THE HILLS HAVE EYES
Reviewed by Steve Biodrowski
The original version of THE HILLS HAVE EYES, written and directed by Wes Craven in 1977, was part of a wave that included the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE -- movies that eschewed traditional, atmospheric horror in favor of high-tension and gut-level shocks. At least a part of the effectiveness of the original HILLS lay in the fact that it openly sought to undermine comfort zones -- in particular, the nuclear family, usually the source of stability and safety. Craven portrayed the hapless normal family on vacation, and the mutant family that preys on them, as mirror images of each other, and the sick, subversive joke of the movie was that in both cases, the older regime (the one that seeks to forcibly mold the next generation into a copy of itself) was killed off, liberating the youngsters from parental, patriarchal authority.
The new version of the HILLS HAVE EYES, produced by Craven but with directing chores turned over to Alexandre Aja (HIGH TENSION), is also part of a trend -- that of remaking old horror movies for younger audiences who don't remember the originals. As with other recent examples like THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, HOUSE OF WAX, and the new TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, it is hard to imagine a reason why the story of HILLS needed to be retold.
In fact, the passage of time has dated the concept in significant ways. Most obviously, the concept of mutant family living in the desert (the victims of radiation from atom bomb tests) feels almost as quaint as a vampire in Transylvania. Back in 1977, during the cynicism of the post-Watergate era, these characters may have seemed like a living embodiment of evil perpetrated by an uncaring Federal Government, but since U.S. atom bomb tests are a thing of the past, the characters are now like an anachronism from another time -- old-fashioned bogeyman stirred up to say "Boo!" at least a generation too late.
Despite this conceptual problem THE HILLS HAVE EYES turns out to be a somewhat better remake than expected, thanks to solid craftsmanship by Aja, who does know how to deliver the gross-out goods for the intended audience. The film is not a total success even by these standards, but parts of it are enjoyable. Which parts will depend a lot on your taste, because HLLS HAVE EYES is all over the map.
In fact, it feel reminiscent of the old joke: "If you don't like the weather in here, just wait fifteen minutes." The same holds true for THE HILLS HAVE EYES: if you don't like what you're seeing, just wait fifteen minutes: the film skips from silly slasher stuff (you're supposed to think the gore is cool) to grueling horror (you're supposed to be genuinely terrorized) to revenge-action (you're supposed to cheer when the good guys turn the tables), and it winds up with one of those obligatory "it's-not-really-over" stings that's supposed to send you out of the theatre with either a chill or a chuckle, depending on you mind-set.
The different pieces don't really fit together, but the variety at least lends an edge of unpredictability that keeps the proceedings interesting from time to time, and it's hard not to enjoy seeing the pet dog (which belongs to the unhappy campers beset by radioactive mutants in the desert) sink his fangs into the bad guys. But the whole thing really is ridiculous: the mutants have no trouble killing off people, but for some reason a dog is just too tough for them.
Like its predecessor, the new HILLS strives for a sense of realism by not idealizing its characters. The vacationing family features an authoritarian, unsympathetic father, resentful selfish children, and a wimpy son-in-law. It's an interesting gambit that pays off to some extent, but it also sets up the victims like ducks in a shooting gallery: you don't really care that they are being targeted; you're only glad that enough of them survive to strike back at their attackers. As a matter of fact, the character who engenders the most sympathy is the vengeful dog, because he's the only one not tainted with annoying human imperfections.
In the end, THE HILLS HAVE EYES deserves some credit for not pulling its punches on a visceral level. But like many films of its ilk, its alleged relentless horror is of the most superficial variety -- it's a sort of gauntlet intended to shock the squeamish while hardcore horror addicts cheer in delight, not frightened but enthused by the orgy of onscreen violence. There's a lot on display that is disgusting, exploitative, and/or sleazy, but it's not allowed to register on an emotional level that would be genuinely disturbing; it's just motivation (like the death of Callahan's partner in a DIRTY HARRY movie) for the revenge to follow. In its own way, this makes THE HILLS HAVE EYES as timid as any of the toned-down PG-13 horror films that it seeks to upstage.
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS
I'm sick of horror movies where the action is staged like championship wrestling, with the supposedly merciless killers throwing their victims around -- this just puts some distance between the two characters, giving the victims time to regain their breath and fight back. If you were a homicidal mutant, and you had your hands on the person you wanted to kill, wouldn't you just finish him off and be done with it?
And I'm really sick of the severed finger gore effect: it's been in HOUSE OF WAX, THREE EXTREMES, and WOLF CREEK. Isn't it about time to move on to something new -- like, maybe eye-gouging?
RELATED ARTICLES
NIGHT WATCH and THE HILLS HAVE EYES: Double Bill Press Event V for Vendetaa and Current Horror Films' Lack of Culture Shock
