The Hills Have Eyes

Name: The Hills Have Eyes
Genre: Thriller, Horror
Released: March 10, 2006
Duration: 107 min
Rating: 52
Cast: Dan Byrd, Emilie de Ravin, Kathleen Quinlan, Michael Bailey Smith, Ted Levine

2006

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 28 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 215 Ratings

See All

6.3

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6.3	Your Score
6.3	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 215 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

The Hills Have Eyes

Now Playing: The Hills Have Eyes

Movie Details & Credits

Fox Searchlight Pictures | Release Date: March 10, 2006 | NC-17

Starring: Dan Byrd, Emilie de Ravin, Kathleen Quinlan, Michael Bailey Smith, Ted Levine

Summary: A new take on Wes Craven's 1977 film of the same name, The Hills Have Eyes is the story of a family road trip that goes terrifyingly awry when the travelers become stranded in a government atomic zone. Miles from nowhere, the Carters soon realize the seemingly uninhabited wasteland is actually the breeding ground of a blood-thirst mutantA new take on Wes Craven's 1977 film of the same name, The Hills Have Eyes is the story of a family road trip that goes terrifyingly awry when the travelers become stranded in a government atomic zone. Miles from nowhere, the Carters soon realize the seemingly uninhabited wasteland is actually the breeding ground of a blood-thirst mutant family -- and they are the prey. (Fox Searchlight)… Expand

Director: Alexandre Aja

Genre(s): Thriller, Horror

Rating: NC-17

Runtime: 107 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Heidi Martinuzzi

When Aja really starts in on the brutal slayings, he spares no one any comfort at all. Read full review

Erin Meister

Hills is a far cry from its cheesy and predictable predecessor. "Gruesome" doesn't begin to describe the horrors that are revealed on-screen here. Read full review

Sean Axmaker

Almost 30 years later, it's just as primal. Read full review

Jack Mathews

As with all ensemble horror movies, your first challenge is to guess which of the Carter kin will survive to destroy the creatures killing them, and in what order the family members (and their pets) will fall. Read full review

Peter Travers

What good is a wallow in sicko sadism if you take all the fun out of it? Read full review

Nathan Rabin

Thanks to assured direction and a fine cast, Hills isn't terrible, only terribly unnecessary. Read full review

Carrie Rickey

Aja's stomach-churning remake (produced by Craven) follows the original with frightening fidelity, amping up the barbarity from a nine (on the 1-10 scale) to a 12. Read full review

SEE ALL 28 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

CoryC.

Sep 5, 2007

I wish I could give this a higher vote than 10. My favorite movie ever. Rape scene not needed? What the hell? The Carter family didn't need to be attacked by the mutants, but they were. That's what Lizard wanted to do, and though emotional, it was awesomely done. You really feel I wish I could give this a higher vote than 10. My favorite movie ever. Rape scene not needed? What the hell? The Carter family didn't need to be attacked by the mutants, but they were. That's what Lizard wanted to do, and though emotional, it was awesomely done. You really feel like you know the characters before they kill them. It wasn't TRYING to do anything, I don't think. It wasn't shying away from the horror of what it would really be like to be attacked unawares by such vicious creatures. This was the most intelligently, well done movie I know of, and I loved it with a passion! Aja, I wish you would direct THe Hills Have Eyes 3 and continue the plot with Bobby, Doug, Brenda, Katheryne, and Beast.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful

Nov 17, 2007

I dont know wats with all the bull from you ppl it was a good movie and it made we wana see the original there have been worse movies (dawn of the dead remake) so dont rate it as the worse.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

TheQuietGamer

Oct 10, 2021

Wes Craven's 1977 original is a cult classic for good reason. It may have just been a toned-down, southern-fried version of his directorial debut The Last House on the Left, but it was a nasty, brutal film for the time with a creative setting and villains. This remake tops it in every wayWes Craven's 1977 original is a cult classic for good reason. It may have just been a toned-down, southern-fried version of his directorial debut The Last House on the Left, but it was a nasty, brutal film for the time with a creative setting and villains. This remake tops it in every way though, which is remarkable given how few changes were made to the script. The events are largely the exact same ones as before. Only portrayed in a harsher, more sickening manner with better acting and pacing. There's a more action-packed third act, it really hammers home a nuclear testing angle to instill the violence with a political message, and a much improved ending. That's really all that's different. Which, as someone who appreciates the original, but felt it was missing a little extra oomph, wasn't a problem for me personally.

This is how you do a remake. It takes a flawed, yet respected movie and irons out a lot of its faults (sans things like the slow beginning and dumb characters), while imbuing the horror with an increased level of savagery and a lesser sense of silliness that it arguably always should have had. This isn't for the squeamish as it's definitely a product of the post-Saw, "torture porn" era of the mid-to-late 2000s where gore and depravity were matching the heights seen during the exploitation cinema craze of the '70s and '80s. If you have the stomach for it however, this is one of the best redneck cannibal nightmares you can find this side of House of 1000 Corpses.

8.7/10… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

FilmVirtue

Feb 15, 2014

Equally amusing and scary "The Hills have eyes" creates enough suspense and horror to give of the feeling of being in a really bad situation. And I mean REALLY bad. I liked the film, and thought it deserved a decent rating.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

jonslow

Feb 16, 2019

The Hills Have Eyes is lacking only in delivery. It needs a twist, a catch, something to captivate the audience and leave them satisfied at the end. Instead, it just ends.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

BawnT.

Mar 10, 2006

You know, this movie might have really been disturbing if I hadn't seen The Devil's Rejects. This movie has similar scenes, but unlike that great film, this one feels fake, staged and rather pathetic, as if the makers were thinking "oh boy, are we gonna disgust the audience or You know, this movie might have really been disturbing if I hadn't seen The Devil's Rejects. This movie has similar scenes, but unlike that great film, this one feels fake, staged and rather pathetic, as if the makers were thinking "oh boy, are we gonna disgust the audience or what!" like some 7 year old kid making a movie. Like a lot of the recent crop of terrible "horror" movies, it turns about halfway through from a rather tense, frustrating film (where you're sure to see someone swoosh past the front of the camera too fast to see them at least 4 times) to an all out action/violence fest once the director knows we've seen too much of the bad guys to be scared of their mere presence. Good thing the one member of the family that has never held a gun before can become a one man killin machine. Some interesting scenes, but all bogged down by terrible, booming soundtrack on every.single.scene. However, good for laughs; most of the people in the theater were either laughing along with me by the end or had left. So there ya go.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

KazT.

Mar 15, 2006

Billed as a scary movie, a remake of a 70's horror classic, the makers miss almost as much as the MPAA for giving it an R rating. Rape, murder, and torture are not scary, and this movie has plenty of those and no scare at all--the lucky ones really die first. Twenty-something males Billed as a scary movie, a remake of a 70's horror classic, the makers miss almost as much as the MPAA for giving it an R rating. Rape, murder, and torture are not scary, and this movie has plenty of those and no scare at all--the lucky ones really die first. Twenty-something males leaving movies to keep from vomiting is a sure sign that something is disturbingly wrong. I had high hopes going for the first 30-minutes until the "filter" that keeps people from bringing only their darkest and most sickening nightmares to life stopped working. "Beyond gruesome" one critic rightly remarks. While I got a refund, I can only hope that I forget the most disturbing images I've seen out of the hundreds of movies I've seen in the theaters over the years.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

SEE ALL 89 REVIEWS

48	#48 Most Discussed Movie of 2006
63	#63 Most Shared Movie of 2006