cast. the release date and that it was made for television. That's about it. But I've procrastinated enough and there's nothing left for me to do. I've cooked, I've cleaned, I've gone out, I've read, I've slept and now all I've got left to do is get through this film. I hope I'm wrong and I enjoy it like I did Summer of Fear and I hope I can recommend it when all is said and done, but my hopes aren't high on this one.

Okay, I'm diving in but I shall return shortly...


Review:

Film Rating: 61%

Breakdown (How Invitation to Hell scored 61%):

Directing: 7 out of 10

For a made for TV movie Craven has once again directed a film that he can be proud of. He has assembled a good crew and made a tight little film. Although it gets a 7 as it crumbles near the end.

Re-playability: 5 out of 10

Would be more watchable if the ending wasn't as bad. Up until the last 20 minutes the film is actually pretty good. Gets a 5 as I would watch again, if I had to, and wouldn't mind if I did.

Originality: 5 out of 10

The story starts off well but then, with 20 minutes left to go it becomes a badly drawn out Poltergeist rip-off. Not that the first hour is specifically original but it does have it's charms and does have enough uniqueness to score a 5.
  

Production Design (Special Effects/Sets/Locations): 6 out of 10

Some nice effects at the beginning, about an hour of no effects and then some excellent effects for TV intermixed with some very poor effects. The sets and locations work well, especially the ever changing house of the Winslow's. It's drastic and makes the audience feel what Matt Winslow (Robert Urich) is feeling. A few cheap props (such as a poor and uncreative sign for the health spa) bring this done to a 6.

Costumes and Make-Up:  6 out of 10

Some good costumes, with Pat Winslow (Joanna Cassidy) coming off rather well as her look and attire changes along with her character. But also a lot of generic costumes that don't say much at all. The make-up is much better, showing realistic wounds and burns and again, a drastic change in Pat Winslow's character. A strong 6 here.

Script: 5 out of 10

Pretty decent first hour. Strong writing, strong sense of foreshadowing and a strong sense of mystery. Unfortunately the writers can't keep up the good work and end up stealing liberally from Poltergeist and in a cheaper and cheesier way. So badly done is the last 20 minutes that it drops this category down to a 5.

Cinematography: 7 out of 10

Shot by the legendary Dean Cundy, the cinematography here is excellent. Amazing lighting and perfectly framed shots, especially for a made for TV movie. It only gets a 7 because it was sht in a boring 1.33:1 ratio which doesn't do much for the eye.

Editing: 7 out of 10

Pretty tightly edited. The film flows nicely, is never boring and is never jarring. A 7 for editing as it is good, but there is nothing unique or exciting about it. It's good, it works but that's about it.

Acting: 7 out of 10

Robert Urich leads a solid cast of actors who all put out rather convincing performances. There are moments here and there where the acting seems a bit forced but overall the acting far exceeds the Tv nature of the production.

Music: 6 out of 10

The music works well for the most part but like many of Craven's works, and many movies from this era and many TV movie's there are lots of over the top or corny themes and cues. These don't happen to often and otherwise the music is rather exciting, thrilling and well constructed. A high 6 but no more as it could of been an all round better score.

***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***

***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***

After:

...And I'm back. And what did I think of Invitation to Hell? Well, I liked it, I'm not going to lie. It was enjoyable and fun and much better than I expected. Would I recommend it though? Unfortunately not.  Unfortunately Invitation to Hell is two notches below a recommendation (63% would be the recommendation level).  And that's kind of sad because for the first hour and a bit this movie really works well.

The film takes the age old story of a family, new in town, that begins to discover sinister things afoot. This time around the evil is originating from a local health club and our titular hero, Robert Urich as Matt Winslow, is the only one that can resist its pull. After his friends and family are drawn in and become part of the 'club' it is up to him to rescue them. As the title suggests, it is literally hell that Winslow is up against.

So if I say that I enjoyed this film, then why don't I recommend it? The answer lies in the last 20 minutes of the film. But before I get there lets talk the good things about the film. First and foremost it is head and shoulders above and better than Swamp Thing. So much so that it has brought me a renewed excitement in my odyssey to do all things Craven. The acting is better than I thought possible for a TV movie from 1984. Urich gives a great performance as Winslow, creating a likeable and believable hero. I'd love to see more of his work. The rest of the cast does a fine job too and that includes the child actors (for the most part).

Another positive aspect of this film is the story and how it plays out. It's mysterious and fun, and while never actually scary, it did keep me intrigued for most of it's run time. From it's opening death scene to the foreshadowing space suit to the halloween party, things are laid out nicely and played upon well. But the best thing about this film is the cinematography by the great Dean Cundy (Halloween, Back to the Future, Jurassic Park). Although shot in the standard 1.33:1 ratio, the framing is tight and the lighting perfect. It sure doesn't look like a TV movie and Cundy does well with the blocking, framing and placement of the things inside the awkward full frame image.

But now let's return to why this film didnt work and why I ultimately don't recommend it. Of course there are a few cheesy lines, a few cheesy moments scattered throughout and a minor amount of wooden performances that lower the quality of the picture but those alone do not a bad film make. There are two reasons here why Invitation to Hell doesn't make the cut.

