The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1984)

The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 (1985) was a unwarranted sequel. But after all this was the eighties and sequels were in vogue. The first film had a fine closure and I still don't understand what was Wes Craven thinking when he released it? It was far too tamed to be an R-Rated film and it wasn't a true sequel (in my opinion). Too far fetched and inane. I wasn't pleased with the end results. I'll just pretend it never took place.

Not a bad movie but certainly not a good one either. A mediocre effort of Wes Craven. You could tell his heart wasn't in this project. But I would take one of these films any day compared ti the rubbish he's cranking out these day.

An okay time waster. Not a total disaster that some people might make you believe it is!

Fmovies: (* out of *****) I think Craven must have put all of his energy and creativity into "A Nightmare on Elm Street" (released the same year), because this sequel to his own ‘77 classic is horrible. In fact, I would rate this one even below the director's other ‘80s stinkers "Shocker" and "The People Under the Stairs." The best scenes in this are the long flashbacks from the first movie (and there are several of them -- the damn dog even has one!) Unfortunately, in between the flashbacks, we also get the `new' story about a bunch of dirt bikers stranded in the desert when their bus runs out of gas. Once again, they are attacked and killed off by the two remaining members of the savage, cannibalistic clan from the first film (John Bloom as Reaper and Michael Berryman returning as the scary-looking but wimpy Pluto, who gets his ass kicked by dogs and chics throughout the movie). Robert Houston also returns as Bobby in a brief, opening cameo, and Janus Blythe returns as the newly reformed and now civilized Ruby (when she reveals to everyone that she was raised by a desert-dwelling family of killer cannibals, no one seems to care!) Absolutely nothing works this time around. The characterizations and motivations are dumb, there are gaping plot holes, there is no suspense, no blood, no guts -- in short, none of the hyper-realistic savagery, fear, and helplessness that made the first one so good. The blind heroine of this movie (Tamara Stafford) is so perceptive that she can hear things when no one else can and can sense when a person is afraid, but she doesn't even know when someone's smoking a cigarette right next to her! I heard that this movie underwent a lot of pre-release cutting before it came out, and that's why it turned out so badly -- personally, I think this is a load of bunk. Even movies that are cut up left and right before release should give some indication of whether they could be potentially good or not, and this one gives no such signs of any potential whatsoever.

Lowlight: The fiery demise of Reaper -- the hero concocts a ridiculous trap for him involving a gasoline tank, the school bus, a ring of fire, and a cable connected to a motor that will pull him between Reaper's legs and through the flames to safety. It's useless to try explaining it -- you have to see it to believe it (but I wouldn't advise it.)

I'm sure some would say that you'd have a better chance of picking the winning lottery numbers every week than picking out the worst horror sequel of all time. Hell, when a film like "Silent Night, Deadly Night" can spawn no less than four follow-ups, there is obviously a LOT for one to choose from. But those who think that this is truly an impossible task have never seen the "Hills Have Eyes Part II". And boy, I sure envy them because they won't have to go to their graves pondering what else they could've done with their life during the 90 minutes they used up to watch this film. "Hills Have Eyes II" is not even gracious enough to provide one with 90 minutes of bad laughs. It is just plain DEAD! I mean, this must have had the most unenthusiastic film shoot in history. The direction, the script and the acting are so flat that it doesn't look anyone involved in the project gives a damn at all. You'd never think that Wes Craven himself, whose 1977 original was a genuine horror masterpiece, could be responsible for such an utterly lifeless piece of celluloid, but as he's stated many times before, this came at a time when he'd do ANYTHING to scratch out a living in the film biz (though I'd personally have chosen to find work at a sweat shop than have my name attached to something like this). Thankfully, his next project was the hugely successful "Nightmare on Elm Street", which helped the otherwise talented filmmaker go on to bigger things, though ironically, "Hills II" was held back for release until a year afterwards and would probably still be sitting on a shelf somewhere if "Elm Street" were not such a success.

Anyway, there's no sense dwelling on where this sequel goes wrong, because it does so in EVERY department, but there are definitely a great deal of things that stick out. Despite being such a lifeless piece of work, "The Hills Have Eyes Part II" is, and always will be, remembered among horror fans for one reason and one reason only: the dog's flashback. That's right, in the annals of horror movie stupidity, there has never been a moment to top the lunacy of the Carter family dog having a flashback to some of the events he witnessed in the original film! Hell, there are so many damn flashback sequences in this film that it actually makes for a reason to watch it: if one has trouble finding a copy of the original "Hills Have Eyes", they can just rent the sequel since it shows just about every scene from the original anyway. Of course, those who fondly remember the original are gonna be shaking their heads at the absurd contrivances in this sequel. The only returning member of the mutant family this time around is Pluto, who is now living in the desert with "The Reaper", who is supposed to be the brother of Papa Jupiter, the original leader of the clan. Think about this for a second. Remember the chilling scene in the original "Hills" where the old man at the gas station tells the story about his wife giving birth to Jupiter, and how the kid developed into a monster that eventually murdered their daughter? Strange that he makes no mention of Jupiter having a brother. Even stranger is how he says that giving birth to Jupiter almost tore his poor wife apart - yet she still finds the strength to deliver another kid that's even bigger. But not to worry about the plot holes since Craven doesn't give any more regard to his direction or editing either, especially near the end

The Hills Have Eyes Part II fmovies. This movie I thought was more entertaining than the original. It just has more places to go than the first one. The characters are better and funny also. This is one of Wes Craven's most underrated movies. I give The Hills Have Eyes Part II *** out of ****

Wes Craven admitted in an interview that he needed to make some cash fast, would have happily 'directed Godzilla in Paris'. So he made a sequel to one of his well-made and enjoyable films.

However, 'Hills Have Eyes 2' is a letdown. It seems to rely heavily on flashbacks to the previous (superior) film and is really nothing more than a 'Friday the 13th' clone. It even has the same composer as the Jason films (Harry Manfredini) so much of the music in 'Hills 2' could make you think you're watching a 'Friday the 13th' sequel. This whole film is just a waste of time. The characters are so obnoxious you don't give a hoot what happens to them, the 'Papa Jupe's brother' business is glaringly contrived and unlikely and to cut a long story short I have trouble believing that this mess was by the same director who brought us the best of the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' films and 'Shocker'.

I thought The Hills Have Eyes Part II was a good sequel by Wes Craven even though he said he only made it because he was low on cash and would of directed "Godzilla in Paris" but he decided to make a sequel to one of his best films.

I didn't think the flashbacks took up the whole film just the beginning and the dog flashback didn't bother me I thought it was quite funny.

The music was similar to Friday the 13th since it was the same man and I liked that since I'm a fan of Friday the 13th. The movie was more of a slasher film than what the first film was but the 80's was the slasher craze. But I liked it still.

A sequel that may not be as good as the first but is still a good movie. 9/10.