|
Directed by: Alexandre Aja Starring: Aaron Stanford, Emilie de Ravin, Dan Byrd, Vinessa Shaw, Ted Levine On a road trip across America, A family decide to take a detour through the desert. The car breaks down and they are stranded and at the mercy of some mutant freaks who live just beyond the hills. Well it's yet another remake, but to be fair I don't overly mind remakes. I've enjoyed quite a few of them, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn Of The Dead but some have been very poor The Fog and When A Stranger Calls. This one I found to be a great time at the movies. It opens with a scene that hooks you into the movie straight away. We then meet the Carters, the family on the doomed road trip. They come off just like any normal family, they fight a bit but what family doesn't argue and fight on a road trip? Once the action gets going to movie becomes gripping and never lets up, the acting is fantastic and the direction is very good, I loved the stylish shots of the desert and the hills. The jump scares in this worked very well, I jumped quite a number of times, they are very unexpected. The movie is filled with wall to wall gore which had me drooling, it's quite a nasty little flick with some really good kills. My main issue is that it sticks a bit to close to the original, if you've seen that then it's quite easy to tell what's going to happen. The two best scenes for me are the two that are not in the original movie at all. Also the music felt a tad bit over the top towards the end, it almost felt like a superhero movie. Overall The Hills Have Eyes is a great movie with tons of suspence, scares and gore, what more could you want? RATING: 4.5 PROS: Very intence, good characters, lots of gore and action. Very scary at parts, stylish direction. CONS: Sticks A little to close to the original. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454841/
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2006 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Like the OP, I really enjoyed watching this. Alexandre Aja has a real knack for setting intense moods while offering humor as well. I like the fact they kept a lot of the original in the film too. But at same time making a lot of changes. 4.5
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2006 02:57
|
|
|
This movie is everything that I wanted to see from a generic lovely horror movie. It keeps the amount of "spook" scares to a low, so theres less jumping, and more psychological horror of what occurs to the poor family. The only thing I didn't like about the film was the fact that it was horror-horror-rape scene outta loving no where and guy sucking on a chicks tit-horror that made even a sick individual as myself feel a tad grossed out. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2006 04:28
|
|
|
If you just take the movie for what it is, it's a pretty disturbing film. Certainly not the most disturbing I have ever seen but this was the only film that I saw groups of people in the theater actually get up during a scene and leave, only to return a few minutes later after the tense moment was over. There isn't much that is more terrifying than being pinned down by a mutated freak where you don't know if he is going to kill or rape you and as that is happening, your mother and sister are being shot and killed right in front of you. I loved the original and had mixed feelings about this movie being released. What I was left with was a satisfying bloodbath but falling a little short on storyline and progression of events. As a side note, I watched this movie pretending like I didn't know the plot. What transpired was a very similar plot to the original: a traveling family going to California drives through an Air Testing range closed to the public. They are sabotaged [tires blown and the car gets hosed], are stranded in a desert and are being stalked by a group of mutated people, who seek revenge on the "humans who have done the testing to make them that way." What this remake is, is the original movie with a little faster pacing and 20 times the action. The first half is a set-up for the mutants versus the family. The stage is set and the characters are introduced. The second half is a goddamn massacre, mainly highlighting Doug's attempt to get his child back from the monsters. There are plenty of cheap jump-scares as expected and extremely tense moments. Pros: The setting. Good god, the perfect location was picked for the movie: uninhabited portions of Morocco. Desolate locations and you actually get the feeling of choking heat and complete isolation. I loved the town and the desolation, creepiness of the mannequins, etc. The gore. My god, the gore. Fingers chopped off, dogs ripped to shreds, heads blown off, guts blasted out, hearts eaten, foreheads stabbed, legs slashed, necks penetrated, a man locked in a freezer full of bloody severed limbs and yes... a goddamn burning crucifixion on a cactus. The makeup and work done on the mutants. I initally thought that this movie would show the characters in shadow or partially obscured but no... these creatures are shown in full, close-up and their presentation is goddamn sickening - but that's not to say it's a bad thing. There were times that I actually found myself feeling sorry for those people but then I remembered that it was a movie. The dogs were treated better in this one than in the original. Biting the head off a parakeet and drinking the blood. Awesome. Cons: The progression of events is a little sloppy. The music at the end. Pff. The final scene. Namely, the final 5 seconds. Seems like the past hour might as well had never happened. But if they must, there needed to be an ending that involved the little deformed girl in the playroom to make it a little more creepy. Overall, I give it an 4.5/5 Secks fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Mar 12, 2006 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2006 10:15
