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.
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.
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
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.
After:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment