Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

lukem-52760 Yes part 2 is better than the first remake film in my opinion!!! I prefer the team on a mission story & getting picked off one by one it's done really well & exciting. The first was Excellent & very well made & done extremely real & gritty but it was also abit too extreme in an uncomfortable couldn't watch it alot kinda way,maybe that's just me? But some stuff was just too cruel & intense & that shows how good the performances are & the directing but part 2 was more action packed fun with the team of not very confident new recruits on a training exercise who come across those mutants from the lonely desert. I just prefer the more action approach to all the depraved Horror & having modern day soldiers fighting these creatures is a cool idea like an old school 80s approach similar to Walter Hills classic SOUTHERN COMFORT (1981), part 2 probably deliberately copied that idea & it's better for it this time around & the Atmosphere is very scary edge of the seat with bursts of brutality that's viscous & gritty & all the performances from the "No Names" cast are very good & better for them at the time being unknowns or at least to me anyway. Yes Hills 2 is more action orientated Slasher fun in that 80s tradition & i like it so much & to me is the best of the entire franchise!!! A good solid survival slasher Thriller!

fando No question about it, the "original" version of The Hills Have Eyes part 2 is the nadir in Wes Craven's career and probably the most abysmal horror film ever made. First of all, I really enjoyed this film, much more than part 1 which is, as many others have noted already, nothing but a remake, maybe with better resources and a greater display of "style," whatever that is. Given the fact that Craven himself produced the first one, let's take into consideration that he was not only involved this second time around as a producer but as the writer. He created the concept. The saying goes, whoever did it first, they did it better. Remakes are never necessary. Proof of the effectiveness of their inspiration source is the fact they exist in the first place. The pace is great, the exploration and display of the lengths human beings can go to hurt each other bear Craven's trademark, at least the one who created Last House on the Left (1972) and Te Hills Have Eyes (1978), which brought horror down to earth, changed it forever and became the most imitated films of all time, pretty much. The science fiction angle in Aja's film ruined the whole experience for me, because it wasn't humans vs. themselves anymore, but in this one, it does have a purpose, it's not overdone and brings the plot back to the animal nature of human beings from his greatest films: the animal who puts intelligence to serve his instincts. Execution? Honestly, when Craven was in the director's chair, that never was the main point. Just as Ed Wood in Tim Burton's biopic, with him it was all about the Big Picture. Weisz does just the right job; no more, no less. Too bad at the time he hadn't made "Haute Tension" or something like that, I guess. Rushed script? The Last House on the Left took probably only two weeks to write... so what? They would've made a great mistake if they had the female survivor from part one back on this one. The fact that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to what was served us back in 1985 is by no means a bad thing. This is the Hills Have Eyes part 2 that should have been made back then. Sadly, you only get one shot in life.

bowmanblue Yes, I hate lazy horror remakes as much as the next fan of the genre. However, when it came to the ('original') remake of the Hills Have Eyes, I was actually pretty impressed. I guess I wasn't the only one as it seems to have spawned a sequel… which I also watched.I guess you could compare part 2 to 'Aliens' and part 1 to 'Alien.' Of course the major difference was that BOTH 'Alien' films were awesome whereas here, just adding soldiers and guns doesn't automatically make it better. The first film showed us what happened to a family when their camper van broke down in the middle of a desert and ended up at odds with the psychotic locals. Now, some time later in the same desert, a team of young – and not that particularly experienced – soldiers are on a training exercise. Guess what happens to them?! So our young recruits start getting attacked and picked off one by one in classic slasher style. You may think the fact that they're armed with guns and the locals have melee weapons gives them an advantage. It doesn't. Like I say they're VERY inexperienced, almost to the point of it being a little unrealistic how quickly they go down. However, part of the story is that they're not that good at what they do, so I guess I can let that one slide. Unfortunately, part of the problem with having all the characters dressed the same in their army gear makes them very difficult to tell who's who – especially when one dies and then you realise it was a different soldier. Not only this, they're all rather forgettable and you can hazard a guess which handful will make it all the way to the final reel as they're the only ones with vaguely identifiable character traits.Sadly, it's not just the people we're supposed to root for who have problems (dare I call them 'heroes?'). The mutated rednecks are just as bland. They're not that scary and the make-up and gore isn't up to the standards it would need to be to really stand out. There's a bit of gore and some nastiness here and there, but – again – nothing that you haven't seen before (and better!) if you've seen much of the horror genre.I may sound like I hated it, but I didn't. The problem is that it's just the very definition of 'average.' It's not bad, just completely forgettable. There are too many horror clichés in here to really make it work well and it's not a patch on either of the originals. Plus, if I have to hear someone say either 'We're going to get through this' (or a variation thereof) I may just hurl the remote at the TV screen.

view_and_review The first "The Hills Have Eyes" creeped me out so of course I had to see the second. This time the good guys have guns (in my best southern accent).A military unit was sent out to the New Mexico desert to bring aid and supplies. Of course, when they get to the seemingly abandoned outpost they run into the rejects of The Toxic Avengers.I was thinking, "OK now. Now we got some bad mofos with guns, it's about to be on. These circus side show freaks are about to get dealt with military style!" Oh yeah, I was hyped.Of course there wouldn't be much of a movie then if that happened. After all, these missing links did survive nuclear testing, so what're a few dudes with guns? Prepare for some serious casualties in horrific fashion and more mutant on human violence.