The first reason is the story, or the originality of the story if you will. This film is a made for TV rip-off of Poltergeist. I realized this in the last 20 minutes of the film and at this point it doesn't bother hiding the fact. Our hero, Winslow, must travel into the gates of hell (into the other world in Poltergeist) and rescue his family. Pull them out and back into reality. The entire last 20 minutes is a cheaper knock off of the last 20 minutes of Poltergeist. Watching the film as I did, not knowing anything about it, I missed the connections early on but thinking back to the beginning of the film you can already see the similarities between the two movies right from the beginning.

The second reason the film loses my recommendation is that it falls apart at the end. Even though it rips off Poltergeist it doesn't do it well. At first things look good. Winslow is in the caverns of hell that look amazing for such an old TV movie, but then it seems that the budget was all eaten up.  We get film in reversed negative for a special effect. We get blue lights that act as barriers, we get no devil make-up and we get a really bad blue screen effect of a fire off in the distance. Couple the terrible effects with the rip-off aspect and an air of cheesiness (I love you's and hugs save the day) and the film falls apart at the seams. It's too bad as the first part of the film was generally enjoyable.

I did like this film better than I had thought I would. If you like to watch movies but cut them off before they end then I wholeheartedly recommend this one. Otherwise you will just be left disappointed like I was. It starts off great, keeps the momentum going and then it loses it big time. Craven does a fine job directing, one of his better jobs so far, until he falls under the weight and constraints of the ending.

This film came so close to being worthwhile that it did redeem Craven for me after the debacle that was Swamp Thing. It also has the continuing theme running through all of Craven's films (except for Swamp Thing) so far of families torn apart by the evils that surround them. Looking at what's still to come, I'm thinking that this continuing theme is going to soon end, which I suppose is based upon what I know of his future films.

With that said, things haven't been as bad as I expected when I started Craving Craven. By no means are they amazing but I've enjoyed more of his films than I expected too. I still haven't seen enough to make my assessment on Craven, on whether he is a good director or a bad one, if he is a one trick pony or a genius in the horror world but I'm getting close and when I finish The Hills Have Eyes part 2 I'll be one step closer.

Swamp Thing (24%)

Before:

Swamp Thing. Wes Craven's fifth film as director and first as sole writer since 1978's The Hills Have Eyes. Swamp Thing. What to expect? I don't hear good things about this film. In fact I might of seen it many many many years ago. I have a slight tingling in my brian that says I did. With that said, I have absolutely no memory of seeing it. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Maybe it's that bad that all memories have been erased.

But logic tells me otherwise. How could a film called Swamp Thing about a thing from the swamp (that's about all I know at this point, plot wise) leave no memories on the mind of a youngen somewhere between the ages of nine and thirteen? What would someone that age know about good or bad movies? If I had seen it I would of remembered something? Right?

With that said, after watching Craven's first four films over the last week, I am looking forward to this one much more than I was the week before last. I have enjoyed his filmography so far, and even the films I thought would suck have been better than expected. Deadly Blessing having turned out to be both his best film so far and a precursor to what is to come.

Swamp Thing. A film from the early 80's based on a comic book. I haven't looked up any reviews in years on this film; the last time I did must of been somewhere in the 90's. With that said, I do remember it having poor reviews. Terrible reviews. It was trashed by virtually everyone. But maybe in today's age of comic book cinema things have changed. Maybe it plays better now than it did back then. Maybe it works in ways that modern audiences understand. Maybe.

Wel Full Metal reader, we are about to find out. I'm ready to sign out here and sign into my TV. I'm ready to watch just over 90 minutes of scream queen Adrienne Barbeau get attacked? or be saved? or fall in love? or all of the above? by a creature from a dirty and dingy swamp. Im roaring to go, so as Arnold has said so many times before: I'll be back...


Review:

Film Rating: 24%

Breakdown (How Swamp Thing scored 24%):

Directing: 2 out of 10

A piss poor job of directing by Craven. It's as if he didn't care and gave up hope on the first day of shooting. Nothing works in this film and nothing is done well. So badly directed it makes me want to forget I ever saw it.

Re-playability: 1 out of 10

This gets a 1 here instead of a 0 because, and only because, we get a quick glimpse of Adrienne Barbeau's beautiful breasts.

Originality: 2 out of 10

The story isn't very original (That's not fair--It is a traditional story of man turning into monster, just done in an incredibly unoriginal way). The movie isn't very original. The only thing that makes this movie original is how bad it is.

Production Design (Special Effects/Sets/Locations): 2 out of 10

Terrible effects. Nothing looks good here.  Maybe a burning Ray Wise but otherwise everything else looks cheap and fake. As for the sets and locations, Alec's lab looks pretty good and the swamp makes for a great atmosphere but it just wasn't filmed well enough to make it memorable.

Costumes and Make-Up:  3 out of 10

The costumes look good I guess, but they never get dirty or when they do they miraculously clean themselves within minutes. The make-up is pretty weak but from his neck and up the actual Swamp thing looks pretty good and that alone gets a 3.

Script: 2 out of 10

A few good lines here and there, and a well structured (if terribly played out) story gets this otherwise stupid and badly written film a 2.

Cinematography: 2 out of 10

Some okay lighting, a greatly shot scene of Louis Jourdan on a balcony late in the film and making Barbeau look good for 91 minutes. So bad everywhere else it can't get more than a 2.