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I wasn't as impressed as the above posters. I felt like it was yet another case of Great Concept/Average Execution. It wasn't bad, it just wasnt anything particularly new in the genre. For starters, we yet again have the band of heroes who include a fighting married couple and fighting brothers and sisters. Sorry, but it's just yawn-inducing now. I know this is a remake, but they could have come up with something a little more original. Also, the crackpot at the gas station gimmick is wearing a tad thin. I know it was used to move the plot forward, but again, it seems like no movie can resist the allure of a weirdo at a gas station. On to the meat of the movie, so to speak. THHE is your standard horror-slash movie. The beginning is peppered with false jumpy scares, the middle is full of turn-around-OMG-there-he-is's. Tension is built, but in the normal, seen-it-before way. The use of sound effects was pretty good, but the music got very cheesy towards the end. Here's my main beef with the movie: I'm terrified of deformity and this movie did not terrify me that much. Human deformity fills me with dread and horror, yet this movie didn't really play into that. The main villains looked like zombies, not deformed miners. There were two villains who actually horrified me, but one was in the movie for five minutes and the other was in the movie for one second-long scene that was in the previews. Everyone else looked like zombies or vampires. There was potential for a disturbing look at the twisted bodies and twisted minds of the poor miners. Instead, the movie opted for gore and disturbing kills/other stuff/I wont spoil it for you. Again, it wasn't bad, it just wasnt anything to be excited about. Perhaps my expectations were too high. Perhaps I just assumed that a film tackling my darkest fear would do so in an innovative or at least excellent way. No such luck. Instead it's "Insert horror gimmick into the Automatic Script Maker". 3/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2006 11:20
|
|
|
I'm getting tired of these "horror" films that try to scare you by hitting you over the head with gore and over-the-top, graphic images. We've seen the same poo poo in countless previous films. It doesn't really have the same effect that it once did back in the day. Alot of it just seemed contrived, ridiculous, and, dare I say, silly haha the dad getting charred, one daughter getting raped, the other daughter breastfeeding a guy and subsequently getting her head blown off, the mother getting shot...some people call this horrific and terrible, I thought it was so outlandishly perverse that it was funny. I pretty much stopped taking the movie seriously when the savages ran whooping into the darkness. I gotta admit, the last act was pretty cool. The music complemented the action well and I had a good time seeing Doug get his revenge. I think they ruined the ending, though. When they zoomed out to the binocular point of view, it was supposed to make you feel all sorry for the survivors...but what the gently caress were they going to do if all the savages were dead? Sit and rot in the desert? Overall, pretty average slasher film. More of a thriller than a horror quite frankly. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2006 11:49
|
|
|
This wasn't a movie. It was a contest to see how many cliches they could cram on an hour and a half's worth of film. I don't know how many movies have to feature "normal dude running the human front of the evil operation" or "protagonist covered in blood and hurt but alive," but it's getting pretty old. I fell asleep. Terrible loving movie. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2006 20:21
|
|
|
I just saw this movie earlier tonight. I have to say that I really enjoyed it. I'm fairly new to horror films, I never watch them aside from the grisly collection a friend of mine has, but I have to say that this was one of the best I have seen. I liked the characters, they were easy to get in to and relate to. I liked the story, it was well thought out. And most of all I liked the gore, it all looked very real and was done with style. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2006 06:24
|
|
|
I just saw this one, and I liked it a lot. I like it when the bad guys get their due, and they certainly got their due. I also like it when the Hero doesn't show restraint when fighting the bad guys, and her certainly didn't. However, I will echo the earlier complaints about the music near the end. A little too heroic for a scary movie. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2006 06:50
|
|
|
