The Hills Have Eyes (1977)

<<

Catching Up

>>

Continuing this Month of Craven, and taking a look at some of his work I missed out on, I figured 'The Hills Have Eyes' needed to be a part of things. It bears so many similarities to 'Last House on the Left', but it's a bit of an upgrade from the snuff film that was. For the record, if you Google both titles, 'Last House' is the only one Google dubs "horror/exploitation".

The primary similarities between the two films lie in a few different aspects. They are both psychological real-world revenge films that play with our fears of strangers, both were considered Wes Craven's jumping-off points, both have become classics in the realm of cult horror, and both have been remade to fit a modern setting. The main difference is pretty much the budget. Its overall style and substance is pretty reminiscent, at least to me, of 1974's 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. There's this overall discomfort behind everything, not just having to do with the threat at hand, but the setting is clearly a place one does not want to find themselves in, whether stranded or not.

The story, for those unfamiliar, is about a family who are on their way to L.A. from Ohio. While parents Bob (Russ Grieve) and Ethel (​Virginia Vincent) drive their loaded camper van, their teenage children, Bobby (Robert Houston) and Brenda (Suze Lanier-Bramlett) tag along, as well as the eldest daughter Lynne (Dee Wallace), her husband Doug (Martin Speer), their baby daughter Katy (Brenda Marinoff), and their dogs, Beauty and Beast. While passing through, they stop at Fred's Oasis - seemingly the only gas station for miles, where Fred (John Steadman) tells them their best to stick to the roads. He wishes them a pleasant vacation, but soon, an accident occurs that puts the camper out of commission.

The family now finds themselves stuck in the desert where a hidden threat lurks behind the rocks in the mountains, in the form of a mutant, cannibal family named after a bunch of planets. Things are lead by Papa Jupiter (James Whitworth) who works with his sons, Mars (Lance Gordon), Pluto (Michael Berryman) and Mercury (Peter Locke) to hunt whoever passes through for food and supplies, supporting Jupiter's wife and daughter, Mama (Cordy Clark) and Ruby (Janus Blythe), who seems to wonder where she stands in all of it. This premise leads to some disturbing imagery, uncomfortable moments, and a seemingly constant panicked scream from Brenda which is probably the worst thing about the whole film, which is saying a lot. It wasn't effectively harrowing so much as it was annoying.

Much like with 'Last House', there are a few comparisons to the remake to be made here. To start with, while I may have enjoyed the remake of 'Last House' just a touch more, I'd say that for this title, I'd have to go with the original. The remake felt far more brutal, ugly, disturbing, and contained imagery that I had a hard time shaking off. One may argue that would make it more effective, but I guess we all have stuff that we have a hard time stomaching. For me, it's things like torture and sexual exploitation, and considering the two 'Last House' films and the two 'Hills' films, this is probably the least stomach-churning of the bunch. The revenge here isn't quite as crazy as the revenge in 'Last House', but it's still there, and manages to fix some of the bad taste certain moments leave in your mouth.

I think the film has a major downside, though, in that it just kinda ends. Often, I like an open ending like it offers, but it works better for some things than others. Something like this could have had a pretty interesting twist, but it leaves it up to you and your imagination to decide what happens to who. That is, until you watch the 1985 follow-up, which seems to set the record straight as to what happened afterwards, but there is a 7-year gap there, and I'm not really sure Craven intended on continuing it at first. I could be wrong though, so call it a nitpick on my part.

I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but 'Last House' and 'Hills' are a couple of movies that fall into that category of being glad that I finally watched them, but have no real desire to revisit them. This month is essentially meant to be a homework assignment for me, by watching some of Craven's most famous non-'Nightmare' titles that I haven't seen before. Otherwise, considering what these movies are, they are not exactly for me. I know you're supposed to feel discomfort in a horror movie, but they both go a little overboard sometimes (the remakes more so) and seem to bask in the glory of pure discomfort as opposed to something more psychological, which I prefer.

I know, it could be argued that providing the audience with pure discomfort IS psychological, and I probably should praise it for how it made me feel. But with that said, I prefer that psychological horror to be more of a "what the hell did I just see lurking behind that tree" rather than a "look at how bad this person is treating the other, this could happen in real life". At the end of the day, Craven definitely did his job at providing his audience with a couple of memorable first works that have gone down in cult horror history as cinematic gems. He made a name for himself with 'Elm Street', but his biggest fans know him for his early work just as well.

3/5

---