Alexandre Aja's The Hills Have Eyes has provoked in me the very special type of anger I reserve for well made films crafted by seemingly intelligent people who really should know better. That it is powerful, visceral film making is undeniable. On a technical level it is nearly flawless. However it is also deeply banal, utterly pointless and violently misanthropic. This is a film that wants you to be entertained by pain and degradation.
Spoilers ahead. You have been warned.
For those unaware of the basic set up, it goes like this. When the United States government was conducting nuclear tests in the New Mexico deserts they forcibly removed the local residents, all except for a small band who took refuge in the nearby mines and refused to leave their land. Decades later that small band of survivors has been horribly deformed by radiation and survive by preying upon passing travellers, aided in this by the owner of a remote gas station. A three generation family - parents, children, a child's spouse, and an infant grand daughter - fall into their trap while on vacation and are tormented, tortured, raped and killed before finally turning the tables and bringing death down on their tormentors. Evidently Craven's original - which I freely confess to not having seen, never really having had a Craven phase - was layered with a decent amount of subtext and commentary. This has none.
Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with an unrepentant gore film and Aja starts off well on that front with a fantastic introductory set piece that involves radiation testers being swung hither and yon while impaled on the end of a pick axe. It's a flagrantly excessive piece of work filled with style and a goofy sense of fun that bodes well for what is to come but Aja unfortunately feels the need to turn from that wonky excess into entirely darker and more realistic scenarios.
The tide turns for the film in a sequence that sees - in rapid order - a man graphically and realistically burned alive, the extended multiple rape of a teenaged girl, and the terrorizing of an infant child who looks to be about nine months old, possibly less. The core problem here is not the content but the fact that it is played uniformly for thrills. This is not meant to horrify, but to get the adrenaline flowing. The burning sequence is shocking but works within the context of what has come before; to call playing a rape scene for entertainment value problematic is beyond understatement; to work a screaming, terrified infant for thrills is utterly unacceptable. Up until this point the film has been adults freely playing a nasty game of make believe but the instant Aja introduces that terrified child and holds a gun to its head the illusion is shattered beyond repair and all that's left is a sense of disgust that we are meant to be entertained by this.
Now, you may well be asking how it is that a site - and a reviewer - that came out positively on Eli Roth's Hostel, a film that this will inevitably be compared to, can possibly be so negative on Aja's film. Good question, and the answer is simple. Roth's film is based entirely on the premise that you will be horrified by the devaluation of human life it presents. Roth is counting on that one simple fact and the entire film would fall apart were that not the case. You are meant to be outraged, you are meant to feel that however big an idiot the lead character is nobody deserves what is being done to him. But The Hills Have Eyes doesn't want you to be horrified, it wants you to revel in the degradation and that is an enormous difference.
A commenter in another Hills thread on this site made the point that he couldn't quite see the characters as anything other than meat. He is absolutely correct. That is all any of them are for Aja, nothing but grist for the mill and the result is a film all the more odious for the fact that it is so well made.
"I'm ready to bet I'll love Aja's The hills have eyes!!!"
Why, exactly?
theyre already talking DVD details, with Aja saying the MPAA's requested footage-removal will be reversed and a 50 minute making-of will be done to a high standard, so I would expect that to arrive in a few months - the dates between cinema and DVD are tightening as fangoria rightly say...
I really think you need to see the original film, as I believe the remake follows the original events closely. I'd be interested in how you view the same degrading events presented by a different director. In the original, a burning scene near the start sets up the fact that the hill-dwellers mean business, setting up the peril for the rest of the family. The baby in peril was also in the original and effectively provided taut suspense for the remainder of the film.
I'd like to hear if you think the original was as degrading?
I'm with Pygar, Todd. You should try and see the original fim. Early-ish Craven has always proved pretty fascinating to me, and while all of the above Pygar enumerates does appear, it never struck me as so mean-spirited as what you describe.
Definitely not try to change your opinion or tell you you're wrong for thinking so, just curious to see how you'd react to the original film b/c I don't think I've read anything from you quite so venomous before! I've reacted to films that way in the past (thinking of THE CELL) and have tried re-visiting / re-evaluating them, with mixed results.
I would like to know if Todd is a father? I know I'm looking forward to seeing a toddler threatened with a gun while its mother is violently and repeatedly raped but I also know that my attitude towards that kind of twisted stuff may very well change as soon as I have a wife and/or children of my own.