Pretty good movie overall, despite seeing it with a bad audience (hooting and hollering for the characters not to do poo poo, clapping when the bad guys died). Also, it gets MAJOR points for being one of the few movies that uses the bullet-consistency rule: Bob's revolver only shot six bullets for the duration of the movie. Also, Doug should apply to be a superhero, because the motherfucker is invincible and he fights zombies. Because really, that's all those guys were. Radiated people of limited intelligence that ate flesh and could apparently only be killed by severe head-trauma. I gotta say I did feel like I was there for a long rear end time though. Not that the movie dragged, but I really felt the progression of events just take its toll on me. Overall there's not much I would delete, but there were a few too many cheap thrills for it to be great. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2006 07:17
|
|
|
this movie kept me on the edge of my seat and suprisingly while being effected by allergy medication. The last part was sooo intense and I thought doug gave up when the axe guy (pluto?) was about to chop his head off before getting a screwdriver in his foot, from that point on i was wide awake. I saw this at 12:15pm in the afternoon and I find that it's the best time to see something in the theatres without having to deal with the loud mouth-catchpharse spewing dicks that always attend the evening viewings. 4.5/5 the only complaint I have is the loving Stay Alive trailer, I swear if I had epilepsy, I would be dead right now. So annoying EDIT: I just realized Billy Drago is in the movie, I've seen him in so much poo poo growing up (automan, invasion u.s.a.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2006 08:49
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie, but the thing that made it great in my mind was the role the dogs played. 3.5/5 4/5 if you like dogs. 5/5 if you like/own a GSD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2006 19:53
|
|
|
This movie is repulsively bad. I ended up walking out around the one hour mark. I have never walked out of a theater before, but I couldn't bear to sit through this any longer than I did. Absolutely do not waste your money on this. Pantsfish has pretty much nailed what makes this movie worthless a few posts up. 0/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2006 02:08
|
|
|
I seriously thought this movie would be #1. I'm sad it wasn't. I really enjoyed the poo poo out of it. Violent and intense. I loved it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2006 02:51
|
|
|
Alexandre Aja's remake of The Hills Have Eyes succeeds in some places where the original fails, but at the same time loses some of the charm of Craven's 1977 original. The new version clearly remains a horror film throughout, where Craven's loses most of the horror and becomes more of a pure action film after the second day begins. Not that Aja's remake lacks action; in fact, there are far more physical confrontations in this version than the original. Aja is sure to make every encounter horrific, with nightmarishly deformed antagonists taking pleasure in the violence while the heroes fight desperately to survive. Whether this is better or worse than the method Craven employed is largely personal taste; once Craven's protagonists find the drive to stand up to their tormentors, they find themselves on equal ground. Anyone can become both a monster or a hero under the right circumstance, a message that still exists in Aja's Hills but loses a lot of value since the monsterous family in his version is not nearly as sympathetic and the human family is far less loving towards each other than Craven's. The main plot remains the same between both versions, with the only major change being the number of mutants and the nature of their home. While Craven's mutant family was a small group of cave dwellers, Aja gives us a larger group situated in an abandoned town used by the US government as a nuclear test site. Aja's mutants are also monsters in a much clearer sense than Craven's. They have hideous deformities and act thoughroughly inhuman, far more so than the cast of the original. This makes for a more terrifying film, but removes much of the sympathetic angle that Craven establishes in his film. While Craven's mutant family is immoral and cruel, there is a sense that they are victims of their father's influence more than anything else. Jupiter (James Whitworth) is a merciless, wicked man, who has raised his children in his image, but without completely warping their minds. This is certainly apparent in Ruby (Janus Blythe), a young mutant girl with a heart of gold, but also in Pluto (Michael Berryman), the largest and most deformed of the family. While Craven's Pluto acts violently, he does not act joyful in his violence, and seems to not know any better. Aja's Pluto (Michael Bailey Smith) is simply a killing machine that cannot possibly receive sympathy. The nature of Ruby of the remake (Laura Ortiz) is complicated by changes made to her grandfather's character. In Craven's Hills, the old man who attends the gas station and who had fathered Jupiter decades ago is a not a good man, but is not a wicked one. The original's Ruby develops her humanity in part from the time she spends around her grandfather, but the remake's old man is twisted, helping the mutants capture unsuspecting families while the original tried to guide them down the safer path. The meanness of the cast makes the remake a more frightening film, but sacrifices the idea that people are generally good. None of the leads in the remake is completely innocent when the film begins, and because of this it is harder to cheer for the heros. Doug (Aaron Stanford) is the only family member in the remake who acts heroically, but his heroism is too disturbing to cheer for. The original Doug (Martin Speer) enacts his revenge carefully and methodically, while the remake's relies more on what