The film itself is about a family who are travelling to California but decide to look for silver mines that are off the beaten track. The family's car and mobile home attached to it swerve off the road and the family find themselves stranded. Unfortunately they also find themselves under the unwanted gaze of a local group of mutant cannibals who have grown up in the area which is used by the Army to test nuclear capabilities. The film then develops into a battle between the All- American family and the cannibals.On watching this film again for this review the strongest feeling I got was just how outrageous the film is. It certainly goes the extra mile in terms of plot and grittiness. In fact the film goes even further than director Wes Craven's previous film Last House on the Left. At one point during Hills a baby is kidnapped by the cannibals for food. If that isn't pushing the horror envelope then I don't know what is! But whilst the film and it's plot may be extreme there is never a sense that the film is ever gratuitous or sensationalistic but still sets precedents. A good point of comparison here is with the godawful remake from 2006. In this original version of the film there is a rape scene that is signified by the eyes of the victim widening. And thats enough for the audience to know whats going on. The same sequence in the remake is much more drawn out, unnecessary and involves the victim getting her face licked by her cannibal attacker. And thats just for starters. Enough said.Speaking of Last House on the Left, the artistic leap between these two films seems huge. The Hills Have Eyes is positively polished by comparison to Last House in terms of technical ability, acting and direction. However, The Hills Have Eyes still feels gritty, subversive and downright dangerous- like watching a renowned video nasty classic for the first time. Both Last House and Hills use their low budgets feels to their advantage. It seems like Wes Craven believed that a lower budget just means you adapt to this and rise to the challenge creatively without sacrificing quality. Both films have a documentary and realistic feel to them rather than just being examples of exploitation cinema awash with bad acting.In fact, one of Hills' many strengths is the acting. As soon as you see the name Dee Wallace on a cast list you know that the film will have a certain level of prestige and integrity. She is amazing as are all of the cast. In fact there are pieces of acting within Hills that seemingly exceed the horror genre. One example of this is when Doug gets back to the mobile home to find that family members have either been raped, shot or killed. And on top of that his baby daughter has been kidnapped. His acting on seeing his dead wife is incredible and extremely poignant.The movie also made a horror icon of Michael Berryman. Even the poster for the film featuring Mr Berryman's face was iconic. Imagine seeing that poster outside a cinema in 1977. Even if you didn't know anything about the film you'd still go and see it as the poster and tagline are so brilliant. Another example of The Hills Have Eyes as a cult classic is that it is endlessly quotable. It also goes to show that they might be nuclear mutant cannibals but they have some great oneliners. 'Whats the matter? You don't like dog anymore?!'Craven has some very perceptive insights to convey regarding issues such as the family, the relationships within the family, the differences between the two families but also the less obvious similarities between them. I could go into these in much more depth along with my other theories about the film but this will be done soon in a separate article about the movie.For me, The Hills Have Eyes isn't just a stunning piece of horror cinema it feels like an innovative and genre-defining film that is just as important as The Exorcist, Halloween or Night of the Living Dead.The Hills Have Eyes will always be in my Top 10 list of favourite films.

Through the first half, more or less, it held my attention. A family turns off the main highway onto a dirt road in search of a diamond mine in them thar hills. Their car breaks down, stranding them in a lonesome desert with no way to communicate their SOS. We're in daylight, to begin with. But as day turns to night, their plight turns creepy: strange noises, not knowing what's out there. Yet someone or something is watching them. This not knowing ups the suspense factor. Unfortunately ...A certain character conveys the essence of the menace; and soon thereafter we actually see the menace. What a letdown; sheer Hollywood lack of imagination. From this point on, the plot goes downhill, so to speak, as the family does battle with the villains. There's lots of yelling, screaming, shrieking, running around, and physical contact; also lots of gore.The film's first half is not a segment one should watch right before a wilderness camping trip, as it is creepy, spooky, suspenseful. Yet the second-half plot is so stupid and so Hollywood contrived, by the time the film is over, if one has the patience to sit through it, that prospective camping trip doesn't look so fearful after all.Casting is acceptable. Acting is okay, though in a horror movie like this, acting really isn't that important. Color cinematography is pretty good. Sound quality in the copy I watched seemed substandard, with the dialogue slightly muffled."The Hills Have Eyes" will appeal to horror fans, no doubt. I'm not one of them. And so for me, despite a reasonably good first half, the second half is so banal, so trite and unimaginative, the film goes in my trash file of films I wish I had never wasted time on. Score of 3.5 out of 10.