Editing: 2 out of 10

Wow. That is some bad editing. Things don't match up from shot to shot and the film drags on and on and feels more like three hours instead of two.

Acting: 4 out of 10

Louis Jourdan: Excellent. Ray Wise: Excellent. Adrienne Barbeau: Good and sexy. Everyone else: Terrible. Reggie Bats as the kid: is it just me or do half his lines come off as mumbling?

Music: 4 out of 10

Henry Manfredini, the man behind the music for Friday the 13th scores this film. Like Friday the 13th there are some great cues of music but also like that film they are overly repetitive and the film ends up having not enough original music scored throughout it. This style may have worked in a slasher film where it's chop and chase for 90 minutes but here we needed something more.

***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***

***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***

After:

...I was expecting Swamp Thing to be bad (I was hoping it would be good) but not this bad. What an utter waste of time. A waste of time for me, for the cast, for the crew, for Wes Craven. As a fifth feature film, Wes Craven, seems to have fallen apart. It's as if everything he learned in his first four films, everything that he improved upon, everything that he got better at, he chucked out the window before he directed this drivel.

This film is so bad it makes The Hills Have Eyes seem like an award worthy piece of historical fiction. This film is so bad it's surprising that anyone gave Wes Craven another chance at directing. This film is so bad it's surprising that it hasn't disappeared into the gutters of society where bad films go to rot, die and evaporate from the public eye.

As bad as this film is, let's quickly discuss what is good about this film, not that there is much. Firstly, Adrienne Barbeau is in it. She's fun to watch, sexy as hell and even gets naked. Second, a young Ray Wise is in it and gives a fun and well acted performance. Third, Louis Jourdan, as the villain, gives a great menacing performance which feels like it's from another, better film. Fourth, the neck and head of the Swamp Thing looks pretty good. There you go: All the good in the film. Now onto the bad.

Alice (Barbeau) is a scientist who knowingly goes to a swamp area but then cowers from animals and bugs and whatnot. She also seems to know nothing of science, and is better at running, hiding and wielding a gun. Some scientist she is. Alec (Wise) kisses Alice within hours of knowing her and they fall in love. Especially stupid as he just yelled at her and acted like a spoiled child minutes before.

When Alec's lab is captured and destroyed he gets set on fire and runs incredibly far for someone on fire before he jumps into a lake. There he becomes Swamp Thing, a green monster who is taller, thicker and sounds completely different to Alec. Why? Swamp Thing goes around saving Alice over and over where each scene is choreographed worse than the next.

The scene where Ferret (David Hess) tries to drown Alice. Terrible. The overlong boat chase. Even worse. The final fight between the villain and Swamp Thing. Pitiful. First off, why did Dr. Arcane (Louis Jourdan) turn into a werewolf looking creature? For what purpose other than it might look cool, which it didn't. Secondly, as a werewolf like creature that fights Swamp Thing in an anti-climatic climax, why does he use a sword? I'm not joking when I say that the final fight has to be one of the worst things ever committed to celluloid. It looks like two guys in suits swinging weapons in half assed slow (not slow motion, just slow) motions.

What else is bad here? Most of the acting sucks. The editing and cinematography is even worse. The special effects are terrible. The make-up is half assed. The music, not very good. The story (while good in it's basics) is unoriginal and poorly written. The list goes on and on, and quite frankly, when I said I will discuss the good five paragraphs above, I literally mentioned everything that was good about this film.  Everything else sucks in this film.

Swamp Thing, which I now officially don't believe I ever saw before, is as bad as I expected The Last House on the Left to be. (It ended up being a lot better than I had remembered,) It was as bad as I thought a 1978 TV movie called Summer of Fear could be, but that turned out a hell of a lot better than this crap. Craven had shown signs of talent and only improved upon them as he made more movies. Deadly Blessing seemed to show a full fledged filmmaker who just reached maturity (as mature as horror can be) and was poised to make a great film.

Instead he made this piece of crap. I can see why his next film was another TV movie and why the film after that was a cheap and fast sequel to his worst film other than this one. I honestly can't believe anyone would give him money, after this, to make another film (I'm glad they did though). I mean, I can't believe the same man who made Deadly Blessing, and later A Nightmare on Elm Street, made this drivel. It doesn't feel or look at all similar.

I would never watch this film again. I wouldn't recommend it anybody. Well maybe to various governments who need information from traitors to their country. Tie up the traitor and put this on repeat. By the time it starts up again for the third time they will tell you anything. Films like this are the reasons that comic book cinema didn't take off until it did. All I can ask for now is a) I never see this film again and b) please god let Invitation to Hell be better than this.

Deadly Blessing (71%)

Before:

Thank you Shout! Factory for releasing this film today. Thank you for releasing it just in time for me to review it in order of release. The film I am talking about is of course the fourth film directed by the legendary Wes Craven. It is another of the little seen films in his cannon. In fact, this film, up until today (Jan. 22/13) has never been available in an official release on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.

The film is Deadly Blessing. And like Summer of Fear it is a film I know virtually nothing about. Here is what I do know. It stars Sharon Stone and Ernest Borgnine. It's 100 minutes. It's rated R (in the US of A). There you go. That's it. That's all I know.