can best be described as superhuman strength that arises out of nowhere. His clash with the mutants is highly entertaining, but the gritty realism of the original is completely lost. Not only are the monsters less real, but Doug is turned from a man driven to desperate acts to a comic book hero who won't take guff from anyone. Aja’s version of the final act is more surreal and disturbing, and plays out more like an action comic book than a narrative film. The 2006 remake is competently directed and well scored. The generally subtle score creates a great sense of tension, and the over the top patriotic score during the revenge sequence is highly entertaining and also makes Aja's political statement more apparent than it already was. Though Craven's original contained a subtle message about the horrors of nuclear testing, it was never at the forefront of the film. Aja is sure to remind us at every opportunity that nuclear testing created these monsters, and that we are responsible for the monsters we create. A mutant in a wheelchair screaming about how we made them what they are hammers the message into the audience as bluntly as Pluto hammers his victims. The fact that patriotic imagery surrounds Doug during his revenge heightens the idea of him as another kind of American monster. One message that was completely lost in the transition from Craven’s film to Aja’s is the idea that punishment comes to those who stray from their path and throw themselves somewhere they don’t belong. Though this message works better in 1974's Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it is still a strong element of Craven’s film, and one that Aja chooses to ignore. Craven’s family crashes in the desert because of poor judgment and a dangerous curiosity, while Aja’s crashes entirely because of a trap laid by the film’s antagonists. While it is an entertaining film, Aja's remake has a few significant flaws. It relies on the "loud sudden noises are scary" school of horror far too many times, and certainly far more than Craven's. The most effective scares come from the moments in which the audience knows that the mutants are present, just barely out of sight. Here there is a clear and physical danger, creating a dread that far exceeds what one finds in loud noises out of nowhere. The biggest flaw of the film is its treatment of Jupiter. He is an ever present danger in the original, commanding his family to commit wicked deeds and pressing his philosophy into them. Aja's Jupiter is barely present, barely talks, and is the least threatening mutant that the family fights. One of Craven's most interesting characters is practically discarded in Aja's film. Overall, Aja's The Hills Have Eyes is a worthwhile horror film that can still be enjoyed by fans of the original.It has its problems, but is refreshing compared to most mainstream American horror. It feels like a 1970's horror film, even with the modernizations Aja added, and I find this to be a very good thing. Though both films are extremely close in plot, the differences in character development make them enjoyable for completely different reasons. I enjoy Aja's directing style, and am glad that he did not make any decisions that completely ruined the film, though the final shot was groan worthy. After the trainwreck of a final act that Aja's Haute Tension exhibited, Hills was a refreshing sign that he will someday be a powerful name in the horror genre. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2006 03:08
|
|
|
I'm in the "liked it" camp, but the movie did have a few problems for me. The seige on the trailer was just plain uncomfortable. This one sequence resulted in every single family fatality during the entire film. This scene wasn't a murder, it was an execution. An atrocity, genocide on a small scale. It downright assaulted the audience. I barely blinked through "Saw", but this scene unnerved me greatly. I've got a mixed reaction to this, because everything about the scene was meant to "cross the line", they actually had me believing that they'd kill off the baby with the lack of boundaries this scene showed, which I suppose added to the suspense. From there, it was Doug's sudden metamorphasis from utter pussy to skinny jewish killing machine that bothered me. There was no give and take, or back and forth conflict, just massacre and counter-massacre. Once Doug manned up and took down Pluto, it was almost as if there was no contest, it definitely took some of the suspense out. I liked the movie, but it did have a few problems with pacing, and that trailer scene was pure, concentrated  .3/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2006 19:04
|
|
|
i think this film was trying to be brutal just for the sake of the director's own masturbatory purpose. I enjoyed the last half but i felt the first half was boring and almost repulsive. Rape/beating for the sake of brutality and nothing less, is lame. It did not further the story in any way, take out the trailer scene and it would have been much better. Aja seems to make really tense, exciting movies with one really stupid part in it that fucks the rets of it up. (hills - brutal trailer scene for no purpose/ tension - the "twist") 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2006 19:11
|
|
|
a
TheBercho fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2006 21:16
|
|
|
