The Hills Have Eyes Series

The Hills Have Eyes (1977)

Wes Craven's original is regarded as a classic among the horror community, and rightfully so.  It's a very nasty little exploitation movie.  This was way before my time, but I imagine watching this back in the 70's would have been a more rewarding experience for me.  I do thoroughly enjoy it though.  I love most Craven flicks.

I really dig how gritty and bleak this is.  This movie has a black little heart and it only wants to get nasty.  The desert setting is an ideal horror setting; the victims are trapped with nowhere to go and are under constant danger.  This doesn't need a night time climate to let the real horror unravel.

As much as I enjoy this movie, it's not one I regard as a classic but I can see why others do.  Still, damn impressive, eh?

The Hills Have Eyes 2 (1985)

You won't read a lot of good reviews for this on the internet.  Even Craven himself has disowned it.  My question is ''WHY?''  This sequel is a lot of fun, it's trashy, cheap and sometimes cheesy.  This is why horror is so good: I love it when cheesy sequels follow classics.  It's part of the charm of horror.  

This sequel has some decent kills, some nice atmosphere and some truly ridiculous moments.  I consider these strong points.  Sure, this had the potential to be a good, solid sequel but Craven really didn't have his heart in it and instead gave us an unintentionally fun piece of crap with a dog that has flashbacks.  That's a cinematic breakthrough that should be praised.

I'm in the minority, but I like it.  Recommended with beer.

Mind Ripper (1995)

AKA ''The Outpost'' AKA ''The Hills Have Eyes 3''

This doesn't have anything to do with the first two movies, but it was marketed as a sequel and contains.  Craven (who produced this) pulled the plug on naming it in the ''Hills'' series to rename it The Outpost but it's sort of a sequel so we'll count it this time.

The plot: a science experiment goes wrong and a mutant is created, going on a rampage and only Lance Henriksen can stop him.

This isn't a masterpiece, but it's a lot of fun.  I really recommend it if you want some good cheesy fun.  However, if the second one angers you due to love for the first then avoid.  If you like fun cheese then you'll have a hoot with this.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

This was one of a few remakes in the 2000's that surpassed the original for me (others include Dawn of the Dead, TCM & The Ring).  When it comes to remakes, I can take a little comfort if Aja is attached because so far he's made them better than their respective originals in my opinion (also note Piranha & Mirrors).  Sorry for the blasphemy but it's just my taste.  Maybe it's my ungrateful generation with our MTV and fetish porn?

Aja doesn't stray far from the original storyline at all but what he does do is provide better characters who are likable, a steady build up filled with tension,  nastier looking mutants, stunning cinematography and what us horror fans crave, graphic violence.  I think this remake hit all the right spots to become a modern horror classic and not just an acceptable remake.  I love it.

The Hills Have Eyes 2 (2007)

Once again, I'm probably in the minority of those who actually enjoyed this movie, even if it wasn't for the same reasons I enjoyed the original sequel.  This is watchable but not spectacular.  However, even though it lacks the tension and suspense of Aja's remake, it does deliver in terms of kills, gore and body count.

Martin Weisz delivered a solid sequel with some decent actors, gore and some nice ideas, but in the end it wasn't as good as it could have been.  Definitely worth a watch from time to time, but don't go in with high expectations.  As I said, I'm in the minority who enjoyed it.  

So there it is, I like them all but I'm not exactly Roger Ebert.  I found entertainment in the lot of them and that's what matters to me.  If you know what you're getting from each of them then you might enjoy them as well.

Season of the Witch (2011)

How can anyone not love Nic Cage?  Add Ron Perlman to the mix and who knows what you're getting, but it's interesting anyway.  These are 2 legends who tend to venture between the awesome and the awful, and as I'm a fan of both awesome and awful movies, everything they do interests me.  In fact, I'd even call Nic Cage one of my favorite actors.  Season of the Witch is neither awesome or awful, but it's pretty damn entertaining.

It stars Cage and Perlman as shamed knights who have been returned from the Crusades after abandoning their comrades to find the lands devastated by the Black Plague.  The Church believe this to be the work of a witch and they charge the knights with a mission to escort her across mystical wilderness to receive trial.  On their journey, they are faced with more problems than privileges to say the least.  You get the idea.

Season of the Witch is an action/adventure fantasy with some horror elements thrown into the mix.  We've seen it before so we know what to expect.  It offers nothing particularly new but it is entertaining.  It is, however, without flaws; the premise on paper is excellent but the execution of it is above average.  Furthermore, the performances lack strong emotion but are adequate nonetheless.  Also, some of the CGI isn't exactly perfect.  However, considering this was a January movie (in other words crap that the studio wanted rid of), it's a very enjoyable way to spend 90 minutes.  Watching this, I was drawn into the story and I wanted to see how it ended.  The adventure was fun and I enjoyed being a part of it.  One thing that was good about the film was the battle scenes.  They would have been so much better with a little blood and severed limbs, but it was PG-13.  Some of the dialogue was good and cheesy and there was a good sense of fun from the actors, who looked like they were having a good time.  Cage and Perlman had some nice chemistry together and it would be nice to see them work together in  future.