A week ago I would of said that I wasn't looking forward to this film. In so much as that I wanted to watch it and see what it was all about but I just didn't think it would be any good. I had the same reasons as I had with Summer of Fear. It was a little seen or remembered film by a known name director that all but disappeared from North American shores since it's release. Never a good sign for a movie.

Now a week later, having watched Craven's first three films I can say that I have a different pre-opinion of this film. I would recommend so far, two (The Last House on the Left and Summer of Fear)of the three films I have seen and not so much recommend the third (The Hills Have Eyes) as more than a curio piece. But Craven has surprised me. The Last House on the Left  was much better than I remembered and Summer of Fear, a TV movie from 1978, was a pleasant surprise.

Craven's direction over these three films has grown stronger and stronger (well strong, weak, strong to be honest) and I now look forward to seeing where he turned next. Is it another realistic horror flick with real life monsters or is it another supernatural/occult themed movie? Or does it fall into the slasher genre of horror, a personal favorite of mine and something that Craven, in the future, would prove to be quiet adept at? Let's find out...


Review:

Film Rating: 71%

Breakdown (How DeadlyBlessing scored 71%):

Directing: 8 out of 10

 Craven really comes into his own on this film. He shows a certain knack and skill for the slasher film and directs the horor scenes with a sure hand. While other scenes could use a bit of work, the horror scenes are well directed, coming off as scary, original and highly enjoyable.

Re-playability: 8 out of 10

This is a film that could be watched over and over. Minus a few scenes here and there most of this film is incredibly enjoyable and will hold up for countless repeated viewings. Another aspect for it's durability is that it holds up well over 30 years later and gives the audience a preview of the legendary films that Craven would release later in his career.

Originality: 7 out of 10

There are parts of this film that are direct rip-offs of slasher films from the past (specifically Halloween and Friday the 13th) but then there are parts that are strikingly original for a slasher film. The Amish like community is a well done menacing construction and there are scenes of stalking (the barn), along with creatively directed scenes of horror (the bathtub) that are unique and original and raise the bar for horror movies to come.

Production Design (Special Effects/Sets/Locations): 7 out of 10

Craven's biggest budget so far and he does a fine job with what he has. The special effects are well done and look real enough to capture the imaginations of the audience. The deaths, although not gory enough, are done creatively and convincingly. The final scene (don't want to give to much away here) has the best effects so far of any Craven film.

Again, Craven is using more sets and locations here than he has in the past. He does a hell of a  job establishing the major locations and the differences between them. As well, the use of the interior sets are used to their full capacity, utilizing every corner and every room to help create tension and uneasiness as the scenes play out.

Costumes and Make-Up:  7 out of 10

Unlike previous efforts, Craven seems to have paid full attention to the costumes in this film. With a much bigger cast than he's had before his costumes tell a lot about the characters. The Amish like community look convincing and real. They are juxtaposed with regular folk who dress and wear what they feel like. And then there is the small town folk who look completely different to the big city folks. And then there is Lois Nettleton who (I believe) is made up to look like a very familiar character from a famous slasher film from the past.

The make-up is well done but surprisingly enough, coming from the man behind such violent flicks as The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes, it is not bloody enough. I was expecting some serious blood spilling but the deaths ended up being almost bloodless which didn't fit well with the tone and feel of the movie. The rest of the make-up effects are decent and work well enough but we never get a full on view of them in order to see how good, or bad, they actually are.

Script: 6 out of 10

Like I said above, there is plenty of original and thrilling scenes in this movie. It covers all the bases that a slasher film should. Stalking, chasing, nudity, murder, mystery. But again, it also steals completely from the slashers that have come before it. This is not a bad thing in and of itself as the slasher formula lends itself to this, but couple it with a few lines of dialogue that are just plain bad and scenes that sometimes play to long and we are left with a highly enjoyable if not terribly well written film.

Cinematography: 7 out of 10

This is a well shot film that like the story, has scenes and shots that steal liberally from other films. But it also has great lighting that elevates the mood of the film. The film never comes off as too dark; everything is clear and visible and tends to give off a surreal feel and a general sense of uneasiness. The actual framing of the shots though are somewhat generic and could of used a bit of pizazz.

Editing: 7 out of 10

The editing is well done here. Craven, who edited his first two films, wisely has chosen to use a profesional here (like he did with Summer of Fear) and it works for the better. Scenes play well and the rhythm of the cutting works to create a mysterious and scary atmosphere. There is no bad cutting, and no shots that don't gel together but the film does drag a teeny bit which I found was more due to the editing than the actual story. The film could of been tightened by about 10 minutes.

Acting: 7 out of 10

Ernest Borgnine delivers a terrific and menacing performance as the leader of the Hittite's. His performance is by far the best in the picture but, with that said,  everyone else does a pretty good job too. Sharon Stone appears in a very early performance, and although a good performance, there are no signs here that she will one day win an Oscar. Out of all the performances, of the actors and actresses that grace the screen in Deadly Blessing, only one comes off as wooden and weak. That solely lands in the hands of Douglass Barr but thankfully he isn't around long enough to hamper the film too much.

Music: 7 out of 10

James Horner does a great job conjuring up the scares here. Whenever there are scenes of horror or mystery or tension or what have you on the screen, Horner's music is great. It's scary, it's intriguing and it gets the pulse going. But there are also times when people are talking, or sitting, or not much is happening when we have either unnecessary music or music that doesn't hold a candle to what he does in the other scenes (let alone what he does in the future).