I saw the movie expecting Emilie de Ravin to be kick some creepy deformed rear end, but was dissapointed  . I love horror movies. Horror is my favorite genre, but this movie was just silly. After I left I realized I didn't even know the characters names! Most scenes were pretty ridiculous such as the burning crucifix scene, seriously how does a deformed freak go from raping Emilie to pulling a loving detanator from his pants and blowing the father up 90 feet away? Also how did Doug and the mother not see the two retards trying to rape Emilie? . The scenes with Beast were just dumb Beast ate Brain.. Sure  Deformed people honestly scare the hell out of me, but the ones in this movie were just stupid looking (i.e. Brain). The only part worth watching were Doug's scenes when he tries to get his daughter back . It reminded me of Silent Hill (Doug looks alot like Henry from SH4). I was rooting for him the whole time and, when Doug was about to get his head chopped off I really didn't want him to die. I literaly jumped out of my seat when he killed that big fucker . However I didn't feel anything for Emilie's brother or her family. There was hardly any character development in the movie at all, so I never felt anything for anyone except Doug. Ruby was a pretty dumb character, and I found it amusing when she fell off the cliff. The "gore" was pretty dull expecially when the gas attendant guy blew his brains out, and I love gore. There was hardly anything that scared me aside from the opening credits (which was just unexpected). Overall the movie was pretty lovely, but I would recommend it just for Doug's scenes. I'll probably even get it on DVD when it comes out. I can only pray there isn't a sequel though (What the gently caress was up with that ending?) 3/5 Man In The Mirror fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Mar 17, 2006 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2006 02:21
|
|
|
TheBercho posted:Seriously bad movie, containing every horror cliche you could imagine. I think it was supposed to be scary but I spent more time laughing than scared. I give it a 3 out of 5 because it was so bad it was amusing. TheBercho basically summed up what I was going to say. The movie was not at all scary and I was laughing through most of it. As one of my friends pointed out, "The dog had more common sense than the entire family put together." The movie was good for a laugh, but most of it was just really difficult to watch, the ending was cliche and predictable. I give it a 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2006 08:35
|
|
|
My girlfriend and I went to see this last night, and we were both quite disappointed. It was very difficult to watch because of all the typical horror/gore movie cliches. As someone before me already mentioned - the dogs were the only characters who had any common sense and acted/reacted as expected. But I suppose only complete morons would want to take a holiday side-tour through a barren desert, so in a roundabout way it does make sense that the human characters were made out to be dumber than gently caress. They tried to develop the characters so the viewer could connect with them, and in a horror movie you really have to do that to get the full horror effect. But it was an apparent afterthought and absolutely did not work. You'd think after a half hour the viewer would have each of their names embedded into memory, but by the time the movie rolled past the first 90 minutes I couldn't remember any names at all. I guess I didn't WANT to remember, because I just didn't care about them. I still felt like I was in a movie theatre watching actors on a screen, as opposed to being engrossed in a film with everything else blocked out. To me, that's the sign of a good movie. Actually, in all honesty there WAS two names I could easily name and identify with - the dogs. Hypothetical questions. What the hell was with the little prayer session? Was that supposed to make the viewer think that this was a close-knit God-fearing family? Is that supposed to make me love them and root for them? Sorry, it didn't work. It didn't make me love them, it made me think they're all retarded. That had to be one of the stupidest and most nonsensical scenes in the history of cinema. The only guy I really rooted for was the 'Tom-Cruise-as-Austin-Powers' son-in-law guy as he went on his own little mission, but only because there was a baby involved. Without the baby and the dogs I could not have cared any less about any of the characters. I could go on and on, but I'm going to stop there. I suggest waiting to rent the DVD on a Monday night when you and your buddies have nothing else to do since this movie is only good as a mindless timewaster in the comforts of home. I voted last night but was too tired to write this post. If memory serves me correct I gave it a 2/5. That's based on 1 point for the director doing a very good job considering the script he had to work with. A half point for the location being about as good as it can get, and half point for the soundtrack. The soundtrack could have received a full point but the audio editor screwed up when he opened the wrong file and the London Philharmonic Orchestra took over during the last 20 minutes. PaulFistInYourFace fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Mar 19, 2006 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2006 17:32
|
|
|