I'm kinda amazed nowadays the length in which people will go to defend something so unredeemable as unrepetant gore and the savagery of rape in film. I understand all about context and am freely willing to accept the use of gore and violence within context; but seemingly this is nowhere near the case from Todd and Canfield's descriptions. Isn't their a point when enough is enough? I can accept that horror films can be well made and well thought out despite the critical reaction they often receive. But just like we don't accept the badness of UV despite it's somewhat well done action why do we accept the depravity of a film just because it has some "really cool gore?" I don't get this dual way of thinking, especially in regards to horror films when fans often seemingly just let things go despite how bad a film can be just because it's horror. I don't count myself a prude but I can't get my head around that.
I don't understand how people seem to be getting all up in arms about the depravity of this film (or the defending of it) when the original was just as fucked. Everyone should have known what to expect from a director such as Aja remaking a movie that was already obscene and repulsive. First thing you have to accept is that the original film was "entertaining" (or interesting as I like to put it) enough to make you want to see the remake. If not, then don't see it. I thought the first Hills was fucked (as was Craven's previous film of that era, Last House), but I accepted that as groundbreaking and ballsy and interesting enough to warrant subsequent viewings. Knowing that "it's only a movie" as the trailer of Last House suggests, I don't feel guilty for doing so. The only place where I think Aja failed remaking Hills is that he didn't add sympathy like the original did by showing the deformed family's interaction among themselves...how Ruby had learned that what they were doing was wrong and was willing to fight her family for that.
After a few days of thinking about it and talking to a couple of people I've decided to just take the movie as it is. Good old fashioned splatterpunk. Sure I wish Aja had made a better movie but I'll take what I can get.
One thing I've always been interested in seeing is a movie like this only without the radioactive mutants. The family gets stranded and just eventually tear each other apart.
As for the rape & murder & all the grisly stuff...yes it's all bad in real life but that's what some viewers are in the theater for. The same folks who watch BD/SM Nun/Prison/Swamp Feast of the Bloody Damned Vixens from Hell and enjoy it all will get at least a couple of splatter laughs. This will be a good movie to throw on, get hammered, and hoot it up with buddies.
Let's face it, people are becoming increasingly desensitized to the Horror genre and old tricks don't cut it anymore. That's why directors like Aja & Roth are pushing the envelope in the hope of resuscitating interest in such films to bring in more viewers/ticket sales. Unfortunately, most of the so-called Horror films nowadays elicit shock and disgust rather than scares and horror. I confess to being morbidly curious, hence, do watch most of these films. So, no matter how much you analyze the merits - or the lack thereof - of films like Hostel, Saw, Cabin Fever, Wolf Creek, Hills Have Eyes, etc. they're all guilty of the same sin. The last time I felt creeped out was when I watched Ju-on. Back then, Hollywood hadn't jumped on the Japanese-horror-film-remake bandwagon yet and the movie felt like a fresh breeze in a rather stale genre.
Going to see Hills tomorrow, going in fresh despite some of the critique it's been getting.
Caterpillar: yes, I am a father - my son turns five in a couple weeks - and the film definitely hit some hot buttons as a result.
Kaz: Could the spoiler warning have possibly been any more obvious? If you can't read what's right in front of your face then don't come crying.
Marten: as I say in the review I very specifically don't think Hostel makes the same error this film does. I get where you're coming from on the de-sensitization issue but that's a different kettle for another time ...
Anyway ... as should be clear to most regulars here I have no issue at all with the depiction of violence on screen. The one caveat to that is that the violence needs to be grounded in something more substantial than 'rape is fun!' and Aja seems perfectly happy to stop there. I think Hostel is ultimately pretty shallow and will fade from memory pretty quickly but Roth's goal is very clearly to inspire horror and repulsion. Aja is looking to inspire cheers. It's a major, major difference.
And yeah, I know I should see the original ... I've been meaning to dip into old Craven for a good while now ...hard to clear out the constantly growing stack of new stuff enough to dip into the old classics.
Todd,
I saw the spoiler warning. I didn't even read the review. My point is that why review the movie if you're going to spoil it? You're simply posting your comments so that other people can agree/disagree with your assessment and not helping those that haven't seen the film.
A review with a spoiler in it is as pointless as it can get.
Sometimes when talking about the issues a film raises you need to directly address specific moments within the film. That was the case here. I'd rather be specific and substantive than vague and pointless.
"I'm ready to bet I'll love Aja's The hills have eyes!!!"
Why, exactly?
'cause I liked his first two movies (Furia: a lot, and High tension: pretty "cool" too bad for the unnecessary twist), and it's just a premonition, if you like...
