Hills Have Eyes Part 2 (1985)

The definitive bland sequel

I'd be willing to bet that Wes would rather not have this one included in his filmography, but after sitting through this I'm in no mood to let him forget it. The Hills Have Eyes part 2 may very well be the text-book definition of "ineffective sequel". This rather belated follow up to The Hills Have Eyes surfaced around 1985, and it doesn't make much of an effort to hide its many attempts to blend in with the horror trends of the time. With an all teen cast, score by Harry Manfredini, and female frontal nudity, they could have just slapped a hockey mask on Michael Berryman and billed this as another Friday the 13th.

Here we have a group of teens who are headed out to the infamous spot of desert to do some dirt bike riding. Upon arrival, they become the prey of Pluto, (Who seems to have made a miraculous recovery after his demise in the original), as well as "The Reaper", a never forementioned and completely unexpained addition to the cannibal family.

The big issue with this movie is that it's made up largely of clips or "flashbacks" of the previous film. Hills 2 runs at 86 minutes, and I kid you not, roughly 20 of those minutes are clips of the original. Moreover, the character of Ruby is featured in the film, only she is no longer part of the mutant family and has joined the ranks of normal human society. Yes, we are seriously supposed to believe that an inbred, flesh-eating cannibal just packs up one day, heads to the city, and becomes a well adapted functional member of society...I dunno, seems a bit sketchy to me. Even more outrageous, after an entire group of teenagers is disposed of, one of the two survivors is a blind girl! Not only that, she somehow manages to overcome a vast array of obstacles that would prove to be challenging for somebody who could see.

Perhaps the biggest error Hills 2 committs is that at any rate, it's just plain boring. It's not scary, it's not fun, it's not gory, thought provoking or imaginative...If it's a horror movie and it doesn't demonstrate any of those attributes, there's really not much left. All in all it was not the worst I've seen, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it, nor will I ever give it another viewing myself. Stick with the original and the remake. April 12, 2008

Story better then the first!

OK, First of all i was extremely dissappointed with the first one. I think the story line and lack of ideal direction in the movie made me question wes craven. This one on the other hand was much better storied and acted. Though i caution to viewers this is a really cheesy (B) movie and if you ,like me find these movies entertaining then you might like it otherwise your better off renting it for a buck at blockbuster first! October 1, 2007

good sequel

i liked this one allmost az much az pt.1 (original film not tha remake). im not really feelin these new remakes tho. if u liked tha original hills have eyes then this iz great 4 tha collection May 23, 2007

Awsome sequel to Hills

They have a remake out now but this origional sequal to hills is great. Good gore and blood too. May 20, 2007

Weakquel to a B-Movie Drive-In Classic

Hills II, as has been said before, was an attempt to repeat the success not only of the first flick, but also of the up-and-coming Jason and Halloween franchises -- released just as the Freddie franchise was starting. Actually, the film plays well if watched right after the first, but it cannot stand on its own.

It contains some of the now standard cliches of the 80s slasher flicks: the guys are immature, the women are intuitive, but discounted, and the post-adolescent sex/skinny dipping/shower scenes are de rigeur. Also, the most vulnerable character lives (this time, a pretty, but blind, young woman). Plenty of 80s hair and fashion, but lacking the suspensefulness of the first. In the original, we WANT some of the victims to be killed because they're so stupid and obnoxious. In Hills II, they're just immature. May 12, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...