Crtiics and the internet panned this one, but don't listen to them, listen to me - the small minority.  This is entertaining fun and nothing more.  It could have been so much better but it could have been a far lot worse.  I'm proud to have it in my collection for the £3 I spent on it.  If you see it going for cheap then pick it up.

Tub (2010)

Think twice before treating yourself in future, guys.

Werewolf: The Beast Among Us Trailer (2012)

Universal's follow up (of sorts) to Joe Johnston's remake of The Wolfman will go straight to disc on October 9th.  I for one am a huge fan of the remake and can't wait for this sequel.  Check out the trailer and see for yourself how great it looks.

Vampires (1998), Vampires: Los Muertos (2002) & Vampires: The Turning (2005)

It puzzles me that horror Westerns aren't popular.  The Old West is an ideal setting for a horror movie and should be utilised more, with decent budgets to execute the concept.  There has been a few entertaining horror Westerns so far, but they've had to work with what they've had and even though some little entertaining gems have come through, they could have been so much more with a little more financial faith.  John Carpenter adapted both genres into his 1998 movie, Vampires and even though it's set in modern day times, it's still a nice amalgamation of the genres.  Actually, if you want my opinion this movie is a classic.

James Woods plays Jack Crow, a vampire hunter who kills the bloodthirsty fiends for the Catholic church.  However, after a job where they clear out a nest, the master vampire Valek comes along and wipes out the whole crew with the exception of Crow and his buddy Montoya, and a bitten hooker with telepathic visions played by the insatiable Sheryl Lee.  They use her visions to hunt down Valek before he gets an ancient amulet that would really spell disaster for the world.

The first thing noticeable in Vampires is the amazing cinematography and setting, which really helps capture the Southwest.  It's the ideal backdrop for a modern Western.  Another strength is the gore.  It's probably his bloodiest film to date, which was probably out of laziness by Carpenter as during this period he felt burn out.  However, even a burnt out Carpenter can deliver a classic and you can tell there was still some enthusiasm put into this.  His casting was great here and I'm glad he gave James Woods the chance to be a bad ass action hero.  Woods delivers here with some amazing lines that are hilarious.  It's a popcorn movie, but it's also a fresh take on the vampire genre.  If this came out today it'd be regarded as fresh.

A fun sequel starring (soft) rock legend Jon Bon Jovi as Derek Bliss, a vampire hunter who needs to stop a vampire princess from getting her hands on the amulet from the first movie.  He's joined by a group of vampire hunters who help feed the hungry vampires with a slice of STAKE!!!

Bon Jovi was surprisingly good in the lead role.  I really enjoyed his performance.  The movie also had some great gore.  Overall, this isn't as good as the first movie but it's a solid, fun sequel that has rewatch value.  Tommy Lee Wallace, who directed this, also directed Fright Night 2 if that helps.  I think he's a good director.  He's not directed a movie since this one though.

Another entertaining sequel that blends kung fu and horror.  It's terrifically paced, action packed and lots of fun.  Considering it's direct-to-video and an obvious cash-in, it still delivers in entertainment value and has an interesting story to go along with it,  I liked it.

The Burning (1981)

A janitor at a summer camp is burned after a prank goes wrong and becomes disfigured.  After being released from hospital, he returns to the camp to take out his frustrations on some pesky teenagers with a pair of hedge clippers.

This is heralded as a classic among slasher fans, and even though I really enjoy it, I think there was much better slashers in the 80's.  There is one moment though that is out of this world amazing where the deranged killer chops up the teenagers on a raft.

I really don't have much to say about this.  For me, it's just a run-of-the-mill slasher that's enjoyable but not spectacular.  It is worth a watch though and has some nice kills.

The Collector (2009)

I need to stop avoiding movies that are advertised as ''From the creators of Saw'' because I might miss out on gems like this (plus the first 2 Saws were good).  A lot of negative reviews also put this film low on my to do list, but finally I bit the bullet and loved the taste of the lead.

The Collector is similar to the Saw franchise in some ways, but it takes what is good about them and crafts a unique movie with a terrific villain.  To start with, the traps used to kill people in this are similar to Jigsaw's from the Saw movies.  However, Saw can always be praised as being a series for gruesome, violent deaths.  The Collector most certainly has gruesome, violent deaths but it doesn't rely on them.  Instead, they're an additional treat in a cat and mouse movie that is full of atmosphere and suspense.  Really it has all the ingredients of a great horror movie about a maniacal murderer; an interesting villain with unique killing methods, a lead character to root for and great kills thrown in the mix.  Furthermore, in addition to the atmosphere and suspense, the film is dark and claustrophobic and isn't apologetic for being so either.  All of these elements are aided by intentionally dirty cinematography that makes it reminiscent of an 80's exploitation film and an in-your-face score that fucks with your mind.  Another great thing about this film is that despite it's unforgiving, relentless horror, it's a fun flick.  If you're not a fan of horror then you're probably going to hate it, but it's the type of film made for the love of horror.  Call it a slasher, call it torture porn, but to me, it's just a fantastic horror movie.

The sequel is out later this year and I for one cannot wait to see it.