Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

BA_Harrison 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.

atinder The Hills Have Eye II (1985)I was not fan of the first movie, at all, i just thought remake was so much better and scarier but still was watchableI thought it was good idea to bring back cast from first movie and dog, i do like that connection to first movie. Then they show a lot of flashback to first movie, which i thought were not bad at all but they just kept on bringing even more flashback, then they go overboard by giving dog a flashback. I love dogs but come on!I did expect really bad movie but it was really poor but I did not expected to be laughing throughout the whole movie.Any action scene this movie that were meant to scare just felt so bad that were funny and then at the end with dogs who push Mutant from cliff.3/10 really poor movie but it made laugh so much.

buddypatrick Craven promised an interesting career in the Horror genre with The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes during the 1970's. He made rough, hardcore, groundbreaking grindhouse cinema – regardless if they're good films or not they were unique and opened doors for a great director. Unfortunately throughout the 20th Century Craven went on and off from horror to comedy, to drama to thriller and so on but what I never knew about was his sequel to the original The Hills Have Eyes; reading up on The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 I came across an article stating Craven made the film for some extra cash. Well, I'm not surprised.Craven poured his heart, soul and love into the original movie The Hills Have Eyes –hate it or love it, it is evident Craven put effort into it; did he with this sequel? No. Here you can see talented film makers, writers and actors putting in laughably weak efforts with a cruddy script, paper thin characters, an obscure and ill fitting Friday the 13th-esque score/vibe, silly special effects and overwhelming mountains of unintelligence. For an example; every character has a flashback within the first twenty minutes of the film and to make the movie more inept than it already is, even a dog has a flashback! This movie is a flashback extravaganza! The acting is irritating to the extent where it is painfully unbearable. One character is blind though you won't know it until she actually says so as she is so poorly written and unconvincingly acted. There is also a scene where she is running through a cabin, note: a cabin she has never been to in her whole life yet she runs through the house as though it is her very own home – blindness can mean second sight with senses perhaps, but not the way this movie does it; it just looks silly, as I said, its poorly written. Do not expect Michael Berryman to have slurred words, a speech impediment and borderline brain damage as you see here in this film he speaks quite fluently and walks like an average person; was this the Pluto we saw in the original film? Nope. If you're looking for any incestuous, inbred, radioactively mutated hill killer like the first film this is certainly not the place to look for it; especially when the mutants in this film can drive motorcycles (stylishly so). This film has no character development, bad acting and a story copied and pasted from the first and slasher formulated – this is Friday the 13th mixed with The Hills Have Eyes. For 1985 I guess that is where the money came in.Something that really irritated me (amongst everything else) was this spontaneous introduction of Reaper. Who is he? Where did he come from? Sure, the hillbilly father in the original film could have kept something from Big Bob Carter and not told him of his other mutant offspring but it's just...illogical, especially when Reaper is so unintentionally funny. Also, whatever happened to the other characters from the first film? What happened to Brenda, Doug or the mama mutant or any of the other surviving mutants? Not only the lack of character explanations but these new characters are simply put; murder dolls – as I said, this is Friday the 13th though the only problem in saying that is that these teenagers don't have sex, smoke drugs, drink alcohol, be naked – nothing. They're so unbelievably boring and they don't even have the classic slasher teen formula going for them – what a waste.The film has cheesy special effects (just look at the cover) and the script is the exact same as the first. This movie isn't even entertaining – it's just painfully awful. You see it is films like The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 is why horror is very overlooked and under-rated as a genre. The non-horror viewing public slander horror films as predictable, cheesy and stupid however there are a lot of horror films out there that prove such a statement false – though The Hills Have Eyes part 2 not only encourages the "all horror movies are dumb" idea but takes it ten steps further. This movie has no soul and that's where I question Wes Craven as a director. It has one too many Friday the 13th elements to it and it's so unbelievably bad – but not in a good way like Troll 2 or Manos: The Hands of Fate. For me, Craven is a hit-or-miss film maker but when you read up that he needed quick cash then you should be well aware of what you're in for; The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 is it.

user-11512 Admittingly Wes Craven claimed he made this sequel to disturbing and scary hit The Hills Have Eyes for some quick cash. This being said, the movie was made very fast and effort was minimal at best or so it seems. A plus is that the same music score director from Friday the 13th is aboard for this sequel. Only drawback is this film compared to Friday the 13th in a lesser sense, as death scenes were comparative and most of them were un-exciting. Parts I found interesting were Ruby's return to the desert as a civilized human now, the number of remaining mine cannibals, and the amount of buildings. This film was far less brutal than the original however many flashbacks and references connected the two well enough to be franchised. I physically burst out laughing to the canine flashback scene, I wont spoil it and tell you what happened but I will remind you its infamous and applaudable. This was a somewhat entertaining 87 minutes of an 80s horror sequel and may be valuable to have viewed for the upcoming The Hills Have Eyes 2 (2007). 80s horror sequels comparable to this film include: The Return of the Living Dead Part II, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge, Friday the 13th Part II, and The Howling II. I gave this film 6 stars because I am a true fan of Wes Craven and his horror masterpieces even if this one is a pull it out of his behind piece of work, I also enjoyed the remake tremendously and look forward to the forthcoming sequel.