***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***

***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***

After:

Right when the credits began I knew I was in for a treat. Names like Sharon Stone, Jeff East (who I enjoyed in Craven's last pic Summer of Fear), Michael Berryman and Ernest Borgnine all come up on the screen and I find out a young James Horner is doing the music. It's good already and the movie hasn't even started. But to discuss the movie first we have to go back. Back to a long time ago...

The year is 1980. During the month of May, the 9th to be exact, a movie comes out in theatres. This movie is a rip-off of the 1978 (coincidentally the same year of Summer of Fear) horror classic Halloween that sacred audiences into breaking box office records. This rip-off was Friday the 13th and it was a gargantuan success. It, off all films, is the one that defined the slasher formula and defined box office gold.

After Friday the 13th people everywhere were looking for the next slasher film to release to the masses. Two guys cooked up their own story and with Wes Craven they banged out a screenplay. It was called Deadly Blessing. Deadly Blessing followed this style of slasher film but gave it a unique story. Within that story it stole liberally from Friday the 13th. It played with the audience by never revealing the killer. Who is it? So many suspects.

Like Friday the 13th the use of the protective mom as the villain is replayed. It is obvious right from the beginning of the film strictly because of two reasons. One, because it happened in Friday the 13th and two, because she even looks like Pamela Vorhees right down to her hairstyle and choice of clothing. Lucky there are other things afoot here.

We also get these things. A girl who is haunted by nightmares of a man in a wide brimmed hat. We get a 5 finger rake that glistens in the dark and look lake a razor sharp hand. We get the man in the wide brim hat popping out of shadows and dark corners. We get a scene with a girl in a bathtub. A menacing force coming for her from between her legs. We have a final coda, where we think everything is alright and suddenly our heroine gets pulled through a hole by a monster of a man.

Wait a minute? Doesn't that sound like another movie? A movie called A Nightmare on Elm Street?  A film by Wes Craven that won't be made for 3 more years? It does. For what we have here, and what makes this film so great, even though there is lots to complain about, is that we can see here where Craven got his first sprinkling of ideas for the now legendary first film to feature Freddy Kruger.

It's as if the two writers of Deadly Blessing had a great way to rip-off Friday the 13th and when Craven got involved he through in this other stuff. This other stuff therefore was a secondary story to the main one, one that created more mystery and suspense and one that Craven latched onto and ended up creating a whole movie based around these things that he added, right to the same shots, look and feel.

It's actually amazing to watch this film now and see what it led to. Craven as well, directs this movie better than any film he has so far. It's his best looking, best acted and best edited film so far and it's his most professional job so far. It is really his first slasher film and it is plain to see he holds an affinity for it. His style and direction is the perfect match for the slasher film, something he has proven over and over again as the years roll by.

There are moments though that feel like they are straight out of the TV mentality of Summer of Fear. Moments where the acting gets wooden, the dialogue trite and the tone cheesy. These scenes drag the film down (and perhaps it's a tad long) but when they aren't there instead we have a very scary, well made slasher film with an intriguing and unpredictable story. And it is scary. As scary as A Nightmare on Elm Street is when you are watching it on a dark, rainy and thunderous night with no light but the glow from your TV.

And I haven't even mentioned the music. For the first time Craven has picked someone with some real talent. James Horner. James F'ing Horner. A very young James Horner but a very talented young man how has written a creepy and stylized score (if not terrible original) that puts the music in Craven's last three films to shame.

There is death and demons, and violence and full frontal nudity in this picture. There are scares and thrills and disturbing scenes that shock and titalize and there are unexpected turns and twists and deaths that come out of nowhere.

But there are also many problems within the film, problems that make this film less of a success than films that would come later from Craven. Yet it is still his best effort to date and it is a film that shows a) where Craven excels at and b) what the world could expect from him in the future. It's funny, in a film that ini initially was  a rip-off of a previous slasher film, it ended up paving the way for the most original slasher film to be released since Black Christmas.

Summer of Fear (63%)

Before:

So now we get to the first little seen (in years if ever) and unheard of film from Wes Craven. And it's a TV movie no less, staring that girl from some film called The Exorcist. That's right: Linda Blair, in a made for TV film directed by Wes Craven.

When I began to collect the films of Wes Craven there ended up being four those said films that I had never heard of. Four films that had fallen behind the shelf and stayed there for many a year, with only one of them being made after A Nightmare on Elm Street. Of these four films, I have very low hopes for this one (along with Invitation to Hell--another made for TV film).

Why such low hopes? Well, mainly because it is a TV movie made in 1978. That means incredibly low production values, a generic 1.33:1 aspect ratio and probably terrible acting. Another reason I fear this movie is, like I said, it seems to have entered the void of lost and forgotten films. A third reason to fear this film is that Craven's previous film, The Hills Have Eyes, didn't live up to the hype or even live up to his first film The Last House on the Left.

But in the duty of watching all things Craven (directed wise) Summer of Fear is next. I have no clue what it is about, although the alternate title Stranger in Our House does give me somewhat of an idea. I have shied away from reading anything about it as I don't want to be spoiled by any surprises the film might hold and don't want to be influenced upon the greatness or awfulness of the film.

