Is The Hills Have Eyes 2 Stupid?

Question

I Saw It And Thought It Was I Want To Know Your Opinion.

Answer 1

i liked it but the 1st was better , i couldn't, really feel sry for the soldiers because they wanted to split up and leave each other and only think about them self's!?! (except for a few) but did u know they r coming out with a third its called the hills have eyes the beginning!?! its supposed to be the goriest of them all with a lot of bad scenes!?!

Answer 2

I read the reviews before I watched it. People didn't seem to be very enthusiastic about this movie but I decided to give it a try anyway. Having low expectations, I was rather satisfied. I wanted gore. It delivered! I wanted mutants. It delivered as well! I wanted the rape scene not to be too hard, as I'm getting tired of all the new horror films having sexual violence in them. It was not so bad. It sure wasn't as shocking as the rape scene in the first one. Overall The Hills Have Eyes II is dumb and fun. A lot of blood, very nice looking chicks, mutants with almost supernatural forces and some very decent fight scenes. At first I thought the characters were annoying. In the end I liked them, especially the two heroes. They were my favorite characters since the beginning! Like some people mentioned, it sometimes looks like The Descent. Believe me, The Descent is way better! And so is Aja's remake of The Hills Have Eyes. This one is nothing but an average sequel.

Answer 3

...well, let's open this can of worms, and see what the folks over at Fox Atomic had for us, shall we see...

....well, first out the gate, overall, it seems obvious that someone thought that an earthbound combination of "Aliens", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Friday the 13th" would be a damn good idea; leave it to the writers and producers over at Fox Atomic, to once again think that they know what the audience wants. Admittedly, the first film, the remake of Wes Craven's original "The Hills Have Eyes", was indeed a very disturbing excursion into horror, with a great respect for the 1977 original (kudos to director Alexandre Aja, for that most excellent homage); the sequel was merely a generic 'by-the-numbers' slasher flick, with no real purpose but to conceive of progressively more graphic killings.

Hey, folks, how about that cartoonish-looking, CGI gratuitious bloodletting, strewn throughout the film??? (...makes me long for, ever so much more, for the good old days of realistic mechanical effects!!!)

Oh, oh, and let's not forget about that riotous "Goonies" moment, where a Sloth wannabee makes his appearance.

I WILL give the sequel to the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes" SOME respectable credit; unlike director Wes Craven's sequel to the original "The Hills Have Eyes", this sequel did not have a flashback by a dog!! (....a most resounding golf clap to the makers of "The Hills Have Eyes II" for sparing us THAT reimagined experience!!!).

Overall, the movie was a hoot, and nowhere near as poignant and disturbing as the first film.....

Answer 4

The Hills have Eyes 1 & 2 it is not scary to comparing to Silent Hill.

Answer 5

i liked it alittle bit more then the Remake of the original movie. Probably because Wes Craven (created The Hills Have Eyes in 1977) helped out with The Hills Have Eyes 2. but yea i agree it really wasnt that great.

Answer 6

I watched it and thought it was just ok. I have seen much worse movies, like "Unrest"

Answer 7

I haven't seen it yet but if it is anything like the first one, it would be a waste of my time. :(

Answer 8

it was extremely lame i was grossed out and disapointed. Saw is much better

Answer 9

it was okay but the actors frekin sucked if they were different then the movie would have been much much better

Answer 10

yes, they both where. The new ones that is.