Hi I'm new, but I always pass through and check out the site, I saw the review and more than likely I won't be seeing it anytime soon because of the rape scenes. I wanted to check this out since I liked High Tension, but if the rape scenes are that bad, I'll have to pass.The reason why, recently a VERY loved one of mine was raped and it's something that is REALLY hard to fathom and get off your mind. While I didn't take it seriously before, well, I KNEW it was serious, it is something that you overlook until it hits home, and it hits you pretty HARD. Todd, thanks for the heads up on this 'cause I would have been PISSED if I spent 8 bucks to see this....peace!!
Hostel is ultimately pretty shallow and will fade from memory pretty quickly but Roth's goal is very clearly to inspire horror and repulsion.
Todd: There is more going on subtext-wise (even it is very, very near the surface) in Hostel than about 95% studio-horror remakes. Really, Land of the Dead (which is also flawed), Dark Water (which is more of a drama than a horror) and The Ring and only about 10% of the Dawn Remake had anything to say other than cheap thrills. Hostel isn't perfect, but there is at least something to chew on.
Saw a sneak preview of this in Toronto last Thursday. My friend Dan and I thought it was hilarious.
Was it just me or did it seem like the director was schizophrenic? He goes from pushing the boundaries of "acceptable content" in a hollywood film, to the standard underdog saves the day slow-motion walk over the hill. It was ridiculous!
I loved Haute Tension. What the fuck happened Aja?
Aww, I loved 'Hills'. Not a patch on Haute Tension, nowhere near.. but it pumped new life into the (very dated and showing it) original, and it was fun, fun, fun.
Perhaps i'm just too desensitised, but personally I didnt think it was as violent as I was expecting.. Aja's previous offering really putting the viewer through the wringer.
It certainly didn't disappoint me at all though.
It's weird (and seems horrendously hypocritical to me at least) to read about exploiting rape and violence for entertainment from you Todd, given the miriad Asian sex crap you promote with ghomorrahy (sp), whereas no one in the theater I was in seemed to find the HILLS rape (NOT explicit in any way shape or form BTW... I Spit on your grave was a hundred times more explicit 30 years ago) entertaining in the least. Perhaps you're mixing your own reactions with the "intent" of the filmmaker? The only time the violence becomes "enjoyable" in HILLS is at the end, when payback is served, and rightly so. The cathartic nature of that violence is nothing new and it's been used in a thousand action movies.
I'm with the guy who thought it was a nice update to a badly dated movie, nothing more, nothign less. kIt also had a nice little "Straw Dogs" vibe going thru it (including Doug's broken glasses).
Hats off to Aja, I liked this better than Haute Tension.
i'm inclined to agree with dullboy here. i really don't see how the trailer scene's intent was to entertain and have us "revel in degradation." i doubt there was a single person in the theater who wasn't horrified by its brutality. there is nothing in the direction that even suggests glee or enjoyment. the fact that you believe its sole purpose was to "get the adrenaline flowing" says more about you as a viewer than any foul play on aja's part.
This is a useless waste of filmstock. Wes Craven (and Mr. Aja) have no sense of what entertainment should be. Filling people's heads with sick imagery is NOT entertainment. I'll do everything I can do avoid Mr. Craven, Mr Aja and Fox Searchlight in the future.
Never been impressed by Mr. Craven's 'talent'. His self-proclaimed best movie 'Red Eye' is just awful too.
I've got to disagree entirely with your opinions on The Hills Have Eyes. First, I found it one of the few recent horror films with a believable set of protagonists worth caring about. That is what made it so awful to watch, and so terrifying to experience (for me). You can disagree, obviously, but particularly compared to Hostel the emotional attachment that as afforded the protagonists is unusually great.
As for the trailer scene: it is certainly NOT intended for us to enjoy. It is there to disgust and anger us. If that's the effect it caused, then it suceeded. Yes, the mutants are enjoying what they're doing: that's why it's so twisted. But it is that very anger that you have towards the "glorification" of the elements of that scene that we are supposed to feel. Except, it is not Aja glorifying them, it is the mutants reveling in their evil. Why is the political subtext taken out? Because, frankly, it was weak to begin with. It weakened the first film as a gutteral experience because it was sloppy and frankly not that great of an idea. Aja pays his respects to it, but refuses to linger in the "intellectual." He is interested far more by finding a way in to his audience and flipping on their base instincts. It may not have worked for you, but it worked for me and my group unlike any horror film of recent year.
