MovieChat Forums > The Hills Have Eyes (1977) Discussion > Not good

Not good

posted 14 years ago by Gotensive
10 replies | jump to latest

While this film wasn't as worthless as "The Last House on the Left", it still sucked. The first 30-40 minutes are incredibly tedious, and when things finally get going, it's way too campy to take seriously. I can understand and respect that this was shocking when it first came out, but today it just comes across as silly and dated. There are some genuinely creepy moments here and there, and some nice gore considering the budget, but there's way too much campiness going on for my taste, 4/10.

Formally known as Coilector

[–] SeanJoyce 14 years ago

my taste

If you can call it that...

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

[–] Stoker2000 13 years ago

Sorry, dude, but you're absolutely wrong. You say "there are some genuinely creepy moments here and there", but in fact not, there are not any of these moments.

------
My English sucks... sorry!!!

[–] RelpScooby 7 years ago

I agree with you 3000% and this is coming from someone who watches rated B movies and I "DO" find positives about underdogs. But this movie just plain SUCKED BADDDDDDDD !!!!

The remake is 100 times better. This is something they could've kept. Retarded make up....badddddd acting. Makes all the zombie movies look like Academy Award winning movies. I'm not even done watching it. I just feel bad for myself, that I've wasted time. At least 1 F'N Fact remains = Watching PORN isn't a waste of time or energy vs this. So ANYBODY I don't care if you're Wes himself.......this movie I haven't finished yet but it SUCKSSsssss it's almost a tie with Rob Zombie's Halloween 2.

[–] RAJH (533) 6 years ago

Yep, this and Last House on the Left are both terrible films. Always have been.
Both remakes are 100x times better in literally every way.

[–] PaladinNJ (20309) 6 years ago

Haven't seen Last House but have to disagree with you the remake of Hills. That was at best a second rate copy of the original.

[–] RAJH (533) 6 years ago

Accept it was better than original in every single aspect. The acting, cinematography, the score.
Just because it is original does not mean it is better. The original was cheap, badly acted, ineffective trash.
Name one thing that was better in the original?

[–] PaladinNJ (20309) 5 years ago

It was original

[–] Melton (2136) 2 months ago

Mic? Dropped.

[–] Tabbycat (748) 5 years ago

I wouldn’t even give it credit for a genuinely creepy moment here and there.
This movies sucks from beginning to end and always did.
I was quite the Craven fan even in 1977 and hated it even on first watch in a theater.
Strangely, it did get some good notices which I’ve never understood.
“Cheap, badly acted and ineffective trash” covers it nicely, if you add in awful-looking and dreadfully dull.
It’s unwatchable.

The only thing I disagree with is your opinion of Last House on the Left, which I consider one of the best of its type.

[–] Melton (2136) 2 months ago

I was quite the Craven fan even in 1977

He’d only done one film by then… unless you’re talking about his porn career??