The Hills Have Eyes Part II


Action / Horror / Thriller

Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 20%
IMDb Rating 3.7 10 4533


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 14,319 times
May 02, 2014 at 08:54 PM

720p 1080p
697.76 MB
24.000 fps
1hr 26 min
P/S 4 / 7
1.23 GB
24.000 fps
1hr 26 min
P/S 0 / 13

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by BA_Harrison 5 / 10

The one with the dog flashback.

I've read that Wes Craven made this belated sequel to his classic The Hills Have Eyes because he was desperate for work, and that things didn't go quite as planned due to the producers withholding funds; I'm not surprised that he's making excuses, because compared to the original, this is laughable stuff—a formulaic slasher that is so poorly conceived that, at times, it almost feels like a comedy.

On the flip side, I never found it boring (despite numerous flashbacks to the first film, including one from a dog!): the action moves along at a reasonable lick with some fun kills, a few reasonable scares, a bit of gore (including a juicy throat slash), and some gratuitous female nudity (somehow, despite the film being set in a desert, Wes still manages to shoehorn in a shower scene).

Part II ends in a suitably daft manner with the survivors successfully defeating the final member of the film's cannibal clan by devising a trap and finding the necessary equipment in mere seconds, and then carrying out their plan without a hitch, despite the whole idea being silly in the extreme.

I give the film a rating of 5/10: there are far worse slashers out there.

Reviewed by Miyagis_Sweaty_wifebeater ([email protected]) 5 / 10

"...the hills still have eyes."

The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 (1985) was a unwarranted sequel. But after all this was the eighties and sequels were in vogue. The first film had a fine closure and I still don't understand what was Wes Craven thinking when he released it? It was far too tamed to be an R-Rated film and it wasn't a true sequel (in my opinion). Too far fetched and inane. I wasn't pleased with the end results. I'll just pretend it never took place.

Not a bad movie but certainly not a good one either. A mediocre effort of Wes Craven. You could tell his heart wasn't in this project. But I would take one of these films any day compared ti the rubbish he's cranking out these day.

An okay time waster. Not a total disaster that some people might make you believe it is!

Reviewed by klbowersox 5 / 10


I liked the first one and after seeing this stupid rip-off of it I was shocked to realize that it too had been directed by Wes Craven! What is the matter with that guy? Is he schizo?

The only reason to see this garbage is that it could possibly be the only film in history where a dog has a flashback. (Not including movies where the dog is the main character.) Craven was obviously stretching for ANY way to pad this sucker out with footage from the first one. While he was at it he might have padded it out with some of the GOOD footage from the first one.

The Hills Have Eyes wasn't perfect but it did build suspense and had some genuine horror. Part II fails on every level.

Wes, be ashamed, be very ashamed.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment