This film is kind of good, and kind of not good at all. There's plenty of gore, plenty of boobs, plenty of suspense, but then you've seen this kind of film before. Many a time. Or maybe not. Who am I to tell you what you've seen? Then again, here's the plot: A bunch of teens or twenty-somethings head off into the wilderness for some stupid reason (tracing family, searching for a long lost film, that kind of crap) and because we're in the Facebook age on of them has to film everything. They head into nowhere and are killed off/tied up/tortured/eaten in various gory ways, like Wrong Turn, Bunnyman Massacre etc etc. Not a single bit of this film struck me as original, but then again it's pretty well made and acted, so I'm in two minds about what grade to give it.Then I remembered that no one gives a crap about what I think anyway! Yahoo - Yorgen! Peanuts smell good. Hardy har.

I was a bit disappointed with the negative reviews of this film. Low-budget horror is often the easiest (and cheapest !) way for young film-makers to make an impression. "The Last House On The Left" was made for $80,00, a large sum of money in 1972 !! And it's STILL a great but difficult movie.The "Scream" films cost a fortune to make and "market", and made rich people richer.This film has a nice idea, a plot with twists and turns..suspense and tension..gore and killing. Slick editing with nice cuts, clever camera- work and lighting. Interesting characters. All in 84 minutes !. I'm sure the writers, camera operator, director and actors worked very hard on this. And this film is a meta-meta comment on 100's of scary, slasher movies (and their fans). I think they did OK.And the best film ever made is "L'Avventura".

Although the title and box cover openly copies THE HILLS HAVE EYES, THE HILLS RUN RED is much more of a traditional slasher flick with a masked weirdo in the woods dispatching numerous nubile victims. There's a little more plotting to it than that, involving a mystical old slasher flick from the 1980s that our protagonists are searching for, but it all boils down to a familiar, overworked storyline.Sad to say, it's not very good either. The execution is shoddy, with a dirt cheap look and unworkable editing. The most surprising thing for me is that David Schow, a respected horror author, had a hand in writing this thing - his talent must have deserted him for this one. THE HILLS RUN RED is an entirely derivative work, with poor effects, CGI augmentation, and needlessly nasty kills and torture scenes. The characters are as wooden as the trees surrounding them.Poor old William Sadler (THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION) makes a crucial appearance in this mess of a film, and it's sad to see that his fortunes have sunk so low. Also present is ROME's Alex Wyndham, playing another of his patented weaselly type characters, so if like me you were disappointed that he didn't get his overdue comeuppance in ROME then you can enjoy seeing it here.

(No significant spoilers, actually) This movie is really, really bad. Even if you tell me the Budget was 1.5 million, It's a waste. Straight-to-DVD is the only destiny this flawless film could deserve, despite it should never have been made.First of all: it violates one of the main principles of every decent movie (including of course Horror movies), which consist on revealing the kind of movie it is and settle the film's tone and climate at the first 5 minutes. The Hills Run Red, by the contrary, is a Horror, Slasher film, with no murders, neither violence, during the first 30 minutes! Not even any kind of intense darkness (unless you consider a short scene of a stripper using heroine is dark and intense for a Horror film of the 21th Century).Second: the acting is awful!!! Almost annoying. The exception is Sadler (who nearly doesn't appear in the first half of the movie).The plot is garbage. The altruistic way the stripper, Tyler's cheating girlfriend, and Tyler's traitor "friend" decide to help him with his crusade is simply ridiculous. The reaction of Tyler to the cheating and the betrayal suggests that producer's dog ate some pages of the script. Then you have some pathetic attempts to gain depth with far-fetched dialogues explaining incest and ambition issues (similar to the villain exposing his plans to the hero in cartoons), combined with revelation of artificial "pervert" behaviors linked to sadistic filming and monsters breeding.The killings, the ways the good ones escape, and the tricks of the bad ones, are all extremely artificial (but not even filmed in a comic way: just artificial boring garbage). And the "gore" scenes are less interesting and less intense than in Hostel.In addition, the Topic of the movie (obsession, and all the things you may sacrifice for it) is tackled in a soft, dull way. And the most interesting character, Concannon, has a too secondary role.The positive: a little bit of nudity from Sophie Monk (strange face, lovely tits; forget about a long scene building a really sexy climate: just flawless nudity), a nice sex scene with Janet Montgomery, and a scene with a short dark moment of son-mother love (normal love, not incest).The 5,5 IMDb users' rating is extremely generous, unfair. Even in Cinema Terror and Bloody Good Horror it gets 3/10. The 5,5 rating is obviously inflated by radical Fanatics of Slasher sub-culture. Indeed, for example, one of the reviewers who rated the film with an unbelievable 8 (eight!!!!) stated himself "t's a great movie for film geeks and horror buffs all around, and a sly poke at the gore-nography sub genre culture." Trivia: the Director, the Screenwriters and some of the actors have (before and after this movie) no career in films.