Ok fellow readers it's time to watch review and discuss Wes Craven's third picture. It's loaded up in my DVD player and it's about to begin...

Review:

Film Rating: 63%

Breakdown (How Summer of Fear scored 63%):

Directing: 8 out of 10

 Craven shows more skill and panache here than he did in both his previous films. Who would of thought a TV movie of all things would be his first shining hour. Summer of Fear shows Craven as a more confident director where he pulls out better performances from his cast and crew to make a better than average TV horror movie.

Re-playability: 7 out of 10

I'd watch this film again. It was fun and Fran Drescher was hot! Lee Purcell looked good too. I was taken aback at the quality of this film and was sad to see it end. Hell yeah I would watch it again. Not a hundred times but it is definitely rewatchable.

Originality: 6 out of 10

Summer of Fear: A girl suspects another girl of being a witch. An investigation occurs. Accidents happen. Death looms. How original is that? It's not very but it's done well enough to get past the been there done that seen it before routine.

Production Design (Special Effects/Sets/Locations): 6 out of 10

Once again, not much in way of special effects here. What we do see though is pretty good for a TV movie, especially one made in 1978. When a certain door explodes open it looks better than TV movies made 20 years later. Shockingly good production value at times. But otherwise we are left with wind blowers and stock footage that doesn't work that well.

The locations used are glorious and work well for the story. They feel natural and look good and could only of been enhanced if it was shot in widescreen. The only thing I thought could of been a set was the basement, which looked realistic enough, but everything else seems to have been shot on location.

Costumes and Make-Up:  5 out of 10

I can't say to much about the costumes. Generic 70's clothing, with Fran Drescher in short shorts. Nothing sticks out to much but nothing detracts either. The make-up on the other hand could of been so much better. Sometimes (most times) it just looks incredibly fake. When Linda Blair gets a rash it first looks good but as it heals it starts to look like stickers. The witch make-up? Meh, could of been better.

Script: 6 out of 10

A fun story, a fun ride and some great scenes. Sprinkle that with some clever dialogue and great character moments and we would have a great script. Summer of Fear comes close but is dusted with a few moments of god awful dialogue and a really corny wrap-up for our family. These dustings make for mediocracy at times but even still the picture comes off better than one would expect.

Cinematography: 6 out of 10

While not shot in widescreen, to it's detriment, Summer of Fear's cinematography is miles above the cinematography seen in The Hills Have Eyes. Things are framed nicely, there is no shake and most of all the lighting is perfect. I'm still baffled at the clarity of the picture that I just saw. Even still, with all those positives, the camera shots are still rather bland with not much happening in them. Like I said earlier, I'm sure a widescreen aspect ratio would of only benefited the picture. Oh well, it is what it is.

Editing: 6 out of 10

Like the camera work, the editing feels stronger and better than The Hills Have Eyes as well as The Last House on the Left. For the first time Craven has used an editor other than himself and although there is nothing at all special about the editing, at least this time around the shots tend to match up with one another.

Acting: 7 out of 10

Surprisingly the acting is pretty damn good here. Better than I expected and better than many a TV movie from this or any decade. Linda Blair fairs worst from the principle cast, but even still she isn't terrible. Lee Purcell is great, the rest of the family is great and the boyfriend is great. Unfortunately the sheriff is so bad he's hard to forget and MacDonald Carey isn't much better as Professor Jarvis, a small but essential role.

Music: 6 out of 10

The music is okay. It's nothing to write home about. It's got a typical TV feel to it for the most part but there are a few cues that make things eerie or mysterious. I wouldn't and couldn't expect any better from a TV movie. I could and did expect worse but like everything else about Summer of Fear the music sure did exceed my expectations.

***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***

***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***

After:

Well, Craven proved me wrong yet again. This movie was much better than I expected. Sure Summer of Fear is a TV movie made in 1978 but it was so much better than that. Surprisingly, I found it to be a much better made movie than The Hills Have Eyes and was actually put together better than The Last House on the Left.

I was expecting a film filled with terrible acting, terrible dialogue, terrible cinematography and terrible effects. I was expecting a TV movie so poor that it had reason to disappea from the world for 25 years. I expected no effects and after what I witnessed with The Hills Have Eyes I expected an even worse film. But I was wrong. While not quite as good as his debut, Summer of Fear is a film that I found has hold up remarkably well and still works with modern audiences.

After a cheesy opening, complete with fade in's and fade out's and a seriously obvious stock footage car crash, Summer of Fear kicks into a solid story about a family (and town) who ends up being terrorized by witchcraft. Linda Blair is the only one who knows what's going on and is the only one who can stop it. The film never bores and even though there is some cheesy dialogue, and a weak ending that echoes back to the opening, I still really enjoyed this film. The final shot, the revelation that the witch isn't dead was satisfying to say the least, as her death scene seemed somewhat unjust. I mean she had extraordinary powers, so a car crash shouldn't of and couldn't of killed her.

Hilariously, the end credits are straight out of the original Star Trek television show but long before that there is so much to enjoy. Firstly, the film is fun and flies by at a break neck pace. Secondly, it is actually pretty eerie. And thirdly, it has a pretty good cast. I was wondering who the kid playing Peter was and when I looked it up I was amazed. He was young Clark Kent in Superman: The Movie. I knew he looked familiar. Then there was Lee Purcell, looking super sexy and menacing as the witch. But the biggest surprise, was a very young Fran Drescher in a small role. Wow! She was gorgeous. Who knew?

