Obviously, I watch many more movies than I actually review on this site. Generally I feel like I have to have something to say, some perspective that's worth sharing with you because I'm not seeing it in mainstream reviews or on other sites. Usually, I like it to be a good movie that's not getting recognized, or even a performance that's worth seeing in an otherwise bad movie.
But every once in a rare while, a movie that is altogether bad makes me reflect on something worth sharing.
The movie in question is The Hills Have Eyes 2, and it is, hands down, a bad movie. Not even a so-bad-it's-good, grindhouse-worthy flick like Black Christmas. Just bad. But the hell of it is, I was kind of excited to see it. I knew better than to get all pumped up for it, but you may recall I linked to a really inventive teaser a while back, and the more I thought about it, the more I think there is something to be said for the first Hills Have Eyes remake.
Now I know that 70's pulp purists are jumping up and down about the integrity of the original. Settle down, Craven-ites. Just hear me out. Movies like that generally aren't my cup of tea as horror films go, but there was a run there where I saw a lot of them in crowded theatres on opening night. I'm thinking here of Saw II, Hostel, and Hills. These last two in particular struck me really as more of revenge films (a la Man on Fire, let's say) than traditional horror films, albeit told wildly out of proportion. They all use serious, hard-core violence to make your blood boil and your stomach turn as they set up their bad guys for the first two acts. Then the third act involves the protagonist exacting revenge on these guys because they really... really... deserve it.
And the audiences I was with went nuts over those last acts. Even Saw II applies a little bit, as Donnie Whalberg gets the chance to go all maniac cop on Jigsaw, but he loses that game, so the actual 'revenge' part doesn't apply. Still, though, this run of movies demonstrated a level of violence so disturbing that it bordered on offensive to me, and by God it takes some true creativity, even- dare I say it- artistic vision to understand how to use those meager plots to really make me cringe, gasp, and occasionally avert my eyes.
In Saw II, I literally covered my face involuntarily when a girl is thrown into a pit of hypodermic needles. Conceptually and in execution, it was a gut-wrenching turn of events, and because of that it made me a little happy when Donnie started breaking Jigsaw's fingers. 
In Hostel, there are two scenes that are cringe-worthy. One is the Achilles heels, and I assume I don't need to elaborate. The other involves a girl whose eye is being cut out. I saw a couple leave the theatre during that scene (although a number of patrons pelted them with popcorn and derided their weak constitutions as they made their escape). But because of that visceral reaction, we also cheered and applauded and laughed when the bad guys are killed in the end. Critics complain that these scenes are gratuitous, that they prey on teenagers bottomless desire for blood and gore, but I tell you- in the best of these movies- they serve a purpose. That third-act elation is equal to, if not greater than, any Rocky-type sports movie's come from behind victory.
You heard it here first, folks: Hostel is just as satisfying and artistically relevant as Hoosiers.
But of all of them, the '06 Hills remake has a scene that puts the rest to shame. It is the closest a horror movie has come to morally offending me, and as it built I found myself saying: "My God, are they really going to do that?" And the answer was yes, they were.
Comments (1)
I thought I was the only person who liked the 2006 Hills! This is an awesome piece, really well written, and thought-provoking.
I love desert horror movies (after growing up in norther Nevada), and the idea of a daylight one, even if it falls apart in the end, sounds really cool.
1 of 1 | Posted by DA.Darling | Posted on March 28, 2007 7:11 PM