I agree with pantsfish. There is absolutely no substance or atmosphere to this movie. The plot was completely contrived and every scare scene relied on something that you previously thought dead coming back to kick more rear end and get knocked down again; in fact, the entire second half up until the very end follows this exact same formula. Consequently, instead of actually being frightening, Hills just tried topping how much it could gross you out in every scene. For a good example of this, see something like Saw. For the worst goddamn example imaginable, see this poo poo. At some point, seeing every other 30 seconds of film being blown up with blood and gore ceases being gross and starting being tiring; that point was a long time ago when every horror movie in Hollywood started doing it. Don't see this film. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2006 01:26
|
|
|
The movie is built on cliches of every other horror film you've seen. However, it is still done competently to be enjoyed in its own right. Luckily, I went to see it in a theatre with a bunch of Brenda's from Scary Movie and that made it enjoyable enough for me to laugh at the campiness of it. 2.5/5.0
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2006 03:24
|
|
|
The music with that grinding guitar/techno/whatever the gently caress it is was annoying. It really killed the mood for me everytime it was played. The mutants were fine except the big deformed one (Pluto?). It's hard to think 'terrifying mutant' when you're expecting him to say 'HAAAAAY YOOOOU GUUUUUUYS!'. 2/5 for the movie overall 3/5 because of an 'America, gently caress Yeah!' moment with the flag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2006 05:13
|
|
|
It's just another stupid,brain dead,gore drenched cliche filled slasher film. As a horror movie: 2/5 As a slasher film: 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2006 20:05
|
|
|
After the cliche "creepy old gasman tells you to take the shortcut" beginning, I felt like this movie was on a 15 minute loop: -Show camera angles that make it look like someone is watching/following. -Fake scare. -Family talks. -Dog runs away. -Son chases dog. -Mutant attack! -Mutants leave, daughter cries. -Repeat. After about 20 minutes, every single character was on my "I want you to die in this movie" list. They were just insufferably stupid. No one acts like this. "Oh! Hey! I just found my dog gutted like a loving fish in the middle of nowhere! A good idea would be to NOT tell my family, so as to maximize their unpreparedness!" The rape/canary eating/pointing a gun at the baby/OMG SUPAR EDGY scene was gratuitous and unnecessary. It was offensive, not in a "pushing the envelope" kind of way, but rather an "I can't believe they're pandering this badly and trying this hard to be XTREEEEM" kind of way. It was insulting to the viewer's intelligence. Other than that scene, my friends and I were laughing at how ridiculous and stupid every single scene was. The only part I actually liked started the moment Doug stabbed the Sloth-from-Goonies lookalike in the foot and ended the moment Doug stood on the hill with what may as well have been the Battle Hymn of the god drat Republic playing. I felt like the Blue Angels were gonna rocket up behind him and leave red, white, and blue streaks in their wake. The only reason I liked it was because it seemed that the radiation gave the mutants ludicrous inviso-stealth powers that enabled them to open creaky doors and walk on squeaky floors without making a noise, as well as being everywhere in the desert at once, so it was rewarding to see one of the protaganists finally get a share of that goofy movie invulnerability. The final scene was another stupid cliche. Oh wow, there's probably more mutants out there. Who'd have thunk. Also, even if what remains of the family manages to get out of the desert without dehydrating, starving, or bleeding to death, they're all going to die of cancer due to spending a loving week in that radioactive wasteland. Especially the baby. Christ. PROS: Guns that shoot the amount of bullets they contain and no more, cute actresses, good location, decent special effects I guess. CONS: Predictable, average, relies way too much on cheap jump scares, plot wholes, ungodly amounts of horror movie cliches, stupid "The end... OR IS IT!?" ending, insane rape scene that was put in solely for "look how original this movie is!" schlock. Average as gently caress slasher movie. 2.5
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2006 12:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
I'm pretty sure I couldn't stand the movie. The beginning was pretty awful, some of the most boring cinema I've had to sit through in a very long time. Plus it didn't help that it was starting to become a cliche at every turn. While I thought some of the violence was neat, the family was so insufferably retarded that I winced every time one of them did something dumb, especially at the end where you knew it was coming that Doug (I think that's his name?) drops his shotgun and gets the child from the weird looking girl only to find that the guy he thought he killed wasn't dead at all and tried using the shotgun against him. Plus I kept hoping they would kill off the teenage girl and they never did, pissing me off further. She was really annoying! ...I hope I don't have to spoiler that. I guess in the end it felt like I had seen it before and it also felt like it was something to showcase a whole lot of violence that didn't at all creep me out or phase me whatsoever. 1.5/5. PROS: I dunno, I actually liked the soundtrack. Big Bob burning was pretty sweet too. The mutated guys looked pretty decent, I suppose. CONS: Just about everything else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2006 07:53
|
|