Thematically speaking, Summer of Fear doesn't connect to Craven's earlier work. Looking deep I guess you can see a slight connection with a 'monster/killer/witch' that tries to destroy an everyday family but that's a very common element in horror, Craven or not. As well, this be the first time that Craven has delved into the supernatural, shying away from a realistic story. Craven handles it well and directs the film with a steady and assured hand.

While not an Oscar (or Emmy) award winning film, I do recommend any horror buff to give it a shot. It'll make the time fly by and will jolt you in all the right places. It's surprisingly well acted for the most part, has a load of young and familiar faces and some super sexy girls. If you like horror (not just blood and guts) then give this film a shot, if you can find it.  It's tame but effective and much better than you would expect.

The Hills Have Eyes (55%)

Before:

It would be five years (not including the damn near impossible to find The Fireworks Woman--possibly a porn film) before Craven directed another film. And it would be 33 years (since I was brought forth into this world) that I would finally see his second effort. Based on my memories for The Last House on the Left I would be lying if I wasn't hesitant about watching it. Even with the hesitation though, I have to admit that of all the Wes Craven films I haven't seen, The Hills Have Eyes is the film that I want to see the most.

I love the remake. I think it is a brilliant film directed by a master of modern horror known as Alexandre Aja. I can't imagine the original being better if as good. But still, since I was a young boy, a young tyke that perused the horror shelves of video stores i have wanted to see this film. I never got a chance to do so and now finally and thankfully the opportunity has arisen.

Based on his first film, I am now quite excited to see what Craven did next. Between The Last House on the Left and this film he appears to have continued to work in the porn industry. I suppose, based on the graphic content and near world wide banning of his first film, he must of had a hard time getting a second picture made. It took five years to do so but he eventually did and his second film, much like his first, is now considered a horror classic.

There are many questions I have. Will The Hills Have Eyes be any good? Will it live up to the promise Craven showed in his previous feature? Will I like it? Will it be dated at all? Will it be as violent as his first film? The answer to last one I am expecting to be yes, which comes based on the remake which was ultra violent and grisly. I can't believe it's taken me this long to finally see this film but it's finally time to see if it holds up after 35 years, if it holds a candle to the remake and if it delivers on the promise led by The Last House on the Left. It's time, are you ready?


Review:

Film Rating: 55%

Breakdown (How The Hills Have Eyes scored 55%):

Directing: 6 out of 10

Craven's direction of The Hills Have Eyes I found to be rather lacklustre. Not that it was terrible, just that it was rather bland. After the promise he showed in his debut, I was expecting better here. Things aren't put together so well and there are no signs of the auteur that were present in The Last House on the Left. Instead we get a film that is somewhat well pieced together but feels somewhat rushed and has no real sparkle or flourish. The direction is competent but blasé with nothing to write home about. 

Re-playability: 4 out of 10

Would this film hold up to repeated viewings? Not so much. I suppose I'd watch again if need be (as in my girlfriend really wanted to see it) but I am in no rush to watch this film again. It is slightly slow, nowhere near as tense or exciting as Craven's last film and it feels a little dated. After a second time I feel though that Craven's The Hills Have Eyes would have run it's course and would be something I would only be happy watching if circumstances called for it (Film school, girlfriend, drinking game, etc....

Originality: 6 out of 10

As far as originality goes, this film just isn't. I mean, in 1977 it was slightly novel and unique but in regards to Craven's last picture the story (or ideas within the story) are pretty similar. Bad guys terrorize a family who, while not all survive, end up fighting back and becoming monsters themselves. That line sums up both The Last House on the Left  and The Hills Have Eyes. Things are different enough to make the film feel original (new setting, cannibalistic bad guys, dogs) but with just a mild reflection of both films, one can see that this film is really a modified twist on his last.

Production Design (Special Effects/Sets/Locations): 7 out of 10

There are very few sets used here but what we do see falters between good and bad. The near run down garage is well designed and looks real enough but the home of the hill dwellers just looks poor. How could they live were they do with nothing around them? The locations though are pretty top notch. They come of as eerie and moody and they give off a sense of menace. The deserts and hills were the action takes place were well chosen by Craven and his crew.

While there isn't that much by way of special effects, as once again this is a rather low budget film, what we do get to see does play off rather well. There are explosions that look quite good and some of the gore effects look ultra realistic. For a low budget horror flick I have to say that the effects look pretty damn good for the most part.

Costumes and Make-Up:  5 out of 10

On one hand the costumes worn by our hero family are pretty good while on the other hand  the costumes worn by the hill dwellers just didn't cut it for me. The family wears mostly the same set of clothes for the whole film (I think changing once) and by films end they do look rather worn and tattered. Set in 1977, for the most part, the clothes come off as rather modern. The hill dwellers though just look like a mish mash of sci-fi, homeless and 'let's scrape together what we can' pastiches from the late 70's. There is no uniformity or coherence in their dress.