So, yes, this version is based on the earlier one, but I can't imagine that audiences would not laugh at the constant reminders of the mutants origin and their "similarities" to our protagonists. In fact, if I had to say anything, I feel the film didn't distance itself enough from the political untertones of the original. Becuase that's not its point. Its main goal is to dig deep down into your stomach, disturbing and angering you enough to understand Doug's transformation.
I nearly leaped out of my seat in applause when Beast got Goggle, and when Doug's revenge started, my adrenaline was racing like I have not felt in a movie theater in a long time. Artaud would be proud.
If you don't like it stay the hell out of the theater!!!
The Hills Have Eyes is everything that Eli Roth promised we would see in Hostel, but failed to deliver. Any true horror fan would not label Hostel as a horror film. Aja's Hills Have Eyes is horror in every sense of the word. If it elicited a response from you than Aja did his job. You should feel horrified and disturbed. If the rape scene in this film didn't disturb you than you need therapy because you have a hole in middle of your soul.
Also, horror films never intended to be anything more than popcorn films. There was never a need for script continuity, common sense, etc. Those are the very elements of the horror genre. They afford us the ability to poke fun and be scared at the same time. At least this film delivers the goods as far as blood and gore are concerned.
This one makes up for Hostel (which offered 45 minutes of tits, ass, and low rent soft-core porn. I could have rented XXX films instead).
If u like Rape, Blood, and Goofy men that look like Jabba or the cyclopse from the movie 'The Goonies' then you will love it! Only people who are not true horror fans will think this is actually scary! HAHA girls were the ones jumping in the theater I practically was enjoying my popcorn. Its totally crap! Only little 14 yr olds will think this is 'cool' and who made this? Hicks living in the midwest? A girl getting raped from the back and front is something only teenagers can think of as scary! ITS A TOTAL SCI-FI FILM, not horror or scary at all! The trailors are MISLEADING! Im so mad after reading all the reviews from the people who got their $9.50 back, I was about to walk off only if I knew I could buy myself dinner at least! CRAP movie! SAVE YOUR MONEY b4 the first half!! The whole family except 3 die in the end...its stupid and soooo predictable, not scary at all!!!
Wes Craven is an idiot and I think he just humilated himself and his reputation with this idiotic film.
Maybe it is time to separate gore from those creepy horror film...of course gore scares people, but i think in this case, let's film a car crash accident and then call it a horror movie. It scares people but..
I still enjoy creepy horror =). A real car crash,beheading,raping scene scares me all the time, but leave it to snuff film.
aleexit
Thanks for a chance to post here ;-) Wanna download some music for 10cents? Welcome 24/7 365.
OMG ........ this movie made me wanna kill those men in it
A boy sees his mother torn apart infront of his eyes and he just RUN AWAY god dammit u are holding a GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and why is the rape scene there for I have to say that the writer and the director are SICK people this scene made me sick and i hated the whole movie for it dammit
if i were one of those hill guys i would have killed tortured the writer and the director for thinking of putting this rape scene
I sat through about a half hour of "The Hills Have Eyes", not expecting great cinema, but not expecting to be completely revulsed either. Blood and gore I can handle, but when forcible rape and the mistreatment of infants are considered a form of entertainment, I have to worry. The scenes invloving the rape of the youngest daughter, and the (assumed, as I walked away after that) abduction of the baby and rape of the mother were possibly the vilest things I've ever seen offered as entertainment. I do not know how this movie ever made it with an R rating...it should have gottem a U for unviewable. Horror movies should be entertaining, they should scare the hell out of us and show lots of gore for no reason. That's what it's all about - scares, blood and gore. But movies that take the violation of women and girls lightly have no place being offered as public entertainment.
I DID NOT LIKE THIS MOVIE WHATSOEVER! I would never recommend it for anybody else to watch, to like it you would have to be sick and twisted. I can't believe somebody would even imagine making a movie about something like this. For those of you who did like it, are you not family oriented? It hit cloes to home for me. My daughter at the time was the same age as the baby girl in the movie, my parents did just celebrate there 25th anniversary, and I do have a younger sister. For the little sister to be raped, it was disgusting, disturbing, and immoral. Then to suck on the mother's breast was over the line for me. That is the baby's source of food, to portray it as anything else, or take that aaway from an infant is inhumane. Then they took the baby, what were they going to do eat her? I didn't like anything about this move.
6566t9784HI1300sMEDV EDVER YNICE SITE 496586566t9784
-----