Stephen Abell In the 1950's science fiction used people's uncertainty and fear over nuclear power to bring them mutations that ran wild and wrought havoc on the populace. In the 1970's writer and director, Wes Craven brought this vision to a new height when the radiation created a race of mutated humans.Because of this mutation, they were shunned by their family and banished from their home to live in the nuclear wastelands of the Nevada desert. This harsh life made them savages and when they couldn't barter for food and supplies they had to live off the land and eat what they caught, which sometimes included lost tourists.Enter our lost tourists, the Carter family, who are looking for a silver mine that was owned by their family. Not listening to the Gas Station owner to stay on the main road and forget about the mine, they proceed to take a dirt road, which doesn't lead them to the mine but to a fight for their lives.This was Craven's third writer and director project and it shows, When they did the remake in 2006, had they let Craven direct I think it would have been a much different film with a darker feel.What we have here is a survival film. On one side you have the mutants trying to survive by any means necessary. In this instance by stealing from the tourists, even if it means killing them. The tourists are trying to survive the desert and the attacks from the mutants until they escalate into carnage. I've always seen the movie in this context, even back in my youth.There's not much horror or tension in the film as it's played for the thriller element since the action comes thick and fast in the form of attack and counter attack.I wasn't impressed with the acting of the cast and I'm still not. There's nothing subtle about this film and that can especially be said for the over-acting cast, though some are worse than others. All the characters seem to be over-the-top and unrealistic. The only character I found I could just about believe in was Pluto, at least Michael Berryman tried to give him some depth.This was certainly a film of its time which got everybody talking, though, as with The Exorcist, I couldn't understand what the fuss was about. In my eye's there were better films in the same genre.If you haven't seen the film then it's worth watching just to see what all the fuss was about and it does has cult status, as well as being a milestone in the industry. Though one viewing should be enough.

Leofwine_draca Unusually, this is one film that I ended up watching long after I've already seen the remake; I always try to see the original films first but this Wes Craven chiller slipped me by. Sadly, I was left feeling disappointed and let down once it was over, mainly because the remake is, surprisingly, superior in every way: the actors are better, the gore better, the direction better, and the music better. The remake also sticks VERY closely to the plot of this film, so all of the surprises and twists were well choreographed in advance and there was little to intrigue me here.For a '70s horror film, it's not a bad effort: there are some good chills and the film makes a horror star out of Michael Berryman, the bald bad guy who traded on his appearance here for the rest of his career. The problem is that the low budget hurts the proceedings somewhat, with the rest of the cannibal family resembling hippies rather than mutants. Despite the savagery of their actions, they end up laughable instead of frightening. Another problem is Craven's direction – it feels insipid rather than inspired and in light of Alexandre Aja's excellent job on the remake, I can't help but feel it's lacking. Some of the cast don't help, with Susan Lanier standing out as one of the most irritating screamers in horror history (the dog's great, though). Back in the day, THE HILLS HAVE EYES was a shocking and depraved horror flick; today it's a dated intrigue that doesn't stand up alongside fellow '70s movies like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It's okay but I'd recommend the remake over this any day.

Spikeopath After having announced himself to the horror hordes with The Last House on the Left, Craven's next horror pick would be this, The Hills Have Eyes, another slab of grit and grime. A nuclear family head across the desert in their giant trailer only to break down and find there's beasties in the hills hungry for their blood.It has become very much a popular cult pic with Craven fans, which is understandable given the brisk pacing, moments of intensity and suspense, while the allegories and messages are smartly inserted. But the low budget does affect the product, it looks cheap and renders much of the violence and sexual aspects (implied or otherwise) as being not very frightening or stomach churning. While some of the acting is very poor, further adding a cartoonish feel to what should have been a nerve shredding experience.Above average for sure, but not the masterpiece some would have you believe. 6/10

Michael_Elliott The Hills Have Eyes (1977) **** (out of 4) Raw terror at its finest as a family from Ohio are traveling to California but they decide to go down a closed road in the deserts hoping to find a mine. They eventually end up wrecking their car and soon a group of cannibals from the hills are attacking them.Wes Craven's THE HILLS HAVE EYES is to me one of the greatest horror films of the decade and also one of the rawest. Craven had previously made THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and when you compare the two films it's easy to see a certain vision on the screen. Craven's ability to make both film seem real and make both of them so raw and powerful really speaks to his talent and especially when you consider the budgets that he was working on. LAST HOUSE is a real mixed film as far as I'm concerned but everything came out perfectly with HILLS and that's why it remains so powerful no matter how many times you see it.There are a few sequences here that are so full of terror that you can't help but get curled up or be on the edge of your seat. The first time is when the attack finally happens on the family. When you really sit back and think about this sequence it's really amazing how much stuff is going on and how well the editing brings it all together. You've got stuff going on outside the trailer as well as inside the trailer. In both cases multiple things are happening and with so much going on it just keeps building the tension level.The second sequence happens during the extended ending where the family must fight for their lives. Again, multiple things are going on at once and the way Craven plays this sequence and the earlier one just makes things so suspenseful that you can't help but feel the terror.Of course, the terror only works if you care for the people you're watching. There's quite a bit of character development here as the start of the film gives you plenty of time to get to know this family, care for them and want to see them survive. Caring about the family really helps once they come under attack. It also helps that the performances are so good. Dee Wallace, Susan Lanier, John Steadman, Robert Houston are all extremely good as are the "other" family played by James Whitworth, Michael Berryman and Janus Blythe. It also doesn't hurt that we're given some realistic cinematography that puts you right there in all the action and the music score is one of the best out there for a horror movie.THE HILLS HAVE EYES is in my opinion Craven's masterpiece. Yes, there are a few flaws here and there but the power of the film is unquestionable and it's this terror that makes the film so memorable.