The make-up fairs ok. While, like his first film, Craven never really shows any puncture wounds, the blood tends to come off pretty well (minus one shot where the blood suddenly has a very fake red colour). The bruises cuts and scrapes that the characters receive as the film gathers steam look pretty good but tend to heal faster than in reality. Overall, not a great job but it does end up being passable.

Script: 6 out of 10

There are some terrible lines of dialogue within this film. Terrible! Maybe with more seasoned actors it would of come off better but with those actors not available we are left with some pretty crappy lines. Written by Craven, the script itself is well structured and has very little extraneous and/or useless scenes. It flows nicely but unfortunately Craven chose to use a lot of almost voice over like scenes with the hill dwellers watching the family. They seem jarring and unnecessary and thankfully are short enough not to take the viewer to out of the picture.

Cinematography: 5 out of 10

In The Last House on the Left the cinematography at first felt off, cheap and poor but soon enough it lent itself to a unique look like was very realistic and worked very well for the film. No such luck here. With a desert like setting and hills looming in the background there was potential to capture some magnificent shots. Instead we are left with bland shots that are at times severely under lit. There is no shine, no gloss and no rhythm to the camera work and it ends up feeling pretty amateurish throughout.

Editing: 4 out of 10

Like the camera work, the editing of this film could use a lot of work. Edited by Craven himself, there are so many jarring cuts and obscure angles that the film ends up never reaching its full potential. Perhaps Craven, at this point, hadn't fully fleshed out the idea of filming shots that work with each other, but it feels like they (he) didn't think at all about how the footage would cut together. There are some scenes where the cuts jump from one side of the 180 degree wall to the other and so many cuts where it becomes obvious that the action wasn't filmed together. It does get a little better near the end but overall the editing is ultimately weak.

Acting: 6 out of 10

The acting here, like Craven's debut, is rather hard to gauge. When the film first started the acting just seemed terrible. As we follow the family and the turmoil they experience piles on the acting does tend to improve. In fact, the entire family end up giving pretty convincing performances by the end. But the rest of the cast, especially the hill dwellers, could use some acting lessons. When they communicate via radio they sound so wooden and so fake and things don't get much better when they are seen on screen. Other than the times when they are inflicting pain and violence on others, they all deliver terrible performances. Only Michael Berryman, who plays Pluto, comes off with any skill and that is due more to his unique look than his acting abilities.

Music: 6 out of 10

Craven must of learned his lesson with his last film. There are no scenes set to crappy folks songs and no cues that feel comedic or like slapstick. The music here is a complete turn around and for the most part works with what we see on the creen. It is tense, pulsating and adrenaline heavy. Sadly, it still isn't very good. There are a few cues that come off as intriguing and genuinely thrilling but there are also many times that the music feels both dated and amateurish. They come off as if they were written by a guy who knows how to write music but really has no skill or talent to speak of. While not terrible, or even bad by movies end, the music could of been a hell of a lot better.

***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***

***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***

After:

Well what can I say about The Hills Have Eyes? To begin with it did disappoint me. In fact, it had quite the opposite effect that The Last House on the Left did. By that I mean that I expected terrible things from Craven's first film and better things from his second. Instead I actually liked and would recommend The Last House on the Left  but didn't and wouldn't The Hills Have Eyes.

Maybe I would of liked this film better if I hadn't seen and loved the remake. Maybe. I can't be positive about that as, over all, I found it to be weaker than Craven's debut. Weaker in execution, weaker in style, weaker in every aspect except the music. There were flourishes in Craven's first film, directorial flourishes that went way beyond the exploitative subject matter that made up the plot. Flourishes such as the juxtaposition of the same two images with different meanings in different parts of the film.

Here, Craven reuses the same story, re-jigs it a little, throws in a new setting and sets to work directing what I found to be a bland and underwhelming second feature. He does nothing new here, with nothing creative in the camera work or editing or music or acting. He did hire weird looking Michael Berryman, but otherwise, I found this movie to be a bust. It almost felt like a made for TV movie, but with more gore than one would see on TV at the time.

Maybe it played better in 1977 and the early 80's but now it feels cheap, badly edited and badly put together and overall a tad slow and boring. The violence on screen seems to have been tamed down from his last film, and for a film that relishes its excesses there really isn't much to be seen. Most of the violence happens off screen. There are a few intense moments but not enough to keep me thrilled.

If I was to recommend The Hills Have Eyes I would have to only recommend the remake. It looks better, it plays better, it is more intense and scary, it is gorier, it is better acted and is overall a better movie. I mean at least the mutants look like mutants in the remake.

After 35 years, The Hills Have Eyes has become a horror classic. Now not all horror classics are good movies, and some that aren't only get better with age, while some get worse. Craven entered the field and made the justly deserved classic The Last House on the Left. His second feature, this one, in my opinion is, while a curious picture to watch for horror aficionado's, only a classic because Craven's name is attached to it.

Comparing both movies of Craven's we can see a few similarities. Both play on regular people becoming as monstrous as their tormentors. Both films end within seconds of defeating said tormentors. And both films are somewhat structured, story wise, the same way. But that is where the similarities end as Craven hasn't proven himself with his second feature. It looks and feels worse and has no sense of style or uniqueness to it. This here film is evidence that Craven needed to hone his skills and as the films he'd make after would all but disappear, he would keep honing and practicing until he made that famous film featuring Freddy.