Unusually, this is one film that I ended up watching long after I've already seen the remake; I always try to see the original films first but this Wes Craven chiller slipped me by. Sadly, I was left feeling disappointed and let down once it was over, mainly because the remake is, surprisingly, superior in every way: the actors are better, the gore better, the direction better, and the music better. The remake also sticks VERY closely to the plot of this film, so all of the surprises and twists were well choreographed in advance and there was little to intrigue me here.For a '70s horror film, it's not a bad effort: there are some good chills and the film makes a horror star out of Michael Berryman, the bald bad guy who traded on his appearance here for the rest of his career. The problem is that the low budget hurts the proceedings somewhat, with the rest of the cannibal family resembling hippies rather than mutants. Despite the savagery of their actions, they end up laughable instead of frightening. Another problem is Craven's direction – it feels insipid rather than inspired and in light of Alexandre Aja's excellent job on the remake, I can't help but feel it's lacking. Some of the cast don't help, with Susan Lanier standing out as one of the most irritating screamers in horror history (the dog's great, though). Back in the day, THE HILLS HAVE EYES was a shocking and depraved horror flick; today it's a dated intrigue that doesn't stand up alongside fellow '70s movies like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It's okay but I'd recommend the remake over this any day.

The one thing that Hills Have Eyes fans, I feel, find difficult to admit, no matter how great of a film they think Wes Craven's low-key, no-budget horror masterwork is, is that it's undoubtedly a film riding the coattails on the popularity of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Upon the release of Tobe Hooper's essential horror film that has become a genre gold-standard, nearly every film company - even ones that were created simply for this purpose - were jumping at the opportunity to hire directors, scour the neverending sea of casting calls and auditions, and looking for affordable effects artists in order to make a film that would be a frightening little flick people could catch on a Friday night.One of those directors was Wes Craven, who would later go on to create Freddy Kruger in the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, one of the most well-received and highly regarded horror franchises ever made. Before that, however, Craven was a fairly inconsistent, unpredictable man in the director's chair, churning out as many winners as he did films like his pornographic venture Angela: The Fireworks Woman and eventually The Hills Have Eyes II. However, the original Hills Have Eyes is something to marvel at, much of its quality stemming from its universal plausibility and rawness. This is a film that personifies horror and uncertainty with a biting and unforgivable sense of dread that you can feel from the start.The plot isn't even worth digging into; a well-off suburban family embarks on a road-trip in their four-door, equipped with a full-size trailer, only to break down deep in the Nevadan desert and be the targets of animalistic savages that lurk in the mountainous parts of the desert. One of the savages is known as "Pluto," played by horror legend Michal Berryman, most notable for his facial deformities and distinctive look, who acts almost feral in his attempt to be the fearless do-boy of the group. The savages stalk and harass the family, making use of their insufficient firearms and easily spooked nature, even going as far as to attacking one of the young girls and leaving her a panicked wreck for much of the film.Watching it in present day, appropriately during the month of October, The Hills Have Eyes still has the ability to shock to the core, specifically in the way it executes its more suspenseful sequences. These are where the film's lower budget and small scale work in its favor. Consider the screams, the bloodshed, and the moments of sheer terror interjected in the long-term sequences of suspense in this film; all of these little quirks are elevated by naturalism. The screams heard by the characters rip through the film's audio-track, almost distorting every sound and hitting the center of your eardrum in a violent manner as if it's stabbing it in an unrelenting fashion. The bloodshed of the film isn't a bloodbath, but a sporadic showcase of the film's ability to make its gorier scenes as realistic and unsettling as the screams we so frequently hear.Finally, there's Craven's pacing and execution, which turn out to be successful almost all the way through. Craven is a fan of quiet, natural buildup; the kind that relies on the murmur of the water, the wind in the trees, and the chirping of crickets in order to create an environment that's equal parts believable and unnerving. Here, Craven builds slowly but surely, assuring that the execution is seamless and that nothing moves too fast, not even the scenes we've been waiting for since the start of the film. It's all even-handed and balanced and pleasantly so.The Hills Have Eyes lacks any kind of form or polish and that's precisely what makes it the movie that it is. Horror films don't need aesthetics that run studios millions of dollars, nor do they need proved greats as headliners or complex props and setpieces. The most memorable films are the ones conducted on that realistic, natural scale that leave us sleeping with one eye open and checking under our beds and blankets before we turn out the light. These are the films that personify the unknown and the elements of fear in a way that makes us remind ourselves to "sleep tight" at night.Starring: Martin Speer, Michael Berryman, Virginia Vincent, Dee Wallace, Susan Lanier, Robert Houston, Lance Gordon, and Russ Grieve. Directed by: Wes Craven.